Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and 

Bicycle Facilities Study 

November 2019 

Prepared By Western Federal Lands Highway Division 

for Deschutes County and Deschutes National Forest 
This page intentionally left blank 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 2
Contents 

A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 5

3. Format ............................................................................................................................................... 5

B. Problem statement, Goals and Strategies .............................................................................................. 7

1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................ 7

2. Goals and Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 7

Goal 1: Improve safety for all users of the corridor .............................................................................. 7

Goal 2: Provide a positive visitor experience ....................................................................................... 7

C. Relevant Projects, Plans, and Design Manuals ..................................................................................... 8

1. Past, Current and Future Projects ...................................................................................................... 8

2. Existing Plans and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 11

3. Design criteria ................................................................................................................................. 13

D. Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 15

E. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 16

1. Overall Corridor .............................................................................................................................. 16

2. Site Specific Locations.................................................................................................................... 20

Todd Lake Day Use Area.................................................................................................................... 20

Green Lakes Trailhead ........................................................................................................................ 22

Devils Lake Trailhead ......................................................................................................................... 25

Additional Site Specific Issues ........................................................................................................... 28

F. Corridor Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 29

1. Improvement Options ..................................................................................................................... 29

2. Potential Impacts of Proposed Improvements................................................................................. 35

G. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: Road Safety Audit 

Appendix B: Traffic Data 

Appendix C: Crash Data 

Appendix D: 3R Analysis 

Appendix E: Cost Estimates 

Appendix F: Dynamic Warning Sign Recommendation Memo 

Appendix G: 2019 Traffic Data 

Appendix H: Public Open House Materials 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 3
This page intentionally left blank 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 4
A. Introduction

1. Background

The Cascade Lakes Highway is located in Central Oregon, southwest of Bend (Figure 1: Map of Study 

Area). The highway is within the Deschutes National Forest and provides access to many recreation sites 

in the Forest. The highway’s underlying ownership is USFS, but is maintained by Deschutes County. 

Deschutes County has become a major tourist and recreation destination. Cyclotourism has become 

popular and there is also a significant and robust local cycling community. An analysis of the facility 

relating to safety and bicycle use has never been performed. 

Deschutes County and the Forest Service applied for Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funding in 

2016 for a planning study. The scope of the planning project is to study the corridor and identify 

opportunities for safety improvements. The project was selected for FLAP funding and started in 2018. 

2. Study Area

The study area consists of the Cascade Lakes Highway (CLH) from where the County takes over 

maintenance (MP 21.90) to the Klamath County line (MP 60.87). The entirety of the study area is on 

public land. CLH (also known as Highway 372 and as a portion of Century Drive) accesses over 440,000 

acres of federal land, including the Three Sisters Wilderness area. In the project area, CLH provides 

access to: 

 Rustic resorts - Elk Lake Resort, Cultus Lake Resort, Lava Lake Resort, South Twin Resort and

Crane Prairie Resort;

 Campgrounds – established campgrounds, both traditional and horse camps, and dispersed

campsites;

 Trailheads – many popular hikes are in the area, including the South Sister climb, Green Lakes

basin, Todd Lake area, Broken Top, and access to the Pacific Crest Trail;

 Day use sites used for boating, fishing, and horseback riding;

 Forest Cabins – at Elk Lake there are 31 cabins that are privately owned and are on leased FS

land.

3. Format

The planning study consists of a planning document and a Road Safety Audit (RSA - attached as 

Appendix A). The RSA is an in-depth examination of the corridor and contains: 

 Description of existing conditions

 A suite of possible corridor improvements

 FHWA’s recommendations

This planning document summarizes the RSA and describes information not found in the RSA, such as: 

 Project problem statement, goals, strategies, and actions

 Past, current and planned projects

 Existing planning documents relevant to the corridor

 Public involvement

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 5
Figure 1: Map of Study Area 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 6
B. Problem statement, Goals and Strategies 

1. Problem Statement 

Through discussion with project partners, research on existing conditions, conversations with corridor 

users, and information from the FLAP application, the following problems were identified: 

 Congestion, especially in the northern section of the corridor 

 Parking on side of roadway which can cause safety issues 

 Sight distance is compromised in some locations, due to grades, curves, and vegetation 

 Speeding, especially in straightaways 

 Unclear signage or lack of advanced signage 

 Enforcement of speeding and parking violations is limited 

 For some users, low awareness of cyclists and pedestrians 

2. Goals and Strategies 

This planning project has two main goals and provides strategies to meet these goals: 

Goal 1: Improve safety for all users of the corridor 

Strategies 

a. Alleviate congestion in northern part of corridor 

b. Remove or limit parking from side of road 

c. Improve sight distance 

d. Improve signage 

e. Provide geometrical or cross-sectional improvements 

f. Provide education to promote understanding of “rules of the road” 

g. Increase enforcement of existing or proposed laws 

Goal 2: Provide a positive visitor experience 

Strategies 

a. Provide safer and more convenient access to public lands by improving parking efficiency and 

providing alternate transportation options. 

b. Document how changes to the transportation network may affect public lands and consider when 

making funding decisions. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 7
C. Relevant Projects, Plans, and Design Manuals 

1. Past, Current and Future Projects 

When studying a corridor, it is important to know past, current or planned projects that impact or could 

impact the existing conditions. The Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project (CCWSP) currently in 

process by USFS has the potential for substantial changes to existing uses on the CLH. The CCWSP, as 

currently proposed, would put quotas on wilderness permits within the corridor, potentially addressing 

some of the most crowded parking areas. The CCWSP is described in more detail in this section. 

Past projects in the corridor include: 

 Replacement of the Fall Creek, Goose Creek (MP 26.3) and Soda Creek (MP 25.1) crossings with 

bridges. Federal Highway (FLAP) aquatic organism passage projects. 

 Overlay and chip seal projects for portions of the corridor. Some of these projects were partially 

funded by FLAP. 

Current and Future projects: 

 FLAP is providing 75% funding for a chip seal project from Elk Lake to the Klamath County line 

to be completed in 2019. 

 The County has applied for 50% FLAP funding for a chip seal from Mt. Bachelor to Elk Lake to 

be completed in 2020 or 2021. 

 Bend to Mt. Bachelor (and Devil’s Lake) summer transit 

o A pilot program for 2022 and 2023 has been proposed for summer transit between Bend 

and Devils Lake. The proposal is for a route that runs from Bend to Mt. Bachelor and a 

connecting route between Mt. Bachelor and Devils Lake with stops in the corridor at 

Todd Creek, Sparks Lake, Green Lakes and Devils Lake trailheads. 

 FS Devil’s Lake/South Sister Trail Reroute 

o Would reroute the beginning of the South Sister Climber’s Route (#36) to utilize the 

existing underpass under Cascade Lakes Highway (see Figure 2). The project would 

provide an option to hike the trail without crossing the Cascade Lakes Highway at grade 

and would improve hiker safety. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 8
Figure 2: Devil’s Lake/South Sister Trail Re-route Map 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 9
 FS Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project

o In May 2019, FS issued a Final Decision Notice selecting a Wilderness Strategy that

limits use of wilderness areas, starting in 2020, that are accessed by trailheads in the CLH

corridor.

o The limited entry to wilderness areas would likely change usage of the corridor,

especially of high-use trailhead parking lots on the north end of the project area.

o Quotas would be implemented for high-use trailheads, which would limit the number of

overnight and day users at the following trailheads within the corridor:

Wilderness Area 

Trailhead 

Overnight 

Group Quota 

Day Use 

Individual 

Quota South ------------------------------------------North Todd Lake 3 12

Broken Top 4 40

Crater Ditch 16

Tam McArthur Rim 5 80

Green Lakes/Soda Creek 14 80

Devils Lake (South 

Sister/Wickiup)

16 100 

Sisters Mirror 4 16

Quinn Meadow 3 None

Elk Lake 4 None

Six Lakes 8 None

Lucky Lake 5 None

Corral Swamp 3 None

Winopee/Corral Lake None

Deer Lake 3 None

Many Lakes None

o If the Wilderness Strategy moves forward as planned, it could reduce parking demand to

below parking supply at the currently most crowded parking lots that overflow onto CLH

(Green Lakes/Soda Creek and Devils Lake). While it is likely that parking along the road

on CLH will be greatly reduced after the Wilderness Strategy takes effect, it may

continue to a lesser degree (primarily at Devils Lake) due to user’s previous experience,

or desire to park close to the start of the trail.

o The FS Environmental Assessment (EA) addressed the likelihood of displacement

(people going to other trailheads if they cannot get a permit for a specific trail) due to the

quota system. The selected strategy (Modified Alternative 4) would place overnight and

day use quotas on most trailheads within the CLH corridor, so would only have minimal

potential for displacement on the CLH within the study area of this planning document.

The eight trailheads in the table above which do not have day use quotas have a “low” or

“moderate” likelihood of receiving displacement, according to the EA. Even if the eight

trailheads receive considerable increase in parking, they are not likely to cause overflow

parking onto CLH (because of how far off the roadway they are located). However,

decrease in usage of popular trailheads in the northern section of the corridor and

increased usage of other trailheads may cause a shift in traffic within the corridor.

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 10
o For more information on the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project, see the FS 

website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50578.

o The FS Final EA is located here: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105465_FSPLT3_4483294.pdf 

o The FS Final Decision Notice is located here: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105465_FSPLT3_4647968.pdf 

2. Existing Plans and Regulations 

There are plans and regulations in and around the project area that are relevant to this study. A summary 

of the plans and regulations are below: 

 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (2010-2030) 

According to the Deschutes County website (https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/transportation-planning): 

The State of Oregon requires cities and counties to have 20-year plans for their major roads as 

well as other ways to travel such as air, bike, bus, and railroad. The County’s Transportation 

System Plan identifies roadway segments and intersections that will need to be improved by 

2030 based on future traffic volumes and current land use zoning. The project list of the TSP 

prioritizes projects as high (needed within 0-5 years,) medium (6-10 years), or low (11-20 

years). Deschutes County Road Department uses the TSP to determine its capital improvement 

program (CIP), and system development charges (SDC)...Input from the public, population 

forecast, other local governments, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 

guided the development of the TSP’s goals and policies as well as its project list. 

The TSP describes the goals and policies to coordinate and implement the WSP. Goal 15 is the County’s 

Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan, including the following relevant policies: 

15.3 Deschutes County shall: 

f. Upgrade rural road shoulder widths to County standards during road modernization or 

maintenance projects involving overlays as funding allows, provided no additional purchase of 

right-of-way is required or substantial cut and fill or grading is needed 

... 

i. Emphasize the designation of on-road bikeways, where conditions warrant due to safety 

reasons and the cost of construction and maintenance of separate bike paths; 

The TSP outlines minimum bikeway design standards from the Deschutes County Code and states that a 

shoulder bikeway standard is 4 feet: 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 11
Table 2.2.T15 

Selected Minimum Bikeway Design Standards 

Type Stripe 

On/

Off 

Road Width 

Vertical 

Clearance 

Horizontal

Clearance 

(ea. side) Grade ROW 

Multiuse

Path Off 

Min Std High

Use Min Min Std Max Min 

8’ 10’ 12’ 8’ 2’ 5% 

>5%

up to 

500’ 

15’ 

Mtn.

Bike 

Trail 

Off n/a 2’ n/a 7’ n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Bike 

Lane 

8” with 

painted 

stencil 

On 

4’

w/open 

shoulder 

6’ 

 Use on

URBAN 

arterial or 

major collector, 

or RURAL 

roads near 

urban areas 

with high 

anticipated bike 

use 

5’ 

w/curb 

or 

parking 

Shoulder 

Bikeway 4” On 4’ 

4’ w/

open 

shoulder 6’ 

Recommended 

on higher speed 

and traffic 

volume rural 

roads 

5’ w/ 

curb or 

other 

barrier

Shared 

Roadway 

On 

Recommended 

only on local 

roads with 

speeds of 25 

mph or less and 

<3,000 ADT 

Source: DCC 17.48.050, Table B 

Cascade Lakes Highway is not listed in the “Future State Highway Projects and Policies” section, nor is it 

listed in Table 5.3.T1 under current “County Road and Highway Projects.” 

The full Transportation System Plan can be found here: 

https://weblink.deschutes.org/public/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=6052&row=1&cr=1 

 National Scenic Byway, National Forest Scenic Byway, Oregon State Scenic Byway 

The Cascade Lakes National Scenic Byway Corridor Management and Interpretive Plan (2011) sets 

goals, objectives, strategies and actions that give overall direction for managing the byway. The plan also 

outlines design guidelines for the current and future interpretive sites. Improvements to the corridor will 

need to comply with the Scenic Byway Plan. 

The full Plan can be found here: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5347314.pdf 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 12
The National Forest Scenic Byways program is similar to National Scenic Byways program. The goals 

for the National Forest Scenic Byways program are: 

 Showcase outstanding National Forest and Grassland scenery

 Increase public understanding of National Forests as a major provider of outdoor recreation

 Increase public awareness and understanding of all National Forest System activities

 Meet the growing demand of driving for pleasure as a significant recreation use

 Increase use of National Forests by nontraditional users, including minorities and the elderly

 Contribute to the nation's overall scenic byways effort

 Support and enhance rural community tourism economic development

More information can be found here: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/tourism/TourUS.pdf

3. Design criteria

FHWA used the following design guidance documents when developing this plan. Key pieces of 

information are summarized below (design criteria are described in more detail in the RSA - attachment 

A). 

1. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book)

WFLHD is using a design speed of 60 mph for the CLH. Based on a 60 mph design speed, the Green 

Book recommends a minimum traveled way width of 24-ft plus 4- to 8-ft shoulders. 

2. ODOT Design Manuals and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

The Plan outlines a framework for funding priorities in Oregon (1st: protect the existing system and 

address significant safety issues; 2nd: add critical connections and address other safety issues; 3rd: 

complete the system; 4th: elaborate the system). The Plan presents a methodology for measuring Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) based on traffic volume, speed, and paved shoulder width. 

LTS 1 is low stress, LTS 4 is highest stress. 

Segment Current LTS* LTS with 4-6 foot shoulders* 

Project start to Elk Lake 4 2 

Elk Lake to S. Century Dr. 2-3 2 

S. Century Dr. to Project end 2 2 

*Estimates based on known project information

ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide gives design standards for Oregon highways. Based on the 

traffic volume and physical conditions of the site, shoulder widths from 5 to 8 feet are recommended. 

According to the Guide, if there are physical width limitations a 4-foot should may be used. The ODOT 

Highway Design Manual gives the same design standard width for shoulders, though stating a minimum 

of 5-foot shoulders. 

3. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (RDG)

The RDG gives guidelines for clear zones, described as “unobstructed, traversable area provided beyond 

the edge of the through traveled way for the recovery of errant vehicles. The clear zone includes 

shoulders, bike lanes, and auxiliary lanes...” The RDG recommendation is 24 to 40-feet of clear zone, 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 13
varying depending on average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, foreslopes (the slope from edge of shoulder to 

bottom of ditch or bottom of roadway fill), and design speed. 

The existing clear zone on CLH varies, including some areas where it is effectively zero feet due to cars 

parking along the roadway for long stretches. 

4. AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition

The Guide outlines the reasons for producing bicycle plans and suggests that communities may consider 

phasing bicycle improvements. Deschutes County may consider phasing improvements on the CLH, and 

this planning project outlines a phasing plan in Section G. 

The Guide calls for a minimum shoulder bikeway width of 4’ with a 4’ standard for an open shoulder, 5’ 

with curb or other barrier present and 6’ wide for “high use” locations. Under current usage, CLH is not 

likely a “high use” location. 

The RSA also describes other considerations when proposing bicycle improvements, such as: 

 Facility types – examples are shared lanes (where bicyclists and autos use the same lanes), paved 

shoulders, shared use paths (paths separated from the roadway used by bicyclists and pedestrians) 

 Wayfinding – specific wayfinding for cyclists is likely not necessary on the CLH 

 Data – data can be used to guide improvement decisions, but no bicycle data on CLH is available 

and vehicle traffic data is outdated 

 Bicycle operation and safety – it is believed that the typical bike used for designing 

improvements on the CLH is a road bike, with some mountain bikes. Also, the types of bicycle 

crashes and the causes can help with design. No bicycle crashes have been reported in the 

corridor, but conditions exist that could lead to bicycle crashes. 

Based on usage, existing geometric and traffic conditions, and environmental considerations, paved 

shoulders and shared lanes are possible improvements options. Shared use paths have are likely excluded 

from further consideration for the following reasons: 

 Environmental impacts of building a path next to the roadway are substantial 

 Many areas within the corridor have limited clearance on either side of the road, so adding a 

separated path would have engineering challenges and would likely be costly 

 Maintenance of the path would be more difficult, since it is separated from the roadway 

 Grades would be challenging if the path were to meet ADA requirements 

 Constructing a path on one side of the road could lead to increases in crossings of CLH 

5. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway 

Administration. 

The MUTCD defines standards for traffic control devices on roadways. It is referenced in the RSA when 

making recommendations for signage and striping. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 14
D. Public Involvement 

FHWA developed a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) in October 2018. The PIP identifies key stakeholders, 

outlines stakeholder involvement activities, methods to gather and address stakeholder input, lists 

effectiveness metrics, and documents the implementation of the plan. 

FHWA representatives visited the site in September 2018. They met with FS and County partners in 

office meetings and on the corridor and obtained information about the background of the project, current 

and future issues, and goals of the FS and County. 

FHWA also met with representatives of the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory 

Committee (BPAC) and the Elk Lake Forest Homeowners Association. Most of the concerns focused on 

at the north end of the corridor, generally between Elk Lake Resort and the Mt. Bachelor, with the 

concentration on roadway congestion areas between Devils Lake trailhead and Todd Lake trailhead. 

Project partners held a public meeting on April 29, 2019 and public comment period in April-May 2019 

after releasing the draft version of this plan document. The meeting was advertised in the Bend Bulletin, 

on the FHWA website, by Deschutes County and FS, and through an email blast to the contacts list. The 

meeting was held at the Deschutes County Road Department conference room. The meeting was held in 

open house style, and meeting materials were an information sheet, comment form, and display boards. 

Six people attended and two written comments were received. Meeting materials and comments are 

included in Appendix H. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 15
E. Existing Conditions 

The RSA describes the existing conditions in the corridor, pulling information from the FLAP 

application, traffic and crash data, and September 2018 FHWA site visit. 

1. Overall Corridor 

Overall Usage

According to FS and Deschutes County information and backed up by traffic and wilderness usage data, 

there has been a substantial increase in usage in the corridor, especially in the last 5-10 years. For 

example, Forest Service data indicates that the total wilderness area visitors by year (permit data) at the 

Three Sisters Wilderness (near the north end of the study area) increased from 46,999 in 2011 to 132,118 

in 2016. 

Due to high usage, users often park vehicles on the edge of CLH in the northern part of the corridor near 

Green Lakes and Devils Lake parking lots. As noted above, the implementation of parking quotas by the 

Wilderness Strategy will likely decrease parking on the side of the road, but may not eliminate it. 

Bicycle Usage

According to information from Deschutes County, FS, the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee, and a representative from the Elk Lake Cabin Homeowners association, the greatest 

bike usage and potential for conflict is in the northern part of the corridor. Minimal shoulders for riding, 

shoulder parking on the CLH, pedestrians crossing the CLH, steep grades, and tight curves are all 

concerns for cyclists in the corridor. 

Prior to this study, no count of bicycle usage had been completed in the corridor. 

Transit

There is not currently any public transit in the corridor. A pilot program has been funded through the 

FLAP would run shuttle buses in the summers of 2022-2023 from Bend to Mt. Bachelor and to Devils 

Lake. 

Traffic Data 

Deschutes County, in partnership with the City of Bend obtained counts for several locations along CLH 

during the summer of 2019. The ADT for vehicles ranged from 775 ADT South of S. Century Drive to 

2282 ADT East of the Green Lakes intersection. The ADT for bicycles ranged from 3 ADT at North of S. 

Century Drive to 9 ADT South of Elk Lake Resort intersection. RSA Appendix G – 2019 Traffic Data

contains the complete dataset. 

Geometric Conditions 

The RSA describes the geometry of the corridor in eight sections, shown in Figure 3. Below is a brief 

summary of each section: 

1. Section 1 (MP 21.98 to 23.68): Horizontal alignment is on tangent or mild to moderate curvature 

with level to rolling vertical terrain. Paved shoulder widths are approximately 1-2’. 

2. Section 2 (MP 23.68 to 25.98): Horizontal alignment has several curves with moderate curvature 

and back to back reverse curves. Vertically, some of the grades are 7-9%, the steepest in the 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 16
study, likely in the mountainous terrain category. There are several areas of limited horizontal 

sight distance due to trees and/or cut slopes. Paved shoulder widths are approximately 1-2’. 

3. Section 3 (MP 25.98 to MP 26.68): Horizontal alignment is nearly tangent and the vertical grade 

is nearly level. Paved shoulder widths are approximately 1-2’, aside from the area near a recent 

bridge replacement. There is an area of substantial parking along the roadway when the Green 

Lakes Day Use Area parking lot fills up. The mild to flat gravel foreslope makes it easier for 

vehicles to park along the roadside. 

4. Section 4 (MP 26.68 to 28.48): Nearly all the section is curvilinear and contains the sharpest 

horizontal curves in the study and has moderate to steep vertical grades. Some areas of limited 

sight distance. Paved shoulders are approximately 1-2’ in most locations, thought there is 

substantial parking near the trailhead access points. 

5. Section 5 (MP 28.48 to 32.28): Mild horizontal curvature and mild vertical grades. Paved 

shoulders are approximately 1-2’. 

6. Section 6 (MP 32.28 to 34.18): Mild to moderate curvilinear horizontal alignment with a 

generally rolling vertical terrain. Some areas of limited horizontal sight distance. Paved shoulders 

are approximately 1-2’ width. 

7. Section 7 (MP 34.18 to 51.98 - Intersection with S. Century Dr.): Some long tangent and nearly 

tangent sections (up to nearly 4.5 miles) with some areas of mild to moderate horizontal 

curvature. Some locations of limited horizontal sight distance. Vertical grades are level to rolling. 

Paved shoulders are 1-2’. Contains access to several lakes, including Lava Lake, Little Lava 

Lake, Cultus Lake and the Crane Prairie Reservoir. 

8. Section 8 (MP 51.98 – S. Century Dr. to MP 60.87 – Klamath County Line): Mostly long 

tangents or gentle horizontal curves with a moderate curvilinear section near the south end as the 

alignment traverses around an old lava flow. Paved shoulders are approximately 4’ in width for 

most of the section. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 17
End Section 1 

End Section 2

End Section 3

End Section 4 

End Section 5

End Section 6

End Section 

7 S. Century 

End Section 

8 

Figure 3: Sections in the Study Area 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 18
Route Continuity 

When studying a route, the concept of route continuity (consideration of geometric elements of adjacent 

routes) will help gauge the range of possible improvements to a given corridor. The three adjacent routes 

to this study area are: 

 To the northeast – Continuation of CLH toward Bend (ODOT Highway 372). This portion has

approximately 12’ lanes with 6’ shoulders. The posted speed limit is 55mph, there are locations

of four-lane sections (for passing) and there are centerline rumble strips. According to ODOT, the

AADT was 1,400 vpd as of 12/14/2017 (GIS processing date, ODOT TransGIS). To the west of

the turnoff for the Mt Bachelor Resort, the ODOT data indicates the AADT is 1,000 vpd showing

that the Resort is a significant traffic destination. The alignment is generally smooth with some

sharper horizontal curves and moderate grades, though not as sharp as some of the horizontal

curves in the CLH area of study. It appears that a moderate to substantial clear zone is provided.

There are some locations of guardrail, presumably where clear zone slopes are not met.

 To the south – Continuation of CLH in Klamath County (County Route 1352 and 1351). This

portion of CLH has approximately 11’ lanes and 4’ shoulders. Alignment is similar to Section 8

of the CLH.

 Intersecting with CLH – South Century Drive. For the portion under Forest Service maintenance,

from CLH to approximately Burgess Rd., the traveled way width and paved shoulder width are

similar to the CLH corridor north of S. Century Drive. There is vegetation encroachment leading

to horizontal sight distance concerns. The centerline striping is very faint and there is virtually no

edge line striping. For the portion under County maintenance the road has 4’ paved shoulders,

good striping conditions and better vegetation clearing, similar to Section 8 of the CLH.

Signing 

The corridor has advanced curve warning signs for substandard horizontal curves. Pedestrian warning 

signing and general congestion signing are present at the Devils Lake area. No intersection warning signs 

were observed during the field review at minor or major intersections throughout the corridor. 

Numerous guide signs were found to be in poor condition, lacked visibility (sometimes due to vegetation 

or placement), appeared to be too small for visibility at high speeds and lacked advanced notice prior to 

the decision point. No regulatory speed or speed limit signs were observed in the corridor. 

Striping 

Deschutes County stripes 11’ lanes throughout CLH with a 4” width as their standard. The County has 

been especially cognizant of passing zones near locations of driveways and approach roads in general on 

county roads. 

Speeds 

Oregon’s basic rule law applies to CLH. A conversation with a Forest Service LEO indicates that speeds 

can often reach 70+mph on portions of CLH. The LEO has witnessed people driving over 100 mph on 

CLH near the road that leads to Cultus Lake. He believes the average speed for tangent segments is likely 

65 mph or more. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 19
Maintenance 

Deschutes County uses chip seals to help preserve the pavement throughout the CLH corridor. The 

County considers cyclist use on the shoulders and uses a smaller gradation of aggregate for chip seals on 

the shoulder portion. 

Snow plow operations occasionally damage signs throughout the corridor. The County strives to get these 

repaired or replaced in the spring following any damage. 

At the time of the field visit (September 2018), the County stated that a vegetation clearing operation was 

to occur that week within the corridor. 

2. Site Specific Locations

Todd Lake Day Use Area 

The Todd Lake Day Use Area is a popular destination that has seen an increase in usage in recent times. 

The parking lot for accessing Todd Lake is small (18-25 spots on an unpaved surface) and gets filled up, 

leading to parking along the access road (NF-370) which has caused severe congestion on NF-370 at 

times. According to the FS, during the weekend of September 8-9, 2018, 123 vehicles attempting to 

access the Crater Ditch and Broken Top Trailhead (farther along on NF-370) were turned away at the 

Todd Lake Trailhead. Vehicles do not park along CLH to access the Todd Lake and Broken Top 

Trailheads but these popular sites add to the general congestion in the CLH corridor. According to the 

Forest Service, the resources along the trails cannot handle any increase in use. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 20
At the intersection with the Todd Lake Day Use Area and the equestrian-use area on the opposite side of 

the highway, there is a sight-distance concern for vehicles making the turn out of the equestrian side 

(southwest quadrant). Vehicles pulling horse trailers have longer functional lengths and slower 

accelerations which can compound the intersection sight distance concern. The horizontal alignment 

curves away from the intersection and existing vegetation blocks sight distance (Figure 4). 

Figure 4 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Northwest 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 21
Figure 5 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Southeast 

Existing vegetation blocks sight distance looking southwest, too, as shown in Figure 5. 

Warning signs for equestrian use are shown in Google Earth to the east and west of this intersection, 

indicating that a regular crossing may occur in between the two signs. There are no known issues with 

crossings in this area. CLH is on a tangent through here with apparent adequate stopping sight distance. 

Green Lakes Trailhead 

As mentioned in Past, Current and Future Projects, the conditions described at, Green Lakes, Devils Lake 

and the rest of the CLH corridor are based on current usage. The proposed Wilderness Strategies may 

significantly affect the described issues throughout and are discussed in more detail in Section C Relevant 

Projects, Plans, and Design Manuals.

The parking lot for this trailhead fills up during peak and some non-peak times. When full, visitors park 

along CLH for up to a 1⁄2 mile each way, according to the Forest Service. The parking lot has 46 single 

parking spots and six RV/trailer spaces. During the team’s visit on Monday, September 17, 2018 the 

parking lot was nearing capacity at an off-peak period and the RV spaces were being used by regular 

vehicles (Figure 6). Forest Service may issue citations for this type of parking that is in violation of the 

posted signs. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 22
Figure 6 - Green Lakes Parking Lot - RV/Trailer Spaces Used by Non-RV/Trailer Vehicles 

According to the Forest Service, on Saturday, September 8, 2018 the parking lot was full by 8:00am. At 

3:00pm that day, approximately 103 cars were parked in the parking lot and 167 were parked along CLH. 

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 the parking lot was full by 8:30am. In the afternoon, 110 cars were parked 

in the parking lot and 116 were along CLH (see example in Figure 7). It is believed that there is consistent 

high usage on the weekends during the summer (and even fall) months, but high weekday usage is 

becoming more common as well. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 23
Figure 7 – Cars parked on roadway near Green Lakes Trailhead 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 24
Devils Lake Trailhead 

This parking lot and trailhead area is a launch point for the South Sister hike and other trails. Recreation 

also occurs in and near Devils Lake, with a unofficial boat launch point within the gravel turnout on the 

inside of the horizontal curve along CLH. 

Figure 8 – Devils Lake Trailhead overview 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 25
Considerable parking demand occurs at this site, and during peak times parking along CLH can extend for 

up to a mile (Figure 9). According to the Forest Service, on Saturday, September 8, 2018, the parking lot 

was full by 8:00am. At 3:15pm, 96 vehicles were parked on the CLH and 199 in the parking lot. On 

Sunday, September 9, 2018, the parking lot was full by 8:30am. In the afternoon, 101 cars were parked 

along CLH, and 194 parked in the parking lot. The existing parking lot is unpaved and there are no stall 

lines. 

Figure 9 – Parking along CLH near Devils Lake trailhead, peak time, looking west 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 26
The team observed a major pedestrian crossing near the apex of the horizontal curve (Figure 10). There is 

not a distinct pattern of pedestrian movement as parking occurs along the roadway here so crossings may 

happen anywhere along the horizontal curve. During their site visit in an off-peak time, the team observed 

approximately 10 pedestrians crossing CLH in this area over approximately an hour. 

Figure 10 – Pedestrian crossing near apex of curve, Devils Lake, non-peak period, looking east 

The sharp horizontal curve, relative to the rest of the CLH corridor, significantly limits sight distance 

through this area. This increases the safety hazard for the pullout on the inside of the curve. There is a 

large potential for conflict between pedestrians and motorists as well as bicyclists. 

There is an existing underpass with some hiker, equestrian and snowmobile use to the southwest of the 

“main” crossing location on the apex of the horizontal curve. The Forest Service indicated that the 

beginning of the South Sister trail is in the process of being used so that it uses the existing underpass. 

There are existing pedestrian warning signs, with supplemental 350’ plaques, as one approaches from 

either direction to this area as well as a congestion sign. 

Of the available crash data, Crash 1006 occurred near the end of the 400’ radius curve on the south/west 

end. This was a single-vehicle, injury B crash with an animal, believed to be traveling from north to 

south. It is possible the horizontal curve contributed to a lack of visibility of the animal. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 27
Additional Site Specific Issues 

The following is a list of additional site specific issues noted in the RSA. For more information, see the 

RSA. 

1. Quinn Meadows equestrian camp (NF-450) intersection – approximately 750’ of intersection 

sight distance to the south. 750’ may be adequate for passenger cars, but may be insufficient for 

horse trailers. 

2. Elk Lake Area intersection(NF-4600 - Forest Service road names: Elk Lake Lodge to the east of 

CLH and the Elk Lake Trailhead to the west). 

a. Approximate location of three crashes. “Stop Ahead” sign on western approach from NF4600 to CLH is damaged, not retroreflective, and farther from intersection that guidelines 

suggest. 

b. The brown (recreational) guide signs on CLH are in poor condition or hidden from view. 

Some of the text is too small to be read at higher speeds. 

c. 1/3 mile south of intersection, several areas of poor horizontal sight distance due to the 

horizontal alignment and vegetation. 

3. Lava Lake Road intersection 

a. Limited sight distance, especially to the south. Vegetation obstructing view. 

b. A trailhead sign just south of the. intersection is obstructed by vegetation. A small 

“Trailhead Jct Ahead” sign is provided in advance of the intersection from both 

directions. 

4. South Century Drive intersection 

a. Approaching intersection from the north, the first guide sign is located right at the 

intersection so it is easy to miss or requires a motorist to slow down in order to read. 

b. Approaching intersection from the south, the main sign assembly is cluttered and blocked 

by vegetation. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 28
F. Corridor Improvements 

1. Improvement Options 

This section summarizes the range of improvements from the RSA and recommendations from FHWA. 

For more information on the full range of potential improvements and the information that led to these 

recommendations, see the RSA. 

It is important to recognize that the proposed FS Wilderness Strategy would limit parking at the most 

popular trailheads and likely change traffic and usage in the corridor. The probable changes have been 

taken into consideration when making the recommendations. 

The matrix below in Figure 11 summarizes the recommendations to improve safety in the corridor. The 

improvements are described in more detail following the Figure. 

The relative costs are subjective but for CLH are considered to be approximately $0-50k for Very Low, 

$50-100k for Low, $100k-1M for Medium and $1M+ for High. 

The green, yellow and red colors indicate level of recommendation: 

 Green = effective improvement and part of the sequence of improvements. 

 Yellow = improvement is believed to be marginally effective, or more data is needed, or the 

effects of the Wilderness Strategies need to commence first. 

 Red = not an effective improvement to support the overall goals for CLH. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 29
Relative 

Cost

Near-Term (0-5 years) Mid-Term (5-10 years) Long-Term (10+ years)

NV1: Vegetation clearing 

(maintenance of original cleared 

areas); Improved/ additional guide, 

warning and regulatory signing; 6-

inch edge line striping 

MV1: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times

LV1: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times

NV2: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times; educational outreach 

strategies

MV2: Educational outreach 

strategies LV2: Educational outreach strategies

NV3: Maintain good crash records; 

set simple performance goals

MV3: Maintain good crash records, 

monitor performance goals

LV3: Maintain good crash records, 

monitor performance goals

NV4: Minor improvements at Devils 

Lake along CLH to limit parking. 

NV5: Moderate improvements at 

Devils Lake along CLH to limit 

parking. 

NL1: Additional clearing along 

curves, intersections; traditional 

bicycle warning signing

ML1: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

LL1: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

NL2: Centerline rumble strips and 

delineators. 

NL3: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

NL4: Dynamic warning signs for 

bicyclists.

NM1: Transit Pilot Project MM1: Parking lot expansion of 

Green Lakes and Devils Lake

NM2: Parking lot enhancements 

(revise existing layouts to be more 

efficient)

MM2: Additional congestion 

management/ITS solutions

NM3: Improvements at Devils Lake 

along CLH to limit parking, reduce 

speeds and improve crossing safety.

MH1: Widen to 4' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH1: Widen to 4' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH2: Widen to 5' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH2: Widen to 5' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH3: Widen to 6' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH3: Widen to 6' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH4: Bypass of existing Devils Lake 

alignment. Medium High

Timeline to Implement Low Very Low

Figure 11 – CLH Improvement Matrix and Recommendations 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 30
Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV1) – Vegetation Clearing (Maintenance), Improved/Additional Signing, 

6-inch Edge Line Striping: 

 Clear vegetation back to original cleared areas to improve sight distance throughout the corridor. 

 Evaluate all guide signing in the corridor. Replace signs too small for 60mph operating speeds. 

Add advance guide signing for major destinations in a consistent manner. 

 Add warning signage for remaining horizontal curves not meeting 55mph posted speeds per 

MUTCD. Add intersection warning signage for major intersections. In advance of any special 

innovative bicycle warning signage, install traditional standard MUTCD bicycle/Share the Road 

warning sign assemblies at key locations in the corridor. 

 Add Speed or Speed Limit signs at key locations (near major destinations/approach roads, 

begin/end of jurisdictional limits). Consider temporary speed drops at Devils Lake and Green 

Lakes until Wilderness Strategies go into effect. 

 Make 6-inch edge line striping the new standard for CLH. 

 Consider removing sign panels for winter to avoid damage from plow operations in spring. 

Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV2) – Increased Enforcement, Educational Strategies: 

 Utilize County and Forest Law Enforcement Officers especially during peak times. Increase 

presence when feasible. Increased enforcement is intended to help manage motorist speeds and 

manage compliance with various regulations (Wilderness Area enforcement, illegal parking, etc.). 

 Review existing educational materials as related to highway safety from both the County and 

Forest resources. Team up together and with other advocacy groups (BPAC, bicycle groups, trail 

maintenance/hiking organizations, resort HOA, RV touring, fishing/hunting groups, etc.) to 

provide campaigns, materials and disseminate information to a variety of audiences. Use social 

media, websites and occasional changeable message signs in the corridor. 

Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV3) – Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

 Work with County and Forest LEOs to ensure a process is in place to collect adequate crash data 

and store records for easy access and retrieval. The format that ODOT uses for crash data 

collection is preferred for consistency with state records. 

 Set simple performance measures with an end goal of zero fatal and serious injury crashes by a 

certain date in the future. Some examples are listed in the ODOT Design Manuals and Bicycle 

Pedestrian Plan. Monitor performance measures annually and communicate with elected officials 

on the status of measures and goals. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NV4) – Minor Improvements to Limit Parking Near Devils Lake along CLH: 

As discussed in Section E.2 Devils Lake Trailhead, implement the desired minor modifications (signing) 

to limit parking along CLH as needed once Wilderness Area Strategies go into effect. This may require a 

county ordinance and county and/or Forest enforcement. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NV5) – Moderate Improvements to Limit Parking Near Devils Lake along CLH: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies. Similar to NM3 but 

focused on short-term measures] Reduce parking limits with bollards, delineators or similar 

barriers placed at areas most undesirable for parking (e.g. along turnout on inside of horizontal 

curve). Guardrail may be used as well. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 31
Near-Term, Low Cost (NL1) – Vegetation Clearing (Additional), Traditional Bicycle Signing: 

 Determine areas where additional vegetation clearing, beyond the original cleared limits, will

increase sight distance along horizontal curves and near intersections to meet AASHTO

recommendations for a 60mph design speed, or as high as practical. Some areas of concern are

noted throughout this study but an extensive evaluation should be performed. Additionally,

identify where additional vegetation clearing can be accommodated to meet clear zone guidelines,

especially in higher-risk areas such as the outside of horizontal curves. Clear and grub this

vegetation.

 Install traditional (static, not flashing) bicycle warning signs at key locations throughout the

corridor.

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL2) – Centerline Rumble Strips, Delineators: 

 Install centerline rumble strips and post-mounted delineators throughout the entire CLH corridor.

Use ODOT delineator standard drawings to keep consistent with other ODOT state highways.

These typically decrease the spacing between delineators on sharper horizontal curves. If desired,

utilize lower-noise, “mumble” strips as are being experimented with in California, Oregon and

Washington state.

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL3) – Traffic Data: 

 Using traditional traffic counting methods or innovative methods (intermittent or permanent

stations), conduct traffic data collection on a regular basis. See the RSA Section B.3 Traffic Data

for more information on the locations the team believes are most important at this time as well as

the frequency of collection.

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL4) – Dynamic Warning Signs for Bicyclists: 

 Install several dynamic warning signs at key locations throughout the corridor as described in the

RSA Section C.5.a.3 Bicyclist Signing. These could be installed before or after the collection of

vehicular and bicyclist traffic data throughout the corridor. If continuous counters such as the

type used in the CTIP project are installed, these signs can be added on to the system at a later

date. Preliminary cost estimates are provided in Appendix E. Near-Term, Low Cost (NL4) –

Minor Improvements to Limit Parking Near Devils Lake along CLH:

Near-Term, Medium Cost (NM1) – Transit Pilot Project: 

 Evaluate the effectiveness (ridership, reduction in congestion) of the proposed transit program in

the corridor. Depending on the effectiveness, consider continuing the transit program into future

years. (A FLAP application for a transit pilot project is currently under consideration for

funding).

Near-Term, Low Cost (NM2) – Parking Lot Enhancements: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Revise the parking lots

and access roads as desired at Todd Lake, Green Lakes and Devils Lake. This could include

paving areas at Todd Lake and Devils Lake within the existing footprint and adding striping to

maximize efficiency for all users (including equestrian use at Devils Lake). Signs may be needed

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 32
to direct users such as RVs and trailers to appropriate areas. The goal here would be to ensure as 

many vehicles can park within the parking lots as possible and off of CLH. 

Near-Term, Medium Cost (NM3) – Improvements at Devils Lake along CLH to Reduce Parking, Lower 

Speeds and Improve Crossing Safety: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies and other possible 

options that may have been tried, such as NV4 and NV5.] If the strategies do not proceed or do 

not have the intended effect on parking along CLH, implement a permanent speed reduction 

within the Devils Lake area, coupled with physical barriers such as guardrail to limit parking, 

channel pedestrians to one crossing location and install high visibility crossing signage, crosswalk 

markings and possibly a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB). 

 Several of the options in this area, and referenced in the Appendix E – Cost Estimates, could be 

combined and tried, working from least costly and impactful to more costly. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV1) – Continue Increased Enforcement: 

 Continuation of NV2. Use traffic and crash data to best focus efforts and locations. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV2) – Continue Educational Outreach: 

 Continuation of educational outreach strategies from NV2. Use traffic and crash data to best 

focus efforts and locations. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV3) – Continue Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

 Continuation of NV3. Evaluate performance goals and adjust based on safety performance and 

traffic data. 

Mid-Term, Low Cost (ML1) – Continue Traffic Data: 

 Continuation of NL3. Adjust frequency and locations as needed. 

Medium-Term, Medium Cost (MM1) – Parking Lot Expansion at Green Lakes and Devils Lake: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Expand high-use 

parking lots in the corridor such as Green Lakes and Devils Lake to add capacity to parking areas 

and reduce parking on CLH. 

Medium-Term, Medium Cost (MM2) – Congestion Management, ITS Solutions: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Utilize state-of-the-art 

technology to monitor use throughout the corridor in real time and provide information via media 

to help users make decisions about destinations. 

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH1) – Widen to 4’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

 Construct 4’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Add a foot of shoulder width in front of guardrail and 

any other structures to meet AASHTO guidelines for shy distance. Improve side slopes where 

possible and increase horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet 

AASHTO criteria. Install additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 33
guidelines. Install centerline rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and 

high-type pavement markings. Adjust structures and extend or replace culvert as needed. 

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 

 3R Analysis estimated cost: $10.4 million 

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH2) – Widen to 5’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

 Construct 5’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips. Possible structure adjustments and 

culvert extensions or replacements. 

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 

 3R Analysis estimated cost: $11.29 million 

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH3) – Widen to 6’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

 Construct 6’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips. Possible structure adjustments and 

culvert extensions or replacements. 

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 

 3R Analysis estimated cost: $12.18 million 

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH4) – Bypass of Devils Lake: 

 [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] However, this could be 

an option in either situation. Construct a bypass of the Devils Lake area as described in Section 6c 

Devils Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area of the RSA. A high-level estimate of $3M per mile 

(for construction costs) is assumed, with approximately 1 mile in length to complete this bypass. 

This could also be an option in the Long-Term. 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV1) – Continue Increased Enforcement: 

 Continuation of MV1. Use traffic and crash data to best focus efforts and locations. 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV2) – Continue Educational Outreach: 

 Continuation of educational outreach strategies from MV2. Use traffic and crash data to best 

focus efforts and locations. 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV3) – Continue Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 34
 Continuation of MV3. Evaluate performance goals and adjust based on safety performance and

traffic data.

Long-Term, Low Cost (LL1) – Continue Traffic Data: 

 Continuation of ML1. Adjust frequency and locations as needed.

Long-Term, High Cost (LH1) – Widen to 4’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

 Construct 4’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S.

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Add a foot of shoulder width in front of guardrail

and any other structures to meet AASHTO guidelines for shy distance. Improve side slopes where

possible and increase horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet

AASHTO criteria. Install additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone

guidelines. Install centerline rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and

high-type pavement markings. Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or

replacements.

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations

(S. Century Dr., etc.).

 3R Analysis estimated cost: $6.92 million

Long-Term, High Cost (LH2) – Widen to 5’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

 Construct 5’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S.

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings.

Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements.

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations

(S. Century Dr., etc.).

 3R Analysis estimated cost (note that Section 8 will maintain the existing 4’ shoulder width; costs

are to install rumble strips and other countermeasures): $8.01 million

Long-Term, High Cost (LH3) – Widen to 6’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

 Construct 6’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S.

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings.

Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements.

 Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations

(S. Century Dr., etc.).

 3R Analysis estimated cost: $9.01 million

2. Potential Impacts of Proposed Improvements

Widening shoulders on the CLH could have substantial impacts to the environmental and vehicle and 

bicycle traffic in the project area, specifically: 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 35
o Increasing the roadway prism would disturb adjacent land, which could disturb sensitive 

areas (e.g. wetlands/creeks, habitat, steep slopes, cultural resources). A full NEPA 

analysis and all required permitting and consultation would need to be completed prior to 

any widening construction project. 

o Adding wider shoulders could very likely induce bicycle demand on CLH. If bicyclists 

feel more comfortable riding in the corridor, more bicyclists might choose to ride on the 

CLH. It could also increase the usage of bicyclists with less familiarity riding on highspeed highways. Additionally, a wider traveled way could increase automobile vehicle 

speed. 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 36
G.Conclusion 

FHWA’s recommended improvements are summarized below: 

 Implement the “green”-coded Very Low and Low cost improvements. 

 Collect vehicle and bicycle traffic data (counts, turning movements, and speed [if possible]) to 

help determine the impacts of the Wilderness Strategy and to provide more information on the 

viability of the “yellow”-coded improvements. 

o Key locations: 

 Study Begin (MP 21.98) 

 Todd Lake Intersection 

 Green Lakes Intersection 

 Devils Lake Intersection 

 Elk Lake Resort Intersection 

 S. Century Drive Intersection 

o Collect counts during peak season, in 2019 (prior to Wilderness Strategy going into 

effect), 2020 (after Wilderness Strategy), then every 2 years for short term, and every 5 

years for long term. 

 There are no preferred shoulder widths at this time because additional traffic data is needed to 

validate the use and need throughout the corridor. The following options are considered the 

reasonable menu of options based on the analysis performed throughout this document. 

Option 1: 

1. MH3: construct 6’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = $12.2M 

2. LH2: construct 5’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $8.01M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives. 

Option 1 Total Cost = $20.2M (2018 dollars) 

Option 2: 

1. MH2: construct 5’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = 

$11.29M 

2. LH2: construct 5’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $8.01M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives. 

Option 2 Total Cost = $19.3M (2018 dollars) 

Option 3: 

1. MH2: construct 5’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = 

$11.29M 

2. LH1: construct 4’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $6.92M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives. 

Option 3 Total Cost = $18.21M (2018 dollars) 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 37
Option 4: 

1. MH1: construct 4’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = $10.4M 

2. LH1: construct 4’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $6.92M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives. 

Option 4 Total Cost = $17.32M (2018 dollars) 

Cascade Lakes Highway Corridor and Bicycle Facilities Study - OR Deschutes 46(3) 38
Appendix A: Road Safety Audit 
This page intentionally left blank 
1 

Appendix A: Road Safety Audit

Table of Contents

Appendix A: Road Safety Audit ................................................................................................................... 1

A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4

B. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5

1. From Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) application ........................................................... 5

2. Other Data from Desktop Research .............................................................................................. 7

3. Traffic Data................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Crash Data..................................................................................................................................... 9

5. September, 2018 Field Work ...................................................................................................... 12

6. Previous Improvements............................................................................................................... 71

C. Possible Improvements ................................................................................................................... 73

1. Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 73

2. Geometric Improvements ............................................................................................................ 85

3. 3R Analysis Results for Ultimate Cross-Sectional Improvements on Existing Alignment ........ 88

4. Overall 3R Analysis Discussion ................................................................................................. 94

5. Other Specific Countermeasures ................................................................................................. 95

6. Site-Specific Recommendations ............................................................................................... 105

D. Order of Priority for Site-Specific Recommendations .................................................................. 114

1. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 114

E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 130

F. References ..................................................................................................................................... 131

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Cascade Lakes Highway Study Area ........................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 - Total Crashes by Month on CLH ............................................................................................... 10

Figure 3 - Crashes by Month on CLH......................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4 - Total Crashes by Day of Week on CLH..................................................................................... 11

Figure 5 - Limited Shoulder Widths Near Cultus Lake .............................................................................. 14

Figure 6 - Motorist Passing Bicyclists with Oncoming Vehicle on Curve ................................................. 15

Figure 7 - Cyclists Nearly Out of Sight Around Curve .............................................................................. 16

Figure 8 - Motorist Passing Cyclists in Area of Limited Vertical Sight Distance ...................................... 17

Figure 9 - RV Motorist Giving Ample Room While Passing Cyclists ....................................................... 18

Figure 10 - CLH Study Limits by Section .................................................................................................. 20
2 

Figure 11 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 12 - Section 3 Typical Geometry ..................................................................................................... 22

Figure 13 - Recent Bridge Replacement Near Green Lakes Parking Lot ................................................... 23

Figure 14 - Section 5 Typical Geometry ..................................................................................................... 24

Figure 15 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance in Section 6 ....................................................................... 25

Figure 16 - Section 7 Typical Section ......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 17 - ODOT Portion of CLH - Route Continuity - Approx. 43°58'57.35"N, 121°37'19.02"W ....... 27

Figure 18 - ODOT Portion of CLH - Route Continuity – Approx. 43°59'7.31"N, 121°32'34.72"W ......... 28

Figure 19 - Klamath County Portion of CLH - Route Continuity .............................................................. 29

Figure 20 - South of S. Century Drive along CLH (Section 8) ................................................................... 30

Figure 21 - Pedestrian Warning Signing north of Devils Lake ................................................................... 31

Figure 22 - Todd Lake Trailhead Parking Lot ............................................................................................ 33

Figure 23 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Northwest ......................................... 34

Figure 24 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Southeast .......................................... 35

Figure 25 - Horse Warning Sign East of Todd Lake Intersection, Looking West ...................................... 36

Figure 26- Green Lakes Parking Lot - RV/Trailer Spaces Used by Non-RV/Trailer Vehicles .................. 37

Figure 27 - Green Lakes Trailhead Area .................................................................................................... 38

Figure 28 - Moderate Parking along CLH Near Green Lakes .................................................................... 39

Figure 29 - Parking Near Green Lakes Access Road .................................................................................. 40

Figure 30 - Devils Lake Overview .............................................................................................................. 41

Figure 31 - Devils Lake Parking Lot .......................................................................................................... 42

Figure 32 - Pullout Near Devils Lake, Looking West ................................................................................ 43

Figure 33 - Pedestrian Crossing near Apex of Curve at Devils Lake ......................................................... 44

Figure 34 - Devils Lake Trail Crossing, Looking North/East ..................................................................... 45

Figure 35 - Devils Lake Trail Crossing, Looking South/West ................................................................... 46

Figure 36 - Existing Underpass Near Devils Lake...................................................................................... 47

Figure 37 - Bicyclist Observed Near Devils Lake ...................................................................................... 48

Figure 38 - Pavement Edge Drop-off Near Gravel Turnout at Devils Lake, Approx. 3” in Height ........... 49

Figure 39 - Pedestrian Warning Sign near Devils Lake .............................................................................. 50

Figure 40 - CLH Intersection with NF-450 (Quinn Meadows), Limited Sight Distance to South ............. 51

Figure 41 - NF-4625 Intersection - Sight Distance to South ...................................................................... 52

Figure 42 - Stop Ahead Sign on Elk Lake Trailhead Road......................................................................... 53

Figure 43 - Elk Lake Intersection West Quadrant, Elk Lake Trailhead Road, Good Visibility of Stop Sign 

Looking East ............................................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 44 - Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Good Visibility of Stop Sign 

Looking West .............................................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 45 - Stop Sign on West Quadrant of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead Road, 

Manufactured May, 2018, 30” x 30” .......................................................................................................... 56

Figure 46 - Stop Bars at Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead and Elk Lake Lodge Roads, Looking 

East .............................................................................................................................................................. 57

Figure 47 - At Elk Lake Intersection, Looking North, Hidden Sign ........................................................... 58

Figure 48 - Guide Sign in Poor Condition, West Quadrant of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead 

Road, Looking North .................................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 49 - Intersection Sight Distance at Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, 

Looking South ............................................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 50 - Intersection Sight Distance at Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, 

Looking North ............................................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 51 - Non-MUTCD Compliant Sign east of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking 

East .............................................................................................................................................................. 62

Figure 52 - Custom "Slow Congested Area" Sign with Poor Visibility, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking 

East .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
3 

Figure 53 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance in the Elk Lake Area......................................................... 64

Figure 54 - CLH Intersection with NF-4600 (Point Campground), Looking South ................................... 65

Figure 55 - Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Limited Sight Distance to North ................................................. 66

Figure 56 - Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Limited Sight Distance to South ................................................. 67

Figure 57 - Trail Head Sign South of Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Looking South ................................... 68

Figure 58 - Trail Head Jct Ahead Sign South of Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Looking South ................... 68

Figure 59 - Intersection with S. Century Dr., North Approach (Approx. 140’ north of intersection), 

Looking South ............................................................................................................................................. 69

Figure 60 - Sign Assembly at Southwest Quadrant of Intersection with S. Century Dr. ............................ 70

Figure 61 - CLH Intersection with S. Century Dr., South Approach, Looking North ................................ 71

Figure 62 - Recent FHWA Project near Green Lakes Trailhead ................................................................ 72

Figure 63 - Rural Road Shoulder Widths, Table 1-2, ODOT HDM Bike and Pedestrian Design Guide 

(Table 7-2 in HDM) .................................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 64 - MUTCD W2-1 Intersection Warning Sign .............................................................................. 96

Figure 65 - MUTCD W11-1/W16-1P Assembly ........................................................................................ 96

Figure 66 - Dynamic Warning System for Bicyclist Safety ....................................................................... 97

Figure 67 - Example of Dynamic Warning Sign Locations ........................................................................ 99

Figure 68 - Todd Lake ISD Improvements ............................................................................................... 106

Figure 69 - MUTCD W2-1 ....................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 70 - MUTCD RS-064 .................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 71 - Existing Todd Horse Camp Sign ............................................................................................ 108

Figure 72 - Deschutes National Forest South Sister Climber Trail Reroute Proposal ............................. 111

Figure 73 - Devils Lake Reroute Concept ................................................................................................ 113

List of Tables

Table 1 - MP 26.22 Traffic Counts, May-June, 2013 ................................................................................... 8

Table 2 - MP 31.22 Traffic Counts, May-June, 2013 ................................................................................... 9

Table 3 - Bicycle Level of Stress (LTS), OBPP Exhibit 14-11 .................................................................. 74

Table 4 - Shoulder Width CMFs from the Highway Safety Manual .......................................................... 87

Table 5 - CMFs for Bicycle Crashes for Shoulder Widths on Urban Arterials (Park et al, 2016) .............. 88

Table 6 - Section 1 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ..................................................................................... 90

Table 7 – Section 2 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ..................................................................................... 90

Table 8 - Section 3 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ..................................................................................... 91

Table 9 - Section 4 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ..................................................................................... 92

Table 10 - Section 5 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ................................................................................... 92

Table 11 - Section 6 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ................................................................................... 93

Table 12 - Section 7 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ................................................................................... 93

Table 13 - Section 9 3R Analysis Results (Top-10) ................................................................................... 94

Table 14 - Overall 3R Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 95

Table 15 - CLH Improvement Matrix ....................................................................................................... 115

Table 16 - MH1 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................. 119

Table 17 - MH2 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................. 120

Table 18 - MH3 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................. 121

Table 19 - LH1 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................... 122

Table 20 - LH2 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................... 123

Table 21 - LH3 Costs from 3R Analysis ................................................................................................... 124

Table 22 - July, 2019 Traffic Data ............................................................................................................ 129

Table 23 - July, 2019 Bicyclist Data ......................................................................................................... 130
4 

A.Introduction

Cascade Lakes Highway (CLH) has become a major recreational draw with access to features including 

several resorts, access to the Upper Deschutes River, the High Cascade Lakes area and the Three Sisters 

Wilderness Area. Visitors are attracted to the scenic drive the highway itself provides and it has been 

designated as a byway through several agencies. Due to the increase in use by motorists and cyclists, the 

County, National Forest and other stakeholders have become concerned with potential safety issues. 

Pedestrian safety is also a concern. This portion of the plan focuses on the highway safety perspective and 

includes the 4 E’s of highway safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Services 

(EMS). While the primary focus of this planning study is intended to be for bicyclist safety, overall 

highway safety deficiencies are presented since improvements to highway safety rarely impact only one 

mode of transportation. Improvements to vehicular safety can have positive benefits for bicyclist safety, 

improvements to pedestrian safety can have positive benefits for motorist safety, and so on. 

A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a “formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or 

intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. It qualitatively estimates and reports on potential 

road safety issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in safety for all road users.”1

Additionally, tools exist to quantitatively measure the expected impact of safety countermeasures, such as 

Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). Using tools such as CMFs, a Data-Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA) 

approach is used to help inform and drive decisions by stakeholders to improve safety. 

The goals of RSAs are to:

• Identify what elements of the highway may present a safety concern from a multimodal 

perspective

• Propose general and specific improvements to improve safety within the study area through: 

o Infrastructure with engineering and proven safety countermeasures

o Enforcement practices

o EMS

o Education 

Additionally, short, medium and long-term improvements are recommended with relative costs for each 

to assist the partner agencies with project selection and development. 

Road Safety Audits are a collection of the thoughts, findings, observations, opinions and 

recommendations from the RSA team at the time of the study and field work. As conditions inevitably 

change after the audit, the findings, observations and recommendations may change as well. Any cost 

estimates associated with proposed recommendations are intended to be a ballpark, or relative cost. The 

preliminary cost estimates for suggested improvements could be considered at a planning and 

programming level, but should not be taken as true Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) level 

accuracy. Proposed recommendations of a higher order, such as geometric improvements, will require 

information from appropriate topographical survey, environmental processes, preliminary engineering 

and other necessary processes in order to determine a more accurate cost estimate for implementation. In 

no way does the RSA imply that the locations under study are unsafe for the various modes of 

transportation in their current configuration, nor does the RSA imply fault or that action should 

immediately be taken by the governing agencies of each location.

 

1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/ 
5 

B. Existing Conditions 

1. From Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) application

The study area along the Cascade Lakes Highway corridor includes the section from milepost 21.98 

through milepost 60.87 at the Klamath County line, shown in Figure 1. 
6 

Figure 1 - Cascade Lakes Highway Study Area
7 

The following is a summary of information that was included in the FLAP application, pertinent to 

highway safety:

• 2’ paved shoulders on the route

• Tight curves and sight distance issues in various sections

• No analysis relating to bicycle use has been performed

• Some pedestrian crossing conflict points could benefit from additional safety analysis

• Environmentally sensitive areas

o Wetlands

o Threatened and endangered species

o Fish and wildlife habitat

o Wildlife movement corridors

o Possibly cultural/archeological/historical sites (unknown on FLAP application)

• There is an active and supportive local bicycling community in Deschutes County. Cyclotourism

is a significant local economic generator and most weekends in the spring, summer and fall

months see a cycling event in the County. Cascade Lakes Highway is frequently used for the

Cascade Cycling Classic and other major cycling events. Widespread support for the analysis and

planning for the facility improvements is expected.

• Pavement condition

o Currently the Pavement Condition Index is 77-84 with most of the route at 77

o A separate FLAP application is being submitted for a chip seal of 29 miles of the segment

• Bridges

o Need to evaluate bridge locations with respect to safety

2. Other Data from Desktop Research

• Cross-Sectional Data

o FLAP application indicates 2’ paved shoulders but some areas appear to have less

o Some areas of unpaved, gravel shoulder, or at least natural flatter areas

• General alignment

o There are some stretches of longer tangents (1-2 miles) or with gentle curvature that,

combined with similar scenery in wooded areas, could lead to drowsiness. In this

document, tangents are defined as straight or nearly-straight sections of highway

alignment in the horizontal plane.

• Road closed in snow months

o Gates close off road in multiple locations

• Signing

o Some existing curve warning signing

• Striping

o Centerline and edge line striping is present

3. Traffic Data

Deschutes County acquired traffic counts for two locations in 2013. The County and Forest Service 

believe that the use of the corridor has risen substantially since these counts were collected. According to 

Wilderness Strategy documents, from 2011 to 2016 the annual visitation in the Three Sisters Wilderness 

increased from under 40,000 to about 110,000 visitors. 

The first site, at MP 26.22, approximately 0.2 miles west of the gate near Dutchman Flat Sno-Park, can be 

considered the project begin. Data was collected from 5/13/2013 through 5/20/2013 and again from 

6/3/2013 through 6/17/2013. Table 1 displays the data.
8 

DATE DAY ADT

5/9/2013 Thursday

5/10/2013 Friday

5/11/2013 Saturday

5/12/2013 Sunday

5/13/2013 Monday 199

5/14/2013 Tuesday 277

5/15/2013 Wednesday 223

5/16/2013 Thursday 141

5/17/2013 Friday 249

5/18/2013 Saturday 201

5/19/2013 Sunday 563

5/20/2013 Monday 302

NO DATA

6/3/2013 Monday 563

6/4/2013 Tuesday 605

6/5/2013 Wednesday 746

6/6/2013 Thursday 682

6/7/2013 Friday 918

6/8/2013 Saturday 1965

6/9/2013 Sunday 2243

6/10/2013 Monday 750

6/11/2013 Tuesday 517

6/12/2013 Wednesday 495

6/13/2013 Thursday 387

6/14/2013 Friday 867

6/15/2013 Saturday 1779

6/16/2013 Sunday 2090

6/17/2013 Monday

Table 1 - MP 26.22 Traffic Counts, May-June, 2013

The average ADT for these counts is 762 vehicles per day (vpd). It can be observed that traffic greatly 

increased in June and especially on weekends. 

The second site, at MP 31.22, approximately 1 mile north of the Elk Lake Loop Road (NF-4625), is near 

the south end of the area of highest use. Data was collected from 5/9/2013 through 5/21/2013 and again 

from 6/3/2013 through 6/17/2013. Table 2 displays the data:
9 

DATE DAY ADT

5/9/2013 Thursday 44

5/10/2013 Friday 260

5/11/2013 Saturday 450

5/12/2013 Sunday 449

5/13/2013 Monday 112

5/14/2013 Tuesday 159

5/15/2013 Wednesday 144

5/16/2013 Thursday 90

5/17/2013 Friday 144

5/18/2013 Saturday 122

5/19/2013 Sunday 356

5/20/2013 Monday 260

5/21/2013 Tuesday 242

NO DATA

6/3/2013 Monday 296

6/4/2013 Tuesday 408

6/5/2013 Wednesday 463

6/6/2013 Thursday 406

6/7/2013 Friday 557

6/8/2013 Saturday 1260

6/9/2013 Sunday 1508

6/10/2013 Monday 459

6/11/2013 Tuesday 360

6/12/2013 Wednesday 301

6/13/2013 Thursday 260

6/14/2013 Friday 547

6/15/2013 Saturday 1193

6/16/2013 Sunday 1397

6/17/2013 Monday 452

Table 2 - MP 31.22 Traffic Counts, May-June, 2013

Excluding data from 5/9/2013, which was only a half day of collection, the average ADT for these counts 

is 469 vpd. It can also be observed that traffic greatly increased in June, especially on the weekends. 

From the traffic data, CLH exhibits traffic patterns similar to many recreational-type highways and roads, 

with peaks in the summer and tourist season, especially on weekends. The peak weekend traffic was 

approximately three times higher than the average ADT for both locations. A seasonal ADT should 

strongly be considered when making design and traffic decisions that rely on traffic data (design criteria). 

See Traffic Data in D. 1. Recommendations for more discussion on desired traffic data to be collected. 

4. Crash Data

Deschutes County provided crash data from 2009 through 2017. In addition, the Oregon Department of 

Transportation’s (ODOT) All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program was accessed through 
10 

ODOT’s TransGIS site in September, 2018 to verify and augment the available crash data for the years 

2012-2016. In general, crash data is known to contain errors and omissions, so the available data may not 

be an exhaustive list for the time periods analyzed. 

Figure 2 shows the total crashes from 2009-2017 by month. 

Figure 2 - Total Crashes by Month on CLH

Figure 3 shows the types of crashes by month. 

Figure 3 - Crashes by Month on CLH

See Appendix C for the raw crash data. 

It can be seen from the crash data that the majority of crashes occur during the peak summer months. The 

crash data was also reviewed by the day of the week of its occurrence:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Crashes by Month (2009-2017)

Total

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Crashes by Month (2009-2017)

Injury-A

Injury-B

Injury-C

PDO
11 

Figure 4 - Total Crashes by Day of Week on CLH

It can be inferred from the crash and traffic data that as traffic increases on weekend days, crashes are 

more likely to occur throughout the corridor. This correlation between expected crashes and ADT is well 

known in the highway safety research area. 

About 25% of the crashes are animal collisions. According to the data, there are no vehicle-bicycle 

crashes during this time period. Most of the crashes are single-vehicle crashes. Of the multi-vehicle 

crashes, most occur within intersections and are likely intersection-related (involved a turning 

movement).

An approximate crash rate is calculated based off this data but should be used only for comparing in a 

relative way due to variability and error in crash data as well as traffic data. The total crash rate for the 

entire study area was calculated to be 0.66 crashes/million-vehicle-miles. Splitting the study into 

segments may give a more accurate crash rate due to there being more traffic in the northern part of the 

study. 

From the study begin through MP 34.18, the southern end of the Elk Lake area where the highest traffic 

segment is believed to end, the crash rate was calculated to be 0.81 crashes/million-vehicle-miles. This 

was based on an estimated daily ADT of 1,043 vpd, averaged from the data set above. From the Elk Lake 

area through the end of the study, MP 60.87, the crash rate was calculated to be 0.59 crashes/millionvehicle-miles. This was based on an estimated daily ADT of 658, averaged from the data set above. The 

estimates for ADT widely vary by time of year and day of the week. In addition, it is believed that traffic 

has grown substantially since 2013, when the above counts were recorded. The estimated ADT values 

used for these crash rates attempts to represent an average ADT by time of year and by assuming that the 

2013 traffic counts are the rough average of the perceived increase in traffic from 2009 to current day. 

Current ADT values would not be appropriate to use on the historical crash data that goes back to 2009, 

when traffic was likely lower than 2013 values. 

By comparison, the 2016 crash rate for Century Drive, ODOT’s Highway 372, from Bend to the study 

begin was 2.73 crashes/million-vehicle-miles2

. The 2016 crash rate for OR-58, from the Whitehorse 

Campground to the Klamath County line, was 0.98 crashes/million-vehicle-miles. The 2016 crash rate for 

2 https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Crash_Rate_Tables_2016.pdf

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Total Crashes by Day of Week (2009-2017)

Total
12 

OR-58, from the Klamath County line to the Highway 429 junction, was 0.96 crashes/million-vehiclemiles. 

The relative comparisons to highways of similar types (rural, likely more recreational type use with 

frequent stops to recreation areas) indicate that historical crash rates for CLH may be lower than 

surrounding ODOT highways. However, crash data is just one set of data to review when analyzing the 

safety performance of a highway. The crash rate a highway experiences in the past is rarely the crash rate 

the highway will experience in the future. Over time, with other variables like traffic held constant, the 

crashes will fluctuate around a mean and typically are location-random in nature throughout a corridor. 

However, if there are areas with specific safety deficiencies, these areas typically present themselves as 

clusters of crashes or “hot spots.” With relatively low traffic and low frequency of crashes throughout 

CLH, clusters may be difficult to identify or may not exist. However, based on the available crash data, 

there appear to be some areas of higher crashes, and these will be examined throughout the study.

• Near Todd Lake intersection, including horizontal curve to west (3 crashes)

• Horizontal curves just west of Green Lakes Trailhead area (3 crashes)

• Elk Lake Resort intersection (3 crashes)

Finally, the cause or possible cause of crashes will be examined to see what countermeasures may be 

effective to improve motorist, and subsequently bicyclist and pedestrian, safety. 

According to the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, accurate data for bicycle-related 

crashes can be difficult to obtain, since bicycle-related crashes are generally underreported, especially for 

those resulting in minor injury; crash data does not reflect near-misses; bicycle count data is lacking so it 

is difficult to calculate crash rates and crashes due to roadway conditions or geometry (i.e. narrow 

shoulders leading cyclists to off-track and crash on gravel or soil) are generally underreported or not 

recorded (pg. 2-23 GDBF). 

5. September, 2018 Field Work

During the September 17-20, 2018 field visit, WFLHD, Deschutes County and the Forest Service 

discussed several specific areas of concern in addition to overall corridor concerns. This section will 

describe the specific findings at both the overall corridor as well as specific sites.

a) Overall Corridor

Several safety-related items were discussed at the Deschutes County office prior to reviewing the corridor

in the field. The following is a summary of those safety-related items.

1) Overall Increase in Use and Wilderness Strategies

According to Deschutes County, there has been a large increase in vehicle and bicycle usage of the CLH

corridor. There has been an increase in pedestrians walking along the roadway and crossing near the

major trailhead areas. Trailhead locations and associated crossings across CLH are important aspects of

this study. The increase in usage has been very prevalent at the Day Use areas. Anecdotally, some locals

don’t visit the CLH corridor anymore due to the increased use. According to the Forest Service, their Day

Use areas and day use areas associated with the Cascade Lakes lodges (i.e. boat ramp parking lots, lake

access) are over capacity during much of the year. Forest Service data indicates that the total wilderness

area visitors by year (permit data) at the Three Sisters Wilderness (near the north end of the study area)

increased from 46,999 in 2011 to 132,118 in 2016, a 181% increase in just five years. The Green Lakes

trail saw 62 hikers per a typical 8-hour time period during 1991-1993 data. During 2013-2015, the same

trail saw 325 hikers per a typical 8-hour period, a 424% increase.

The existing conditions and current usage throughout the CLH corridor described in this document are 

based on the current administration of Forest Service land. Recently, the Forest Service has proposed 
13 

Wilderness Strategies in order to mitigate the substantial increase in usage. These Wilderness Strategies 

are described in full in Section C of the Planning Document. The Strategies may significantly alter the 

existing conditions and usage as described in the Road Safety Audit. The relevant considerations from 

these Wilderness Strategies with respect to possible improvements to the CLH corridor are mentioned 

throughout this Road Safety Audit. 

The overall recreational use throughout the corridor is more for fishing and hiking than hunting, 

according to the local agencies. A new bicycle and pedestrian multi-use path near Bend along the 

highway has become very popular. It currently terminates near the Forest welcome station. 

2) Parking

Parking along the roadway throughout numerous sections of the corridor is a major concern. As the Forest 

Service Day Use area parking lots and turnouts fill up, the major increase in usage has led to visitors 

parking on the shoulders of CLH adjacent to these areas. The Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers 

(LEOs) enforce illegal parking within the Day Use areas. This is important as there may be more usable 

space within these lots and associated driveways where people parking along the CLH roadside could 

safely park instead. Overall, several of the Day Use parking lots were noted as being inefficient with 

respect to striping and flow. 

3) Transit 

The Forest Service and County have considered the use of transit to alleviate congestion throughout the 

CLH corridor. An Alternate Transportation Feasibility Study was completed but the study stopped at Mt. 

Bachelor (from the east). Transit is currently being used at Lava Lands Visitor Center, another Deschutes 

National Forest site, with success. This service was funded through the Federal Lands Access Program 

(FLAP). A 2018 FLAP application was submitted by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, 

Cascades East Transit, Mt. Bachelor and the Forest Service. This transit project would be a pilot project 

for 2022-2023 for providing service from Bend to Mt. Bachelor and to Devils Lake within the study 

corridor, with stops in between these destinations. No decisions have been made on project funding at this 

time. Establishing partnerships with transit services is important to the Forest Service as their mission 

does not necessarily include providing this type of service. 

4) Bicyclist Information

Cyclists are attracted to the CLH corridor for general recreational rides as well as organized events and 

races. According to the agencies and stakeholders, most of the cyclists are intermediate or expert riders

with respect to their level of experience. There are some specific cycling events such as the Cascade 

Cycling Classic, Cycle Oregon and Tour Deschutes. The CLH is not closed to vehicular traffic during 

these events. 

During a bicyclist ride during the field review, two team members rode from Cultus Lake to Elk Lake in 

order to better understand the bicyclist perspective in the corridor. While this section of the CLH is 

relatively mild in horizontal curvature and vertical grades, it was observed that the typical roadway width 

for much of the corridor is difficult for cyclists to navigate within the limited paved shoulder width. At 

many locations the width was less than 2’ and often less than 1’.
14 

Figure 5 - Limited Shoulder Widths Near Cultus Lake

At times, the two team members found themselves leaving the roadway and riding on the adjacent gravel 

shoulder. It can be difficult to return the bicycle to the roadway if there is much of a drop-off from the 

paved shoulder to gravel shoulder. 

In addition, the two team members observed some debris on the shoulder, however, it was not excessive. 

It was recognized that in locations of high parking areas along the gravel shoulder, the ensuing shoulder 

degradation of vehicles returning to the roadway will compound bicyclist concerns at these locations. 

Riding on the gravel shoulder is tremendously more difficult for a bicyclist. 

During the ride, the two team members were passed by several motorists. In general, motorists gave 

ample room for passing the cyclists. However, due to the roadway width and some areas of horizontal and 

vertical curvature, it can be seen from Figure 6 that conflicts can arise as vehicular and bicyclist traffic 

increases.
15 

Figure 6 - Motorist Passing Bicyclists with Oncoming Vehicle on Curve

In addition, the areas of limited horizontal sight distance throughout the corridor due to horizontal 

curvature and vegetation and/or cut slopes is a safety concern especially for cyclists. In this photo, the 

cyclists are almost not visible around the curve and this would be compounded if they were riding in the 

opposite direction with the inside of the curve on their right: 
16 

Figure 7 - Cyclists Nearly Out of Sight Around Curve
17 

Figure 8 - Motorist Passing Cyclists in Area of Limited Vertical Sight Distance
18 

Figure 9 - RV Motorist Giving Ample Room While Passing Cyclists

A conversation with a Forest Service LEO, who has worked in this area for 18 years, indicated that during 

summer days, bicyclist traffic is anecdotally believed to be 50-100 bicyclists per day and may be up to 

200 per day, excluding official cycling events. The LEO added that S. Century Dr., east of CLH, also sees 

a significant amount of cyclists. 

5) Meeting with Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council

WFLHD met with a representative from the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council 

(BPAC) to gain further perspectives on cycling and pedestrian use throughout the route. The council acts 

as an advisory group for the County when there are plans for projects and can give recommendations and 

agree or disagree with proposals. There are representatives from Bend and the surrounding cities on the 

Council. 

The BPAC representative indicated that bicyclist use is higher near the north to middle sections of the 

study and that there is not as much use near the south end of the study. The highest concern for cyclists is 

the lack of shoulders, according to the representative. However, pedestrian safety is a high concern as 

well at several of the locations in the CLH corridor. 

The representative believes that Todd Lake to Elk Lake is the most congested area and should be highest 

priority of this study. Throughout this section, there is mixed vehicle use and parking on both sides of the 

roadway can reduce the effective roadway width to 1.5 lanes. Pedestrians may cross anywhere throughout 

this section. 
19 

In general, the BPAC representative believes that cyclists are cognizant of their surroundings and slow 

down in the highly congested areas to help avoid conflict with parked vehicles, opening doors, etc. The 

level of cyclists are of intermediate experience and better and may ride 50-125 miles per day. To the 

representative’s knowledge, there is no online information on cautions for the bicyclist community from a 

safety standpoint for the CLH corridor. Local outfitters are genuine and will give honest 

recommendations and advice to unfamiliar riders on possible safety concerns in the CLH corridor. There 

are not a lot of options for less than intermediate cyclists on the CLH corridor but one example is the area 

around Elk Lake. Both road bikes and mountain bikes are used in the corridor, with some trails for 

mountain bikers. Bend has a strong community of bicycle riders with a mix of road bike users and 

mountain bike users. Most in the community advocate for single-file riding on non-event rides to reduce 

conflict risk. 

According to the representative, there are conflicts at times with vehicles with attached trailers passing 

cyclists that are unfamiliar with the proper way to do so. They pass and then pull back over too soon and 

can come close to colliding with the cyclists. 

During official events, racers may be going 30-35mph throughout the corridor. Escort vehicles typically 

accompany these official events in the front and rear of the group. For unorganized rides, there is not one 

preferred pattern or loop throughout the region. A preferred direction for improvements (e.g. shoulder 

widening to one side only) is not believed to be advantageous according to the representative. The 

representative believes that cross-sectional improvements (widening the shoulders) will likely attract 

more cyclists and users throughout the corridor. 

6) Meeting with Cascade Lakes Cabin Homeowners Association Representative

WFLHD met with a representative from the Homeowners Association for the cabins in the study area. 

The land is owned by the Forest Service and leased to the cabin owner. WFLHD asked this representative 

about the increase in use throughout the CLH corridor and the concerns that have arisen. 

The representative believes that cyclotourism has grown substantially in recent time. There are official 

cycling events but also other events such as triathlons and relay races (on foot). There are triathlons based 

in Sunriver that base their races in the Cascade Lakes area and the Cascade Lakes Relay Run uses the 

entire stretch of CLH. There are cycle-backpackers using the area for camping trips as well. 

According to the representative, there are several concerns with the CLH. The use at the Todd Lake 

Trailhead, Green Lakes Trailhead, Devils Lake Trailhead and Elk Lake areas has exploded in the last 3-5 

years. At some of these locations, there is often parking along the roadway which leads to vehicle doors 

being opened into the roadway, causing concerns for cyclists. Pedestrians are walking along the roadway 

and roadside throughout these locations of high parking. In some turnout locations, where there are kiosks 

for example, vehicles are parking where they shouldn’t be. 

Vehicles passing one another may not be giving adequate attention to cyclists. According to the 

representative, vehicles and cyclists have to take special maneuvers to pass safely. The mix of trucks 

pulling boats, RVs, etc. is a further concern. For the cyclists especially, the narrow shoulders, steep grades 

(in some locations) and tight horizontal curvature in some areas is a significant concern. The 

representative believes a no parking ordinance and lower speed limits near high congestion areas may be 

a solution. According to the representative, speeds often reach 60-65mph on the tangent sections of CLH 

and there is a concern with the mix of slow-moving RVs or trucks pulling trailers. 

7) Typical Geometry

Starting from the north, the alignment will be described in general terms. The beginning of the study is 

milepost (MP) 21.98 and mileposts increase in the north to south direction. 
20 

Figure 10 - CLH Study Limits by Section

End Section 1

End Section 2

End Section 3

End Section 4

End Section 5

End Section 6

End Section 7 

S. Century Dr.

End Section 8 
21 

Throughout Section 1, from the beginning through the Todd Lake Day Use area intersection, the 

horizontal alignment is on tangent or mild to moderate curvature with level to rolling vertical terrain. 

Paved shoulder widths are approximately 1-2’. This section is 1.7 miles, ending at MP 23.68. 

From the Todd Lake Day Use Area intersection, the next section of roadway continues with similar 

geometrics and terrain to the flatland area near Green Lakes Trailhead, ending at MP 25.98. The 

horizontal alignment throughout this section has several curves with moderate curvature and back to back 

reverse curves. Vertically, some of the grades within this section are the steepest in the study, likely in the 

mountainous terrain category. A measurement in Google Earth indicates grades on the order of 7-9%. 

There are several areas of limited horizontal sight distance due to trees and/or cut slopes. Paved shoulder 

widths are approximately 1-2’. Near the end of Section 2, a recent project replaced pipe culverts with a 

bridge on Soda Creek (OR PFH 46 (9)). 

Figure 11 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance

From the end of Section 2, Section 3 continues through the Green Lakes Trailhead area and ends near the 

horizontal curve at the northwest end at MP 26.68. The horizontal alignment throughout this section is 

nearly tangent and the vertical grade is nearly level. Paved shoulder widths are approximately 1-2’, aside 

from the area near a recent bridge replacement. This is an area of substantial parking along the roadway 

when the Green Lakes Day Use Area parking lot fills up. The mild to flat gravel foreslope makes it easier 

for vehicles to park along the roadside. A recent project replaced the bridge near Green Lakes parking lot. 
22 

Figure 12 - Section 3 Typical Geometry
23 

Figure 13 - Recent Bridge Replacement Near Green Lakes Parking Lot

From the end of Section 3, Section 4 continues through the end of the horizontal curves near Devils Lake, 

MP 28.48. This section contains the sharpest horizontal curves in the study (approximately 401’ and 540’ 

radii for example) in addition to some moderate to mild curvature. Nearly all of this section is curvilinear. 

There are moderate to steep vertical grades within this section as well. There are areas of limited 

horizontal sight distance due to vegetation and/or cut slopes. Paved shoulders are approximately 1-2’. 

This is an area of substantial parking near the trailhead access points (near the 401’ radius curve). 

From the end of Section 4, Section 5 continues to the north side of the Elk Lake area, MP 32.28. This 

section contains mild horizontal curvature and generally mild vertical grades, with mostly level and some 

rolling terrain. Horizontal and vertical sight distance appears to meet or exceed criteria for the expected 

speeds. Paved shoulders are approximately 1-2’. 
24 

Figure 14 - Section 5 Typical Geometry

Section 6 is the area near Elk Lake and ends near the south end of the horizontal curve just south of the 

lake, MP 34.18. This section has a mild to moderate curvilinear horizontal alignment with a generally 

rolling vertical terrain. There are some areas of limited horizontal sight distance in this section as well. 

Paved shoulders are approximately 1-2’ width. 
25 

Figure 15 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance in Section 6

Section 7 continues from the end of Section 6 and ends at the intersection with S. Century Drive, MP 

51.98. This section has some long tangent and nearly tangent sections (up to nearly 4.5 miles) with some 

areas of mild to moderate horizontal curvature. Near some of the horizontal curves, there are some 

locations of limited horizontal sight distance. The vertical grades are level to rolling throughout this 

section. Paved shoulders are 1-2’ in width. This section contains access to several lakes, including Lava 

Lake, Little Lava Lake, Cultus Lake and the Crane Prairie Reservoir. 
26 

Figure 16 - Section 7 Typical Section

Section 8 continues from the S. Century Drive intersection south to the end of the study at the Klamath 

County line, MP 60.87. Section 8 has similar horizontal and vertical alignment characteristics to Section 

7. Most of the section has long tangents or gentle horizontal curves with a moderate curvilinear section 

near the south end as the alignment traverses around an old lava flow. The main difference from Section 7 

is that the cross-section widens and the paved shoulders are approximately 4’ in width for the majority of 

this section. 

8) Route Continuity 

Agencies can use the concept of route continuity to help gauge the range of possible improvements to a 

given corridor or project. When studying a route, consideration needs to be given to the geometry and 

cross-sectional elements of the corridors adjacent to the route in study. In theory, if adjacent corridors 

have similar traffic and contextual characteristics (ADT, posted speed, rural, recreational road, etc.), then 

their geometric and cross-sectional elements are preferred to be similar as well in order to maintain driver 

expectations. However, other considerations such as cost, safety, environmental and other items need to 

be considered prior to applying a blanket approach to improving any missing links. 

For CLH, on the north and east end, ODOT Highway Number 372 (no OR Route Number is posted for 

this highway and its name is Century Drive3

) is adjacent to the study begin. The study begins at the end of 

the four-lane section of CLH and near the intersection to turn to the Mt Bachelor Resort. The portion of 

the CLH adjoining, but outside of, the study area extends to Bend and has approximately 12’ lanes with 

6’ shoulders as a typical section. The posted speed limit is 55mph, there are locations of four-lane 

sections (for passing) and there are centerline rumble strips on this segment. According to ODOT, the 

AADT was 1,400 vpd as of 12/14/2017 (GIS processing date, ODOT TransGIS). To the west of the 

turnoff for the Mt Bachelor Resort, the ODOT data indicates the AADT is 1,000 vpd at the begin of this 

study, showing that the Resort is a significant traffic destination. According to ODOT, there are 100 

 

3 https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Routes-to-Highway-Cross-Reference-Table.pdf
27 

trucks per day at the beginning of the study area as well, the majority of which are single-unit (SU) 

trucks. 

The alignment of this portion of CLH is generally smooth with some sharper horizontal curves and 

moderate grades, though not as sharp as some of the horizontal curves in the CLH area of study. It 

appears that a moderate to substantial clear zone is provided, though no data or measurements are 

available to determine the amount of clear zone. There are some locations of guardrail, presumably where 

clear zone slopes are not met. 

Figure 17 - ODOT Portion of CLH - Route Continuity - Approx. 43°58'57.35"N, 121°37'19.02"W
28 

Figure 18 - ODOT Portion of CLH - Route Continuity – Approx. 43°59'7.31"N, 121°32'34.72"W

On the south end of the CLH study, the study ends at the county line with Klamath County. The CLH 

continues on as Klamath County route 1352 and 1351 until it meets OR-58 (the Willamette Highway). 

This portion of CLH was found to have approximately 11’ lanes and 4’ shoulders. WFLHD did not drive 

more than a mile into this section but it was found to be similar to the area of study, especially the 

southern portion of CLH (south of the intersection with S. Century Drive). 
29 

Figure 19 - Klamath County Portion of CLH - Route Continuity

In fact, the portion of CLH from just south of the intersection with S. Century Drive south to the Klamath 

county line has been improved to include approximately 4’ shoulders (described above as Section 8). 

Anecdotally, this is the segment with the least amount of traffic throughout the CLH corridor in 

Deschutes County. 
30 

Figure 20 - South of S. Century Drive along CLH (Section 8)

Another major road that intersects CLH is S. Century Drive. From CLH, this road eventually ends up in 

the Three Rivers and Sunriver area. A portion of this road falls under Forest Service maintenance 

jurisdiction and the portion closer to the Three Rivers/Sunriver area is maintained by Deschutes County. 

For the Forest Service portion, from S. Century Drive to approximately Burgess Rd., the traveled way 

width and paved shoulder width are similar to the CLH corridor north of S. Century Drive. There is 

significantly more vegetation encroachment on this segment leading to horizontal sight distance concerns. 

The centerline striping is very faint and there is virtually no edge line striping. This segment of S. Century 

Drive gives access to several lakes, reservoirs, resorts, campgrounds and numerous minor Forest Service 

roads. S. Century Drive is used by recreationalists as a way to complete a loop after CLH. 

Where the County maintenance begins, the cross section is improved to approximately 4’ paved 

shoulders, good striping conditions and better vegetation clearing. This portion of S. Century Drive is 

similar to the improved portion of CLH at the southern end of the study. 

9) Signing 

Deschutes County has installed many advanced curve warning signs for substandard horizontal curves 

throughout the corridor. While the seasonal ADT is near the 1,000 vpd threshold in the MUTCD Section 

2C.06 for mandating the provisions in the Section, the county has applied the provisions of the Section for 

many of the horizontal curves. 

Pedestrian warning signing and general congestion signing are present at the Devils Lake area. 
31 

Figure 21 - Pedestrian Warning Signing north of Devils Lake

No intersection warning signs were observed during the field review (MUTCD Ref. W2-1, W2-2, etc.) at 

minor or major intersections throughout the corridor. 

Numerous guide signs were found to be in poor condition, lacked visibility (sometimes due to vegetation 

or placement), appeared to be too small for visibility at high speeds and lacked advanced notice prior to 

the decision point. 

No regulatory speed or speed limit signs were observed in the corridor. Oregon’s basic rule law applies to 

CLH. 

10) Striping

Deschutes County stripes 11’ lanes throughout CLH with a 4” width as their standard. The County has 

been especially cognizant of passing zones near locations of driveways and approach roads in general on 

county roads. The County stripes annually and the timing varies but typically this is done in mid-summer. 

There was an edge-line striping operation going on during the team’s visit. 

11) Speeds 

A conversation with a Forest Service LEO indicates that speeds can often reach 70+mph on portions of 

CLH. There are long segments of tangents or nearly tangent sections where speeds can increase. The LEO 

has witnessed people driving over 100mph on CLH near the road that leads to Cultus Lake. He believes 

the average speed for tangent segments is likely 65mph or more. 
32 

The team was passed by a vehicle traveling at a very high rate of speed while on one of the long tangents. 

The team estimates the speed of this vehicle to be 80mph or greater based on the team’s speed at the time. 

12) Maintenance

Deschutes County uses chip seals to help preserve the pavement throughout the CLH corridor. The last

chip seal was constructed from Mt. Bachelor south to Elk Lake in 2015. The County considers bicyclist

use on the shoulders and uses a smaller gradation of aggregate for chip seals on the shoulder portion. The

County submitted a FLAP application in the 2016 Call for Projects to chip seal the remainder of CLH

from Elk Lake south to the Klamath County line. In 2018, a FLAP application in the 2018 Call for

Projects was submitted by the County for another chip seal on the Mt. Bachelor to Elk Lake section, with

a desire to construct the project in 2020. The County plans to submit a project in the next Call for Projects

to again chip seal the Elk Lake to Klamath County line section.

Snow plow operations occasionally damage signs throughout the corridor. The County strives to get these 

repaired or replaced as soon as practical following any damage in the spring. 

At the time of the field visit, the County stated that a vegetation clearing operation was to occur that week 

within the corridor. 

b) Todd Lake Day Use Area and Intersection with CLH

The Todd Lake Day Use Area is a popular destination that has seen an increase in usage in recent times.

The parking lot for accessing Todd Lake is small (18-25 spots on an unpaved surface) and gets filled up,

leading to parking along the access road (NF-370) which has caused severe congestion on NF-370 at

times. According to the Forest Service, in one instance the congestion caused a jam that took an hour to

clear along NF-370 as vehicles could not get by each other along the road. According to the FS, during

the weekend of September 8-9, 2018, 123 vehicles attempting to access the Crater Ditch and Broken Top

Trailhead (farther along on NF-370) were turned away at the Todd Lake Trailhead. These vehicles likely

went to visit another area in the CLH study area. Vehicles do not park along CLH to access the Todd

Lake and Broken Top Trailheads but these popular sites add to the general congestion in the CLH

corridor. According to the Forest Service, the resources along the trails cannot handle any increase in use.

As mentioned in Overall Increase in Use and Wilderness Strategies, the conditions described at Todd 

Lake, Green Lakes, Devils Lake and the rest of the CLH corridor are based on current usage. The 
33 

proposed Wilderness Strategies may significantly affect the described issues throughout and are discussed 

in more detail in Possible Improvements. 

Figure 22 - Todd Lake Trailhead Parking Lot

At the intersection with the Todd Lake Day Use Area and the equestrian-use area on the opposite side of 

the highway, there is a sight-distance concern for vehicles making the turn out of the equestrian side 

(southwest quadrant). 
34 

Figure 23 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Northwest

Vehicles pulling horse trailers have longer functional lengths and slower accelerations which can

compound the intersection sight distance concern. The horizontal alignment curves away from the 

intersection. Existing vegetation blocks sight distance in this direction and the other side: 
35 

Figure 24 - Todd Lake Intersection, Southwest Quadrant, Looking Southeast

To the east of the intersection, a warning sign for equestrian use is shown in Google Earth for the 

eastbound direction. 
36 

Figure 25 - Horse Warning Sign East of Todd Lake Intersection, Looking West

East of this sign, there is another equestrian warning sign for the westbound direction. This indicates a 

regular crossing may occur in between the two signs. There are no known issues with crossings in this 

area. CLH is on a tangent through here with apparent adequate stopping sight distance. 

c) Green Lakes Trailhead and Parking Lot Area

The parking lot for this trailhead fills up during peak and likely even during non-peak times. When full, 

visitors park along CLH for up to a 1⁄2 mile each way, according to the Forest Service. The parking lot was 

originally designed for horse trailers and some of these spaces are still designated for vehicles with 

trailers or RVs. During the field visit, these spaces were being used by regular vehicles as well:
37 

Figure 26- Green Lakes Parking Lot - RV/Trailer Spaces Used by Non-RV/Trailer Vehicles

It was noted that the Forest Service may issue citations at their discretion for this type of parking that is in 

violation of the posted signs. 

During the team’s visit on Monday, September 17, the parking lot was nearing capacity at an off-peak 

period. According to the Forest Service, on Saturday, September 8, the parking lot was full by 8:00am. At 

3:00pm that day, 270 cars were parked in this area (approximately 103 in the parking lot and 167 along 

CLH).

On Sunday, September 9, the parking lot was full by 8:30am. In the afternoon, 110 cars parked in the 

parking lot and 116 were along CLH. It is believed that there is consistent high usage on the weekends 

during the summer (and even fall) months, but high weekday usage is becoming more common as well. 

The parking lot has 46 single parking spots for passenger cars or pickup trucks. There are six RV/trailer 

parking spots as well. Parking often occurs down at the bottom of the highway foreslope and occasionally 

events are held in the roadside vicinity along the CLH. For example, a (non-permitted) wedding was held 

near this area recently. 
38 

Figure 27 - Green Lakes Trailhead Area
39 

Note the pedestrian walking along the shoulder near the Green Lakes trailhead in Figure 28: 

Figure 28 - Moderate Parking along CLH Near Green Lakes
40 

In Figure 29, note the vehicle parking right at the access road to Green Lakes Trailhead, limiting 

intersection sight distance for vehicles turning out of the parking lot area. 

Figure 29 - Parking Near Green Lakes Access Road

d) Devils Lake Trailhead

This parking lot and trailhead area is a launch point for the South Sister hike and other trails. Recreation 

also occurs in and near Devils Lake, with a unofficial boat launch point within the gravel turnout on the 

inside of the horizontal curve along CLH. 
41 

Unofficial boat launch

Figure 30 - Devils Lake Overview

Equestrian-use Parking

Regular Vehicle 

Parking
42 

According to the Forest Service, on Saturday, September 8, the parking lot was full by 8:00am. At 

3:15pm, the total of parked vehicles was 295, of which 96 vehicles were parked on the CLH and 199 in 

the parking lot. 

On Sunday, September 9, the parking lot was full by 8:30am. The parking lot had 194 vehicles with 101 

parked along CLH. The team discussed a desire to review the existing parking lot for ways to increase 

efficiencies and also review possible expansion options. The existing parking lot is unpaved so there are 

currently no stall lines. 

Assuming most of these people are accessing the trails to the west of CLH, and a conservative vehicle 

occupant rate of 1.5 people per vehicle, this amounts to approximately 443 pedestrians on Saturday and 

443 pedestrians on Sunday that are either walking along CLH or crossing CLH near the existing trail 

crossing, though some of these pedestrians are likely using the underpass. There is a large potential for 

conflict between pedestrians and motorists as well as bicyclists. 

Figure 31 - Devils Lake Parking Lot

The sharp horizontal curve, relative to the rest of the CLH corridor, significantly limits sight distance 

through this area. This increases the safety hazard for the pullout on the inside of the curve, as shown in 

Figure 32. 
43 

Figure 32 - Pullout Near Devils Lake, Looking West

The team observed a significant pedestrian crossing near the apex of the horizontal curve. There is not a 

distinct pattern of pedestrian movement as parking occurs along the roadway here so crossings may 

happen anywhere along the horizontal curve. The team observed approximately 10 pedestrians crossing 

CLH in this area over approximately an hour. 
44 

Figure 33 - Pedestrian Crossing near Apex of Curve at Devils Lake

These photos show the view from the shoulder near the actual existing trail crossing. The team took sight 

distance measurements of 450’ to the north from this point and 425’ to the south. AASHTO stopping 

sight distance values for 45, 55 and 65mph are 360’, 495’ and 645’, respectively. The current speed limit, 

per Oregon Basic Rule, is 55mph for CLH. Currently, sight distance is not met here for this speed, 

however, the horizontal curve radius indicates a design speed of 35mph, as discussed in Horizontal 

Geometry. There are no horizontal curve warning signs for this particular curve while other higher speed 

curves do have horizontal curve warning signs in the corridor. 
45 

Figure 34 - Devils Lake Trail Crossing, Looking North/East
46 

Figure 35 - Devils Lake Trail Crossing, Looking South/West

There is an existing underpass with some hiker, equestrian and snowmobile use to the southwest of the 

“main” crossing location on the apex of the horizontal curve. See the “Underpass” point in Figure 30. It 

appears that the existing underpass is greatly underutilized. The team discussed strategies to reduce or 

eliminate parking along the roadside in this vicinity. See Devils Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area for 

discussion.
47 

Figure 36 - Existing Underpass Near Devils Lake

The Forest Service indicated that the beginning of the South Sister trail may be moved so that it uses the 

nearby existing underpass. See Devils Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area. 

One bicyclist was observed during the team’s visit. The narrow shoulder and drop-off at the edge of 

shoulder, especially on the pullout side, is problematic for bicycle operations. The slope of the pavement 

edge was not measured, however. The slope is not vertical and may be appropriate for vehicles per Safety 

EdgeSM guidance. See SafetyEdgeSM for more discussion. 
48 

Figure 37 - Bicyclist Observed Near Devils Lake
49 

Figure 38 - Pavement Edge Drop-off Near Gravel Turnout at Devils Lake, Approx. 3” in Height

While at this location, Deschutes County Law Enforcement Officers stopped by and spoke with the team. 

According to the LEOs, speeding hasn’t been an issue at this location but there are speeding concerns on 

the tangent sections of the CLH. The County LEOs say that it is mostly Forest Service enforcement that 

may ticket for CLH parking violations, however, the Forest Service stated that their enforcement staff 

would not ticket along CLH without County concurrence. Any major changes in County enforcement or 

parking restrictions along CLH in general via ordinances would likely be difficult to achieve, according to 

discussion among the team at this visit. 

There is existing pedestrian warning signs, with supplemental 350’ plaques, as one approaches from 

either direction to this area as well as a congestion sign:
50 

Figure 39 - Pedestrian Warning Sign near Devils Lake

Of the available crash data, Crash 1006 occurred near the end of the 400’ radius curve on the south/west 

end. This was a single-vehicle, injury B crash with an animal, believed to be traveling from north to 

south. It is possible the horizontal curve contributed to a lack of visibility of the animal. 

The team discussed strategies for improving safety at this location and is discussed in Devils Lake 

Trailhead and Parking Lot Area. 

e) Quinn Meadows 

WFLHD reviewed NF-450, an approach road that accesses the Quinn Meadows equestrian camp area. It 

was noted at the intersection with CLH that there was limited vertical sight distance to the south. 
51 

Figure 40 - CLH Intersection with NF-450 (Quinn Meadows), Limited Sight Distance to South

WFLHD measured approximately 750’ of intersection sight distance to the south at this location, which 

may be adequate for passenger cars, however, the heavy use of horse trailers in this area may require an 

additional time gap to make the turn out of the approach road. 

f) Elk Lake

Near the north end of Elk Lake, at the intersection with NF-4625 (Hosmer Lake Rd), the team measured 

intersection sight distance to be approximately 650’ to the south around the horizontal curve. The critical 

AASHTO intersection sight distance values are 665’ and 720’ for design speeds of 60mph and 65mph, 

respectively. Therefore, the available sight distance here is considered marginal. 
52 

Figure 41 - NF-4625 Intersection - Sight Distance to South

WFLHD staff reviewed the main Elk Lake intersection with NF-4600 (Forest Service road names: Elk 

Lake Lodge to the east of CLH and the Elk Lake Trailhead to the west). This was the approximate 

location of three crashes according to the available crash data. Crash 01141 indicates that a motorist was 

traveling along the Trailhead Road and failed to stop at the stop sign for the intersection, crashing off the 

roadway (a single-vehicle crash). WFLHD found that the Stop Ahead sign in advance of the intersection 

is damaged and not retroreflective. The sign is approximately 440’ from the stop sign for the intersection, 

which is high when compared to values for Guidelines for the Advanced Placement of Warning Signs in 

the MUTCD (Table 2C-4). 
53 

Figure 42 - Stop Ahead Sign on Elk Lake Trailhead Road

The stop signs at the intersection itself were found to be in good condition and highly visible. The stop 

bar pavement markings were in good condition as well. According to the crash data for 01141, speeding 

and alcohol were factors and the crash took place around noon. It is unknown if the advanced warning 

sign’s condition, location, or sunlight factors that may have limited its visibility, may have played a role 

in this particular crash. It is also unknown what the condition was of the stop signs at the intersection 

itself, as the crash occurred on 9/19/2014. 
54 

Figure 43 - Elk Lake Intersection West Quadrant, Elk Lake Trailhead Road, Good Visibility of Stop Sign Looking East
55 

Figure 44 - Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Good Visibility of Stop Sign Looking West
56 

Figure 45 - Stop Sign on West Quadrant of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead Road, Manufactured May, 2018, 30” x 30”
57 

Figure 46 - Stop Bars at Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead and Elk Lake Lodge Roads, Looking East

The brown (recreational) guide signs were found to be in poor condition or hidden from view near this 

intersection. Some of the text is too small to be read at higher speeds. 
58 

Figure 47 - At Elk Lake Intersection, Looking North, Hidden Sign

Hidden Guide 

Sign
59 

Figure 48 - Guide Sign in Poor Condition, West Quadrant of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Trailhead Road, Looking North

In addition, the intersection sight distance on the east quadrant was found to be limited by vegetation 

growth along the roadside in both directions. North of the intersection, CLH curves to the east which also 

reduces available sight distance. 
60 

Figure 49 - Intersection Sight Distance at Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking South
61 

Figure 50 - Intersection Sight Distance at Elk Lake Intersection East Quadrant, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking North

One other crash at this intersection involved a turning motorcycle with a vehicle, and the third crash was a 

deer hit. Crash 01273 is the motorcycle/vehicle crash and it appears that one of the vehicles was making a 

left turn into the Elk Lake resort road and the other vehicle crashed into the turning vehicle from behind. 

The cause according to ODOT data was “improper overtaking.” 

A non-MUTCD compliant “Slow 5mph” sign was noted on a tree in the eastbound direction from the 

intersection. 
62 

Figure 51 - Non-MUTCD Compliant Sign east of Elk Lake Intersection, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking East

Another custom “Slow Congested Area” sign was noted on the opposite side of the Resort approach road. 
63 

Figure 52 - Custom "Slow Congested Area" Sign with Poor Visibility, Elk Lake Lodge Road, Looking East

A third of a mile south of this intersection, there were several areas of poor horizontal sight distance 

observed due to the horizontal alignment and vegetation. 
64 

Figure 53 - Limited Horizontal Sight Distance in the Elk Lake Area

It is unknown if these sight distance conditions contributed to two crashes in this segment. Crash 00878 

was a single-vehicle animal crash in an area with limited horizontal sight distance. Crash 01399 is a 

multi-vehicle crash at the NF-4600 intersection that has limited intersection sight distance to the south. 
65 

Figure 54 - CLH Intersection with NF-4600 (Point Campground), Looking South

g) Intersection with Lava Lake Road

The Lava Lake Rd. accesses Lava Lake and Little Lava Lake with a lodge, two campgrounds and three 

dock or boat launch areas. Therefore it appears to be a moderate to major access point relative to the CLH 

corridor. The intersection was observed to have limited sight distance, especially to the south. 
66 

Figure 55 - Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Limited Sight Distance to North
67 

Figure 56 - Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Limited Sight Distance to South

Some of the vegetation obstructing the view is smaller, new growth along the foreslope and ditch, and the 

other vegetation may be mature trees outside the original CLH clearing limits. 

A trailhead sign just south of the Lava Lake Rd. intersection was observed to be obstructed by vegetation. 

For this intersection, a small Trailhead Jct Ahead sign is provided in advance of the intersection from both 

directions. It may be desirable to increase their size for legibility and note the trail name(s) to provide 

advance guide-sign information. See Guide Signing for more discussion. 
68 

Figure 57 - Trail Head Sign South of Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Looking South

Figure 58 - Trail Head Jct Ahead Sign South of Lava Lake Rd. Intersection, Looking South

h) Intersection with S. Century Drive 

The intersection with CLH and S. Century Drive is one of the major intersections relative to the others in 

the corridor. WFLHD observed several concerns with this intersection, including a lack of advance guide 

and wayfinding signage, cluttered guide signs and poor visibility of some of the guide signs. 
69 

Approaching the intersection from the north, the first guide sign is located right at the intersection so it is 

easy to miss or requires a motorist to slow down from 55+mph in order to read the details. 

Figure 59 - Intersection with S. Century Dr., North Approach (Approx. 140’ north of intersection), Looking South

There is an existing widened area to pullout here if a motorist is unfamiliar with the geography but this 

sign could be missed or lead to safety concerns with motorists slowing down in the roadway to read signs. 

Guide Sign
70 

Figure 60 - Sign Assembly at Southwest Quadrant of Intersection with S. Century Dr.

The upper sign on this assembly was found to have 6” letters on the top three destinations and 5” on the 

“Resorts Campgrounds” line. The bottom sign was found to have 4” letter heights and be 48” x 42” 

overall. 

From the south approach, the main sign assembly at the intersection is blocked by vegetation.
71 

Figure 61 - CLH Intersection with S. Century Dr., South Approach, Looking North

6. Previous Improvements

Some locations throughout the CLH corridor have had improvements constructed in recent years.

a) Bridge and AOP Culvert Replacements

In approximately 1993, an overlay project was constructed from the beginning of this study through the 

north end of Elk Lake, a 10.7 mile project. This project also included some guardrail, culvert and signing 

and striping improvements. The WFLHD project number is OR PFH 46-1(4). 

In approximately 2000, a second overlay project was constructed from near the south end of Davis Lake 

(in Klamath County) through the north end of Elk Lake to complete the overlay from the first project. 

These plans show that the approximately 4’ shoulders from S. Century Dr. to the south were already in 

place at this time. The WFLHD project number is OR PFH 46-1(5). 

The Fall Creek Bridge near the Green Lakes Trailhead parking lot was replaced through the Forest 

Highway Program in 2017. The bridge was improved to approximately a 36’-6” roadway width (11’ lanes 

with 5’-7 1⁄2” shoulders) with ODOT three-tube bridge rail and approach guardrail. The WFLHD project 

number is OR PFH 46(13). 
72 

Figure 62 - Recent FHWA Project near Green Lakes Trailhead

In 2016-17, the OR PFH 46(9) project replaced the pipe culverts at Soda Creek with a bridge and a single 

pipe culvert at Goose Creek with a larger, bottomless reinforced concrete arch culvert. 
73 

C. Possible Improvements

Design criteria that relate to highway safety are presented for discussion in relation to CLH. Next, 

corridor-wide improvements and countermeasures are presented. Finally, site-specific recommendations 

are presented that build off the overall possible improvements for the corridor. The corridor-wide 

improvements and countermeasures help to improve safety throughout the corridor. It is believed these 

improvements would help reduce the crashes that have occurred as well as help reduce future crashes. 

1. Design Criteria

Reviewing current design criteria can help gain perspective on the geometric and cross-sectional elements 

that may be expected for a highway like Cascade Lakes Highway based on its functional classification 

and traffic. 

a) Green Book

The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book) gives criteria for 

traveled way width for rural arterials in Table 7-3, which is the functional classification closest to 

Cascade Lakes Highway. WFLHD recommends a design speed of 60mph which is 5mph over the basic 

rule speed limit that applies to CLH. For a design speed of 60mph, and any traffic volume, the minimum 

traveled way width is 24-ft. Beyond the traveled way, shoulders are required according to the Green 

Book, ranging from 4-ft for under 400 vehicles per day (vpd) to 8-ft for over 2,000 vpd. This gives a 

range of total roadway width of 32’ to 40’, obviously a very wide range, with many agencies frequently 

opting to take documented exceptions to meeting these criteria due to financial, environmental and other 

constraints in order to meet federal funding requirements. 

In addition, highway design methodology is likely shifting over the next five years to be more cognizant 

of or even require the use of performance-based design to help establish design criteria. This way, the 

right design features can be provided for the needs of the highway, rather than more of a blanket approach 

that the Green Book currently provides. This study will look at performance-based tools from a high level 

perspective. Further study can be done to better analyze the highway improvements from a performancebased perspective. 

Design criteria (often called standards) are one important consideration, as they represent a consensus of 

transportation professionals who have already weighed safety, operations, environmental and financial 

impacts of these criteria to establish these values. However, the performance and context of an individual 

road or project is an important consideration as well. 

b) ODOT Design Manuals and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan states that the vision, by 2040, is that 

“In Oregon, people of all ages, incomes, and abilities can access destinations in urban and rural 

areas on comfortable, safe, well-connected biking and walking routes. People can enjoy Oregon’s 

scenic beauty by walking and biking on a transportation system that respects the needs of its users 

and their sense of safety. Bicycle and pedestrian networks are recognized as integral, 

interconnected elements of the Oregon transportation system that contribute to our diverse and 

vibrant communities and the health and quality of life enjoyed by Oregonians.” (Executive 

Summary, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan [OBPP]).

The Executive Summary goes on to mention that Oregon’s bicycle tourism industry is growing, which 

certainly applies to CLH. The plan “recognizes the role of law enforcement agencies in enforcing rules of 

the road and safe operating rules” and advocates for a focus on evaluation policies and strategies to better 

analyze safety issues with a robust data collection plan. The plan recognizes that adequate funding is 

unlikely to be available for the preferred build-out of bicycle facilities. Therefore, a “strategic approach is 
74 

needed to spend existing resources on the highest need and greatest value investments, leverage what is 

available, and to identify additional funding sources....The [plan] framework lays out priorities as 

follows: protect the existing system (e.g. maintenance and preservation) and address significant safety 

issues; add critical connections (defined in the Plan) and address other safety issues; complete the system 

(e.g. separation, and bicycle parking); and elaborate the system.” (Executive Summary, OBPP). 

The Plan states that local jurisdictions must be consistent with the contents of the Plan per Oregon 

Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012. An Oregon law that also affects the direction of public agencies’ 

investments in bicycle and pedestrian improvements is the “Bike Bill,” or Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 

366.514, which requires “inclusion of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists whenever a road, street or 

highway is built, rebuilt, or relocated” (pg. 13, OBPP). However, exemptions are allowed based on safety, 

cost and absence of need. Justification is required to document the exemptions if needed, with public 

review and input. 

The Plan cites that in 2014, people who rode on Oregon Scenic Bikeways spent over $12 million, which 

supported 150 jobs, and that there are currently over 1,100 miles of bikeways across the state (pg. 22, 

OBPP). If CLH was designated a scenic bikeway in conjunction with appropriate facility improvements, 

in addition to its other scenic byway designations, it stands to reason that bicycle use would increase 

throughout the corridor. This would likely have positive economic effects in the region. 

The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan presents a methodology for measuring the Bicycle Level of 

Traffic Stress (LTS). This is a higher-level assessment than project-specific analysis that may include the 

Highway Capacity Manual Multimodal Level-of-Service (MMLOS), which requires traffic volume data. 

Similarly, there is a Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS). The ODOT Analysis Procedure Manual, 

Version 2, gives the criteria for assessing a roadway for these measures. The manual states that the 

original methodology was intended for urban areas, however, application of the LTS methodology on 

rural areas can be performed with shoulder widths and traffic volumes. The LTS Levels range from 1-4, 

with LTS 1 being least stressful to a bicyclist and LTS 4 being most stressful. For rural areas, due to the 

higher speeds and motorists being less likely to anticipate bicyclists, the minimum LTS level is 2. 

According to the Manual, “narrow or no shoulders and higher volumes (leading to increased overtaking 

conflict opportunities) will increase the stress level. Unless an adjacent separated multi-use path/bike lane 

is provided (LTS 1), most rural roadways do not have bike lanes and bicyclists will depend on paved 

shoulders” (pg. 14-19, OBPP). The Manual provides a table (Exhibit 14-11) to evaluate the LTS based on 

traffic volume and paved shoulder width: 

Table 3 - Bicycle Level of Stress (LTS), OBPP Exhibit 14-11 

Exhibit 14-11 Rural Segment Criteria with 

posted speeds 45 mph or greater1,2,3 Daily 

Volume (vpd) 

Paved Shoulder Width 

0 – <2 ft 2 - <4 ft 4 – <6 ft ≥ 6 ft 

<400 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 

400 - 1500 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 

1500 - 7000 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 2 

> 7000 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 3 1 Based on p1-3 & Table 1-2 from the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide, 2011. 2 Adequate stopping sight distances on curves and grades assumed. A high frequency of sharper curves 

and short vertical transitions can increase the stress level especially on roadways with less than 6’ 

shoulders. Engineering judgment will be needed to determine what impact this will have on the LTS level 

on a particular segment. Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2 14-20 Last Updated 11/2018 
75 

3 Segments with flashing warning beacons announcing presence of bicyclists (typically done on narrower 

long bridges or tunnels) may, depending on judgment, reduce the LTS by one, but no less than LTS 2. 

4 Over 1500 AADT, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide indicates the need for shoulders.

Currently, the portion of the CLH corridor with the highest congestion, from Elk Lake to the north, likely 

operates in the LTS 4 category (ADT in the 1,500 to 7,000 vpd range, 0-2’ paved shoulders). To the south 

of Elk Lake, to the S. Century Drive intersection, the LTS may operate in the 2-3 range, depending on 

traffic on a given day. South of S. Century Drive, due to the 4’ shoulders and assumed lower traffic, the 

LTS is likely a 2, the best available stress level for a rural area.

With possible improvements to the shoulders on the unimproved portion of the route, increasing the 

shoulder width to 4-6’ can improve the LTS from a 4 to a 2, according to this table. Footnote 2 is very 

important as this table assumes adequate criteria for stopping sight distances is provided. As noted in the 

Existing Conditions, certain segments of CLH likely contain deficiencies in available sight distance (e.g. 

horizontal sight distance and intersection sight distance) which may increase the stress levels to the 

bicyclists in these areas. 

For all intersections throughout CLH, the LTS is and will remain level 2 based on the current and future 

expected traffic volumes and number of lanes. 

The LTS analysis can be used to identify deficiencies in a roadway or highway network on a broad scale, 

especially with a GIS system and in conjunction with other data. For CLH, it gives a broad-stroke 

perspective on how improvements to shoulder widths could improve comfort for bicyclist rides. 

The OBPP Plan lists 6 performance measures to consider to evaluate a highway on page D-2: 

• Safety (1): Number of pedestrian fatalities (five-year average): the average annual number of 

pedestrians killed in crashes with motor vehicles, over a five-year period.

• Safety (2): Number of bicyclist fatalities (five-year average): the average annual number of 

bicyclists killed in crashes with motor vehicles, over a five-year period. 

• Safety (3): Number of pedestrian serious injuries (five-year average): the average annual number 

of pedestrians seriously injured in crashes with motor vehicles, in a given year.1

• Safety (4): Number of bicyclist serious injuries (five-year average): the average annual number of 

bicyclists seriously injured in crashes with motor vehicles, in a given year.

• Safety (5): Perceived safety of walking: the percent of the public that feels they have the 

necessary facilities to walk safely in their neighborhood.

• Safety (6): Perceived safety of bicycling: the percent of the public that feels they have the 

necessary facilities to bike safely in their community.

These performance measures should be considered by the County to help gauge the performance of their 

transportation system. 

In the ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide, an appendix of the ODOT Highway Design Manual 

(HDM), Design Standards are given for use on Oregon highways. Local agencies are encouraged to use 

the dimensions and designs recommended in the Guide. The Guide adopts the AASHTO Guide for the 

Development of Bicycle Facilities and the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. The ODOT Guide contains some recommendations and best practices that exceed 

AASHTO or other HDM standards. For the purposes of this plan, the relevant values or recommendations 

that differ from or exceed AASHTO are presented. Other AASHTO guidance is presented elsewhere in 

this document. 
76 

The Design Guide states that “on rural roads with high bicycle use or demand, roads should include 

shoulders where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are high” (pg. 1-5, ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Design Guide). Table 1-2, from the Guide, provides rural road shoulder widths, shown in Figure 63: 

Figure 63 - Rural Road Shoulder Widths, Table 1-2, ODOT HDM Bike and Pedestrian Design Guide (Table 7-2 in HDM)

ODOT’s TransGIS data indicates that CLH is federally classified as a rural major collector, though 

Deschutes County indicates that CLH is an arterial. For the varying traffic volumes that CLH experiences, 

depending on the location in the corridor and time of year or day of week, there will be a range of 

shoulder widths from 5-8’ recommended, with 2’ shoulders possible on the southern part of the corridor. 

Better traffic data can help provide better guidance. The most congested portion of the corridor likely falls 

into the 6-8’ shoulder recommendation. The Design Guide states that if shoulders are provided for bicycle 

use, 6’ shoulders are recommended to allow the bicyclist to ride far enough away from the edge of 

pavement to avoid debris along the shoulder edge but also far enough from the traveled way to avoid 

conflicts. If there are “physical width limitations, a minimum 4 foot shoulder may be used” (pg. 1-8, 

ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide). The Design Guide also provides a desire to maintain a 6’ 

shoulder in areas of steep uphill grades. According to the Design Guide, “shoulders wider than 6 feet may 

be marked as bike lanes in areas of very high use, on high-speed facilities where wider shoulders are 

warranted, or where they are shared with pedestrians” (pg. 1-11, ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design 

Guide). 

The Design Guide states that shoulder rumble strips should not be used if they leave less than 4’ of 

rideable space on the shoulder. 

The Design Guide references special bicycle-related signs approved for use in Oregon.4

The Design Guide references the Guidelines for Administration of Bicycle Racing on Oregon Roads, an 

older document with some important information on considerations for bicycle racing5

. With an approval 

date from 1990, some of the guidance in the document should be reviewed for updates to standards such 

as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 

The ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM), Section 7.3, presents design standards for 4R or new rural 

arterial highways. This section references Table 7-2 in the HDM, which gives the same shoulder width 

standards as shown in Figure 63. In Section 7.3.2.6 Roadside Design, the HDM states that “where a 

barrier along a roadway is used to shield a roadside obstacle, a 2 foot shy distance from the normal edge 

of shoulder to the face of barrier should be used. This shy distance maintains the useable shoulder width 

and provides some additional distance from the traveled way and the barrier” (pg. 7-14, ODOT Highway 

Design Manual). The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide states that “shoulders adjacent to a 

curb face, guardrail or other roadside barriers must be 5 feet wide, as cyclists will ‘shy’ away from a 

 

4 https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Documents_TrafficStandards/Sign-Policy-08-Bike-Ped.pdf 5 https://s3.amazonaws.com/imm-usac-uat-bucket-16e9mh4tuo6kc/documents/ODOT-Guidelines.pdf 
77 

vertical face” (pg. 1-8, ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide). Therefore, according to the Design 

Guide, when using guardrail or at bridge locations, it is preferred to widen the shoulder by an additional 

2’, regardless of the typical shoulder improvement width (e.g. 4-6’ typical shoulders would become 6-8’ 

at areas of vertical barrier). The minimum would be a 5’ shoulder, however, according to the Design 

Guide. 

c) AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 

The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (RDG) is an important guide used by highway agencies all over 

the country to make decisions regarding roadside safety and design. One important concept presented in 

the RDG is the clear zone concept. According to the RDG, “a clear zone is the unobstructed, traversable 

area provided beyond the edge of the through traveled way for the recovery of errant vehicles. The clear 

zone includes shoulders, bike lanes, and auxiliary lanes, except those auxiliary lanes that function like 

through lanes.” The RDG’s Table 3-1 gives suggested clear zone distances from the edge of traveled way. 

For CLH, this distance will vary since the foreslopes and ADT vary throughout the corridor. It is 

estimated that many of the foreslopes throughout the corridor are close to 1:4 or 1:3. A 1:3 slope is 

considered traversable but not recoverable. A 1:4 or flatter slope is both traversable and recoverable and 

can be counted as a clear zone per the RDG. 

Assuming a design speed of 55mph, foreslopes of 1:4 and a design ADT in the 1,500-6,000 vpd range, 

this gives a clear zone distance of 24-30’. If a design speed of 60mph is used, the guidelines give a clear 

zone distance of 32’-40’. 

The RDG is a set of guidelines and not design standards or criteria. Some agencies incorporate the 

guidelines as a set of standards (sometimes with modification of the tabulated values) for their 

jurisdiction. While they are not considered standards, the clear zone distances are important design 

aspects and can often be the difference between a severe injury or fatal crash versus an unrecorded crash

because the vehicle was able to recover or get back on the roadway and drive off. In 2016, 50% of the 

national fatalities occurred in rural areas, even though only 30% of the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

in 2016 were in rural areas6

. For rural fatal crashes in 2016, 70% of drivers involved were on roadways 

where the posted speed limit was 55mph or higher, indicating that speed plays a significant role. 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37% of passenger vehicle occupants 

killed in rural areas in 2016 were in vehicles that rolled over. The steepness of the foreslope is a key 

factor in rollover crashes, further demonstrating the importance of clear zone.

For CLH, the existing clear zone varies due to the foreslopes, objects within the clear zone (trees, parked 

vehicles, etc.). At some locations as noted in this document, substantial parking occurs along the roadway. 

This effectively reduces the available existing clear zone from a reasonable distance to several feet or zero 

in some cases if vehicles are parking right along the edge line. Additionally, during the peak season, and 

increasingly on non-peak days such as weekdays, the parked vehicles are lined up for thousands of feet. 

This means that these are not random point hazards (like a single tree within the clear zone) but rather a 

longitudinal, continuous hazard along the roadway. In the event of an evasive maneuver, a motorist’s 

options are severely reduced when parking occurs along the roadside. At Devils Lake, there is tight 

horizontal curvature and steep grades, both of which are factors that increase the chance for a roadway 

departure (RwD) crash. A RwD crash is any crash that occurs when a vehicle leaves its lane (centerline to 

edge line) and make up the majority of rural crashes. The chances of a motorist leaving the roadway and 

colliding with parked vehicles is increased at Devils Lake.

 

6 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812521 
78 

Furthermore, pedestrians walking along the roadway are walking in the theoretical clear zone that is 

preferred to be reserved for errant vehicles’ use. As traffic and pedestrian use increase, the risks for 

collisions increase. 

d) Guide to Bicycle Facilities

The AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition is the major culmination of recent guidance for 

agencies to develop their bicycle facilities. The guide, in combination with the MUTCD, which sets 

standards for pavement markings and signage, is referenced here to identify possible improvements for 

CLH. 

Nearly all of the bicyclist trips in the CLH corridor can be considered Recreational Trips, per the Guide to 

Bicycle Facilities Table 2-1. Trips will include individuals or small groups as well as large groups and 

official events, as previously described. Most riders will be in the “Experienced and Confident” category 

(pg. 2-5, AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities [GDBF]). The “Casual and Less Confident” riders are 

unlikely to feel comfortable riding on CLH, even with possible improvements such as 4-6’ shoulders. 

According to the Guide, the “purpose of a stand-alone bicycle plan is to identify the projects, policies, and 

programs that are needed in order to fully integrate bicycling as a viable mode of transportation within a 

community. Bicycle plans prepared by a state department of transportation (DOT) are often more focused 

on policy issues, while bicycle plans that are completed by local or regional agencies may focus on 

bicycle network planning, as well as policies and design practices that support bicycling (pg. 2-6, GDBF). 

The Guide goes on state that “A good bicycle plan starts from each community’s current stage—some 

communities may be just beginning (“starting from scratch”) while others may be at a more advanced 

stage. It should address policy, infrastructure, and programming. For a community that is embarking upon 

bicycle planning for the first time, the focus may be on winning support for initial projects that will 

generate significant use or result in visible safety improvements, and help to build momentum for 

subsequent projects.” The CLH corridor likely falls into this category since little planning has been done 

specifically for CLH. Deschutes County has a bicycle master plan in place for the County overall. The 

Guide advocates for a phasing plan as a strategy to improve conditions for bicycling over time since there 

are typically numerous constraints to achieving the desired level of improvement. This plan outlines a 

phasing plan in conjunction with other improvements for the CLH corridor, ranging from short-term to 

long-term projects. There are several factors to consider for development of the phasing plan: 

• Bicycle travel demand

• Route connectivity and directness 

• Crash/conflict analysis or potential for crashes

• Barriers to cycling to and beyond the corridor 

• Ease of implementation

• System integration

The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan states that “Bikeways shall be designed in accordance 

with the current standards and guidelines of the State of Oregon Bicycle Master Plan, American 

Association of State Highway and transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of 

New Bicycle Facilities, and the Deschutes County Bicycle Master Plan” (pg. 95, Deschutes County 

Transportation System Plan). 

The aforementioned Bikeway Design Standards from the DCC 17.48.050 Table B call for a minimum 

shoulder bikeway width of 4’ with a 4’ standard for an open shoulder, 5’ with curb or other barrier present 

and 6’ wide for “high use” locations. 
79 

Major factors to consider when deciding where improvements are needed for a bicycle transportation 

network include:

• User needs

• Traffic volumes, vehicle mix and speeds

• Overcoming barriers

• Connection to land uses

• Directness of route 

• Logical route

• Intersections

• Aesthetics

• Spacing or density of bikeways

• Safety

• Security

• Overall feasibility

• Context sensitive design

These factors affect how many and what types of cyclists will use bikeway facilities.

1) Facility Types

According to the Guide, the types of possible facility types possible for CLH are listed below:

• Shared lanes (with and without wide outside lanes) 

• Marked shared lanes

• Paved shoulders 

• Shared use paths

The considerations for which facility type to use is a culmination of experience with data analysis, 

engineering judgment and budget constraints (pg. 2-16, GDBF). The Guide does not provide “strict rules” 

for when to choose a shared lane versus a marked shared lane, for example. The Guide lists several 

considerations to be used to help determine the selection of an appropriate bikeway facility:

• Road functional classification (arterial, collector, etc.)

• Traffic volume

• Speed

• Traffic mix

• Expected user types

• Road conditions 

• Driveways or access points

• Topography 

• Existing and proposed adjacent land uses

• Cost

Table 2-3 in the Guide outlines general considerations for each facility type. It is acknowledged that a 

single corridor may employ multiple facility types as needed and where appropriate. 

Table 2-3 shows that for shared lanes, with no special provisions such as wider than typical lanes, are best 

used for minor roads with low volumes and traffic volumes generally less than 1,000 vehicles per day. 

Part of the CLH corridor may fall under this guidance but the highest-use area certainly exceeds the 

guidance here, so examining the next categories is important. 
80 

According to the Guide, shared lanes, with wide outside lanes, are best used on major roads where bike 

lanes are not selected due to space constraints or other limitations and are for generally more than 3,000 

vehicles per day. These are typically for urban areas since a wide lane in a rural setting is typically striped 

to have a shoulder. 

For marked shared lanes, the MUTCD recommends that the posted speed limit be 35mph or less, so this 

precludes their use on the CLH corridor since speeds are much higher than 35mph (Section 9C.07, 

MUTCD). 

Table 2-3 describes bikeways on paved shoulders as being typically suitable for rural highway speeds of 

40-55mph with a variable amount of traffic volume. Wider shoulders provide more roadway stability and 

other benefits to motorists. 

Finally, of the bikeway types that may be possible for CLH, Table 2-3 describes shared use paths as being 

best used along greenways in linear corridors or along waterways, freeways, active or abandoned rail 

lines, utility rights-of-way or unused rights-of-way. It may be a short connection between neighborhoods 

or intersections or a longer connection between cities. The intended use provides a separated path for nonmotorized users and can supplement a network of on-road bike lanes, shared lanes, bicycle boulevards 

and paved shoulders. The width of the shared path is an important consideration that depends on its users. 

Finally, a very important consideration for CLH, is that “on-road alternatives may be desired for 

advanced riders who desire a more direct facility that accommodates higher speeds and minimizes 

conflicts with intersection and driveway traffic, pedestrians and young bicyclists” (pg. 2-19). As noted 

elsewhere, the typical cyclists using the CLH corridor are experienced to advanced riders who want to 

ride with as few conflicts as possible. If a path is constructed in the higher congestion areas in the 

corridor, it may become a draw for less experienced cyclists and pedestrians that would not likely mix 

well with expert cyclists. The intermediate to advanced bicyclists that currently use CLH may prefer to 

use an unimproved CLH roadway over a separated multi-use path. 

2) Wayfinding 

Wayfinding for bicyclists can be very important for conveying where the bicyclist-designated routes are 

in a road or highway network. For CLH, wayfinding may not be as important, unless changes to the 

current use are anticipated. Most cyclists have a purpose for riding up to the CLH corridor and know 

where they will be riding in advance of their trip. It is possible that the side-attractions (e.g. trailheads, 

rides around the lakes, resorts) could warrant wayfinding for cyclists as well, but these destinations 

should be thoroughly signed for motorist users as well, which will also be conveyed to cyclists. 

3) Data

There are technical analysis tools available that can help support bicycle planning and infrastructure 

decisions. However, high-quality data is typically a requisite to support these tools. Currently, there are 

no counts of bicycle users for the CLH corridor and traffic data is outdated, especially given the 

aforementioned increase in use throughout the corridor in recent years. Preferably, an agency will have a 

program in place to continually obtain traffic counts over time to gauge how traffic is changing and aid in 

planning future improvements. Beyond traffic counts, data can be collected to “analyze specific travel 

patterns” and monitor “compliance with traffic control devices, use of hand signals and interaction with 

motorists” (pg. 2-22, GDBF). Furthermore, other useful data can be collected to “analyze equipment 

trends such as the wearing of helmets and use of front or rear lights and reflectors” which can aid in 

tailoring education efforts (pg. 2-22, GDBF). Consult the Institute of Transportation of Engineers (ITE) 

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project to review best practices for collecting data. 

Analysis from tools such as the Highway Capacity Manual and Highway Safety Manual is useful for 

planning bicycle facilities. Due to a lack of historical data on CLH, in-depth analysis with these tools may 
81 

not yield confident results. However, related analysis such as Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) can still 

be used to help gauge the effectiveness of improvements during a time of limited data. 

For data-rich agencies, tools such as the Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) can be 

used to develop and analyze crash databases. 

Finally, understanding bicycle travel demand is an important piece of data but difficult to obtain in many 

situations. The Guide’s Chapter 2.6.5 outlines several methods to obtain this data, however, most are 

geared towards an analysis of urban growth expansion and the expected increase in bicycle travel 

demand. In general for CLH, surveys and public engagement may be the best way to gauge how bicyclist 

use may change or increase with possible improvements. 

Crowdsourcing may be another avenue to help identify congestion areas and other areas of concern from 

a safety perspective. FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) innovations include “Use of Crowdsourcing to 

Advance Operations” which can give agencies ideas for ways to improve the flow of publicly available 

data relevant to agency operations.7

4) Bicycle Operation and Safety

Some key characteristics and criteria from Chapter 3 of the Guide will be summarized here.

The design bicycle for CLH, similar to design vehicles in roadway geometry design, is believed to be a 

typical road or mountain bicycle. It is assumed that other types of bicycles, such as recumbent and hand, 

or bicycles with trailers (such as for carrying children), are not to be the prevailing bicycle type expected 

throughout CLH. Some users are on camping trips or staying at the area resorts, so some cyclists will be 

carrying paniers or other equipment attached to their bicycle or with a small trailer. These will increase 

the functional width of the bicyclist with respect to their operating space. According to the Guide, the 

minimum operating space for a typical bicyclist is 48” and the preferred operating space is 60”. The 

“natural side-to-side movement that varies with speed, wind, and bicyclist proficiency” contributes to the 

extra lateral space needed than the physical width (generally 30”). Other situations, such as steep grades, 

may require additional operating width. In general, an additional foot of offset is desired to fixed objects 

such as guardrail or bridge rails. 

According to the Guide, bicyclists are typically considered vehicles in the United States and require that 

the cyclists follow the same rights and duties as a motorist operating a vehicle. Cyclists typically ride as 

far to the right as possible and this appears to be the case for cyclists of CLH based on observations. 

Listed below are the broad categories of bicyclist-motor vehicle crashes according to the Guide. 

Understanding the causes of these crashes can assist with mitigation strategies. According to the Guide, 

“numerous studies of bicycle crashes in the United States conducted over the past 40 years have produced 

very consistent results” (pg. 3-8, GDBF). Many injury crashes that do not involve a motor vehicle are not 

included in state DOT crash databases. Additionally, “studies that examined hospital records have 

demonstrated that the majority (70–90 percent) of bicyclist crashes that are serious enough to warrant a 

trip to the emergency room are not the result of a collision with a motor vehicle” (pg. 3-8, GDBF). 

Instead, most of these crashes “result from falls, crashes with fixes objects, and collisions with other 

bicyclists” (pg. 3-8, GDBF). 

• Urban versus Rural areas – Overtaking or being struck from behind represents a large portion of

crashes on rural highways, more so than in urban areas. Overtaking crashes in rural areas are

often associated with distracted drivers or drivers traveling too fast in areas with limited sight

7 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/crowdsourcing.cfm
82 

distance (around curves or over the crests of hills). Serious and fatal crashes are more likely to 

occur in rural areas (pg. 3-8, GDBF). 

• Youth versus Adult Bicyclists – bicyclists under the age of 15 are overrepresented in bicyclistmotor vehicle crashes. Adults age 25-44 are underrepresented. 

• Bicyclist versus Motorist Error – Cyclists were judged to be solely at fault about 50% of the time 

with failure to yield, riding against traffic and stop sign violations being the most common 

contributing factors. Older cyclists are generally less likely to be responsible for a crash involving 

motorists. 

• Nighttime versus Daytime – there was a relatively high incidence of crashes that occur at night 

and dusk, indicating that poor roadway lighting and a lack of required lighting or reflectorization 

on bicycles are contributing factors. 

Listed below are some common contributing causes of bicyclist-motor vehicle crashes from the Guide

that could apply to CLH. 

• Wrong-way riding – unlikely to occur on CLH but it is possible. Remedies for this behavior 

include education and enforcement primarily. Additional signing can be installed but this is not 

likely warranted, as a well-educated bicyclist should know to ride with traffic. However, 

viewpoints along CLH will certainly lead some cyclists to temporarily cross over to the opposing 

side of the roadway at times. If used on paved shoulders, the bicycle symbol or “Bike Lane” text 

with or without arrows can remind cyclists of the required direction. The arrows associated with 

the marking clue the bicyclist in to the proper location they should be. 

• Crashes at driveways, intersections and turnouts – these three categories are combined since the 

most appropriate treatment for CLH is to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles turning in 

and out of these approaches. If there’s sight distance for vehicles to see other vehicles, then there 

is sight distance to see bicyclists as well. Education can be a strategy to inform both motorists and 

cyclists to watch out for each other when making turns in and out of intersections and turnouts. 

• Motorist striking bicyclist with vehicle door (“dooring”) – this occurs when the driver or 

passengers open doors without checking for approaching bicyclists that are passing the parked 

vehicle. Currently, due to the parking throughout some of the CLH corridor, this is a significant 

potential crash cause. Currently, education is an important countermeasure. For future crosssectional improvements or changes to allowed parking, this is an important consideration. It is 

important to provide official turnouts with sufficient room for vehicles to park away from the 

roadway. 

• Bicyclists struck from behind – From the Guide, “Overtaking crashes in rural areas are often 

associated with distracted drivers, or drivers driving too fast in areas with poor visibility (around 

curves or over the crest of a hill). Serious and fatal crashes are more likely to occur in rural areas” 

(Pg. 3-8, GDBF). While the specific causes vary (limited sight distance, driving too fast for 

conditions, motorist failing to pay attention, motorist operation error, road rage leading to risky 

passing maneuvers, errant bicyclist behavior, etc.), the typical ultimate engineering solution is to 

add paved shoulders or widen the roadway enough to include bike lanes. Other countermeasures 

come in the form of education or engineering with appropriate intermittent and judicious signing 

as well (Share the Road, Bicycle signs, etc., see Signing). 

• Night-time riding – nationwide, about a third of total bicyclist crashes occur between 5:00pm and 

9:00pm and about a third of the fatalities occur between 6:00pm and midnight. While it is 

expected that both bicyclist and motor vehicle use drop off substantially during nighttime hours 

on CLH, some limited use is still likely during these hours. The primary countermeasure is 
83 

education to inform bicyclists about the safety benefits of using adequate reflectors, headlights, 

taillights and reflective clothing and bicycle accessories. Education efforts can also inform the 

motorist to be extra aware of bicycles with low visibility during these hours. In some 

jurisdictions, the use of reflectors on bicyclists is required, and can be enforced through laws and 

ordinances. 

• Bicycle crashes involving children – children under the age of 16 tend to be overrepresented in 

crashes where the bicyclist is deemed at fault. Education and enforcement are the primary 

countermeasures to help reduce crashes involving children bicyclists. If cross-sectional 

improvements to CLH are realized, children bicyclists, or more likely young adult bicyclists, may 

become more prevalent, though the narrow nature of the roadway and high speeds will likely 

deter most families from seeking the road as a riding destination. Again, education through 

welcome station staff, kiosks, websites, social media and Forest/County brochures can help 

portray the realities of CLH. 

5) Design of On-Road Facilities

Chapter 4 of the Guide provides an overview of bikeway designs that “facilitate safe and convenient 

travel for bicyclists on roadways” (pg. 4-1, GDBF). Some of the key considerations for possible bikeway 

improvements to CLH are described here. 

According to the Guide, “to some extent, basic geometric design guidelines for motor vehicles will result 

in a facility that accommodates on-street bicyclist” (pg. 4-1, GDBF). Roadway design elements such as 

stopping sight distance, horizontal and vertical alignment, grades and cross slopes that meet or exceed 

minimum design criteria for motorists will also be adequate for cyclists. Surface condition and pavement 

smoothness are important to a bicyclist’s comfort and control. Chip seals can pose difficulties for 

bicyclists. Using a finer mix and covering with a fog or slurry seal can be an effective strategy, as 

currently employed by Deschutes County. 

Coordination with other agencies is important to maximize the value provided with on-road bicycle 

facilities. Forest Service facilities should plan on bike racks and consider adding fix-it stations at major 

day-use areas. The Forest Service day-use area at Detroit Lake, OR recently completed a project in 2018 

to add facilities including a fix-it station. 

 Shared Lanes

Some of the CLH corridor may remain in its present cross-sectional form for the mid to long-term. Shared 

lanes may be a very appropriate way for motorists and bicyclists to share the road in many situations. 

There are no specific designs or dimensions for shared lanes but various design features can make shared 

lanes more compatible with bicycling and safer for all users. The main features that apply to CLH are 

providing adequate sight distance and good pavement quality. According to the Guide, “roadways that 

carry very low to low volumes of traffic, and may also have traffic typically operating at low speeds, may 

be suitable as shared lanes in their present condition. Rural roadways with good sight distance that carry 

low volumes of traffic and operate at speeds of 55mph or less may also be suitable as shared lanes in their 

present condition” (pg. 4-2, GDBF). For some cyclists, a narrow and curving rural road with low traffic 

volumes can be a preferable route over a high-speed, high-volume highway with good geometrics and 

shoulders. Some of the CLH corridor may be very suitable to remain in its present form in conjunction 

with some other improvements as described elsewhere. 

Lane widths of 13’ or less make it likely that motor vehicles will encroach at least some into the 

oncoming lane to pass a bicyclist with adequate and comfortable clearance (typically 3’). Relatedly, 

Oregon state law requires that motorists give enough distance to bicyclists when passing so that if the 
84 

bicyclists were to fall towards the vehicle, the vehicle would not touch the bicyclist8

. This law applies for 

speeds over 35mph. 

A strategy to promote safe operations of motorists and bicyclists sharing the road can include the use of 

signage. See Signing. 

 Paved Shoulders 

According to the Guide, adding paved shoulders can “greatly improve bicyclists accommodation on 

roadways with higher speeds or traffic volumes, as well as benefit motorists” (pg. 4-7, GDBF). With 

respect to bikeways, there are key differences between bike lanes and paved shoulders. Bike lanes are 

travel lanes while paved shoulders are not. Paved shoulders typically can be used for parking and provide 

a place for disabled vehicles. According to the Guide, paved shoulders should be at least 4’ wide to 

accommodate bicyclists and widths of 5’ are recommended from the face of guardrail, bridge rail or any 

other vertical face (such as curbs). It is “desirable to increase the width of shoulders where higher bicycle 

usage is expected. Additional shoulder width is also desirable if motor vehicle speeds exceed 50mph; if 

use by heavy trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles is considerable; or if static obstructions exist at the 

right side of the roadway” (pg. 4-7, GDBF). The bicycle LOS model may be used to determine the 

appropriate shoulder width. 

The Guide recommends providing paved shoulders on both sides of two-way highways, however, in 

constrained locations where pavement width is limited, it may be preferable to provide a wider shoulder 

on only one side of the highway instead of providing narrow shoulders on both sides. This may be 

beneficial on uphill roadway sections to give slow-moving bicyclists more space to reduce potential 

conflicts with faster moving vehicular traffic. This may also be a strategy on roadway sections with 

vertical or horizontal sight distance concerns. Shoulders, or wider shoulders, could be provided over the 

crest of vertical curves and on the inside of horizontal curves. 

If rumble strips are used in conjunction with shoulder widening on CLH, the remaining clear area outside 

of the rumble strips within the shoulder should be a minimum of 4’. The 5’ clearance to vertical obstacles 

such as guardrail should be maintained as well from the edge of the rumble strip, which would mean a 6’ 

shoulder is needed at these locations. Periodic gaps in rumble strips should be provided so that cyclists 

can avoid debris in the shoulder, pass other cyclists, make left turns, etc. Typically this gap is 12’ and is 

spaced at 40-60’ intervals. Longer gaps should be provided on steep downgrades due to faster-moving 

bicyclists. The Guide also recommends that the rumble strips be 5” wide, 3/8” deep and on 11-12” centerto-center spacings. If centerline rumble strips are used, the Guide recommends that shoulder rumble strips 

only be used where a full-width paved shoulder of 6’ or more is provided, due to concerns that motorists 

may shy away from using the opposing lane for passing cyclists due to the centerline rumble strips. 

The Guide describes situations where retrofitting existing highways for bicycle facilities can be flexible to 

accommodate conditions and factors beyond the scope of the Guide. Where possible, when providing for 

bicyclists, the minimum paved shoulder widths should be used. However, if the preferred widths cannot 

be provided, it is generally preferable in retrofit situations to provide 3-4’ paved shoulder than to provide 

a narrower paved shoulder. For example, if a 14’ lane is available, a retrofit situation may call for a 10-

11’ lane with a 3-4’ paved shoulder. By contrast, providing a 12’ travel lane and 2’ shoulder provides 

limited space to ride. Much of the CLH corridor already has 11’ lanes and at least 1-2’ paved shoulders, 

so the logical next step in a pavement action is to increase the shoulder width to at least 4’, negating this 

retrofit scenario. 

 

8 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.065 
85 

Widening the roadway to add paved shoulders to accommodate cyclists should also be weighed against 

the likelihood that vehicle speeds will increase in conjunction. 

When widening existing pavement, techniques should be considered to locate the joint so that it is not 

placed in the shoulder where bicyclists ride. 

 Shared Use Paths

According to the Guide, shared use paths can serve a variety of purposes and travel modes but should not 

be used to preclude the use of on-road bicycle facilities. Instead, they should complement bikeways on the 

roadway network. Given this, and the lack of existing on-roadway bikeway facilities for CLH as well as 

concerns with maintaining such a path, they will likely be excluded from options considered in this 

document. 

Usable width and clearance for a shared use path are the primary design considerations for shared use 

paths. The appropriate width is dependent on the context, volume and mix of users. Minimum values for 

paved with are typically 10’ for two-way traffic but typically range from 10-14’. The wider values may be 

needed in areas with high use or a wider variety of users. 

Since shared paths are almost always used by pedestrians, they need to meet the requirements of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The grades along some of the CLH corridor would make this 

accommodation challenging in these areas. 

Another challenge with using shared use paths is that they will be constructed on only one side of the 

highway, so getting users to the path may result in more crossings across CLH than were occurring before 

the path was constructed. For this reason as well, sidepaths, which are constructed closer to the roadway 

with some separation (5’ or more is recommended), would present issues with users crossing CLH in 

order to access the sidepath since there would be two-way traffic riding along it. Shared use paths may 

also attract equestrian use or all-terrain vehicles, which is not recommended to be mixed with bicycle 

traffic. Special care is needed at intersections due to the two-way traffic on the shared use path which may 

violate motorist’s expectations. 

2. Geometric Improvements

a) Horizontal Geometry

Several horizontal curves are below the 2011 AASHTO Green Book criteria for a 55mph design speed. 

For a max superelevation rate of 6% or 8%, the Green Book tables give a radius of 1,060’ and 960’, 

respectively. For a 60mph design speed, and max superelevation rate of 6% or 8%, the Green Book tables 

give a radius of 1,330’ and 1,200’, respectively. For an example, the horizontal curve near Devils Lake is 

approximately 401’. Assuming full superelevation exists on the roadway throughout the curve, this 

geometry would meet a 35mph design speed for this curve. A 60mph design speed would be 

recommended for Cascade Lakes Highway overall, but there may need to be exceptions for specific areas 

to avoid impractical impacts. Reducing the design speed to 55mph or 50mph may be acceptable in 

conjunction with other countermeasures. 

Improving (enlarging) substandard horizontal curves is traditionally seen as an improvement to highway 

safety, where motorists (vehicles, motorcycles, trucks) are the primary beneficiary. Crash modification 

factors are available to help gauge the level of improvement to various crash types and users. Some crash 

modification factors are available to gauge the benefits to vehicle-bicycle crashes as well as pedestrians 

(typically more for urban applications). The crash modification factor (CMF) for the current curve near 

Devils Lake is calculated to be approximately 1.53, which indicates a 53% increase in all crash types and 

severities when compared to more average curves. This is based on the CMF in Equation 10-13 from the 

Highway Safety Manual. 
86 

As an example, an improvement to the horizontal curvature can be analyzed with this simple CMF. If an 

offset alignment was a viable option here, the existing 401’ radius curve could be replaced with a new 

alignment containing two horizontal curves, with radii of approximately 1,650’ and 1,450’. This would 

result in CMFs of 1.08 and 1.15 for these curves, respectively, which is a significant reduction from the 

existing CMF. Further, more detailed analysis would be needed to evaluate the difference in the expected 

number of crashes that would occur over the lifetime of the project (typically 20 years). 

Substantial changes to the horizontal alignment throughout the CLH corridor may not be viable due to 

factors such as cost and environmental impacts. Much of the horizontal alignment is near recommended 

values per AASHTO, or exceeds these values. However, for the Devils Lake area, this option should not 

be ruled out as it would help solve several issues with the existing conditions. Furthermore, what is 

traditionally seen as an improvement to one mode of transportation, such as how enlarging a horizontal 

curve radius is shown to improve safety for motorists driving the curve, there are secondary implications 

that must be considered. Improving the horizontal alignment can cause motorist speeds to increase their 

speeds when compared to the existing conditions. In other words, a curvilinear alignment can help serve 

to keep speeds lower, which may be more conducive to bicycle comfort. Another tradeoff, however, is 

that enlarging a curve radius typically increases the horizontal sight distance for motorists, which would 

also serve as a safety benefit to cyclists so that motorists can adequately see them and adjust speed and 

position on the roadway accordingly. 

These tradeoffs need to be considered and weighed. There are no all-encompassing objective tools 

available to weigh these tradeoffs, so engineering judgment is needed. It is likely that improving curve 

radii, increasing horizontal sight distance and increasing the shoulder width significantly outweighs the 

downside of possible increased speeds throughout the corridor. Furthermore, strategies to keep speeds as 

intended can be employed, such as keeping lanes narrower at 11’ rather than 12’ per Green Book criteria. 

b) Vertical Geometry

During the field review, there were some areas where the available stopping sight distance may not meet 

current criteria for a 60mph design speed. Further evaluation would be needed at these locations, but 

overall, there are not major concerns with the existing vertical geometry along CLH with respect to sight 

distance. 

Areas of steep terrain, such as the 7-9% grades near the Green Lakes to Todd Lake segment, would likely 

remain in any major reconstruction project. Some flattening to a more mild grade, such as 7%, may be 

possible in some areas. As discussed elsewhere, the likely preferred countermeasure, rather than flattening 

grades, is to widen the shoulder for bicycle and motorist use in these locations. 

c) Shoulder Width 

As noted previously, much of the corridor currently has 1-2’ paved shoulders. When looking at 

improvements to wider shoulders, research can help gauge the degree of difference with respect to 

predicted crashes. Table 4 shows the CMFs from the Highway Safety Manual for paved shoulder widths:
87 

Shoulder Width CMF

Improvement 

from 1'

(Crash 

Reduction)

Improvement 

from 2'

(Crash 

Reduction)

Existing Shoulder Width 

(1') 1.23 -- --

Existing Shoulder Width 

(2') 1.17 -- --

Widened Shoulder (4') 1.09 11% 7%

Widened Shoulder (5') 1.04 15% 11%

Widened Shoulder (6') 1.00 19% 15%

Widened Shoulder (8') 0.93 24% 21%

Table 4 - Shoulder Width CMFs from the Highway Safety Manual

The existing 1-2’ shoulders increase the chances of crashes by 17-23% over the base conditions, which 

the Highway Safety Manual defines as 6’ paved shoulders. This is why the CMF for the 6’ shoulder is 

1.00. These CMFs apply to all crash types and all severities for vehicular crashes. Shoulder width has a 

more substantial effect on specific crashes that are more attributable to the lack or presence of a shoulder, 

such as single-vehicle run-off-the-road (roadway departure or RwD) and multiple vehicle head-on, 

opposite-direction sideswipe and same-direction sideswipe crashes. These crashes make up approximately 

57.4% of the default distribution of crash types based on the research in the Highway Safety Manual. For 

rural areas, shoulder width is one of the most important geometric characteristics. 

In more advanced analysis, with better availability of data and cost estimates of specific highway 

alternatives, benefit/cost ratios can be calculated to help drive project decisions. Using a 3R spreadsheet 

tool developed by NCHRP Project 15-50, “Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into 

Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (3R) Projects,” this Plan has estimated high level costs in 

order to help compare among geometric and safety-feature alternatives. The costs are not intended to be 

taken as programmatic estimates. Benefit/cost ratios are difficult to calculate for highways that are subject 

to extremely seasonal variations in traffic, such as CLH. Still, the benefit/cost ratios can be compared 

among alternatives to gain insight on the most cost effective options from a safety and economic 

standpoint. Typically, 3R projects are primarily for maintaining existing pavement, but safety 

improvements often can fit in to these types of projects. The widening of shoulders from 1-2’ to 4-6’ may 

be considered more of a reconstruction project (4R), but the analysis from these tools can still apply to 

help determine the best use of dollars to improve safety. 

The effects of lane width and shoulder width with respect to frequency of bicycle crashes has been 

studied but only in urban areas at this time. Some lower-quality studies (meaning the correlation may 

have not been as strong, smaller data sets, etc.) indicate increasing the lane width by 1’ can decrease all 

bicycle crashes (all severities) by 36%, again in urban areas9

. The same study showed a 48% reduction in 

fatal and serious injury crashes by increasing the lane width by 1’10. Another study examined the effects 

of widening shoulders in urban areas on principal arterials. The study abstract states that in general, 

widening lanes, bicycle lanes, medians and shoulder widths resulted in a reduction in crashes up to certain 

limits. For traveled lanes, the limit of effectiveness was 12’ lanes. For lanes wider than 12’, there were 

mixed results for reducing bicycle crashes. Crash rates decrease for wider bicycle lanes up to 6’ but then 

 

9 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=9239 10 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=9242 
88 

increase for bicycle lanes greater than 6’. For shoulder widths, this study created functions for the CMFs, 

shown for various improvements and severities in Table 511: 

CMF Calculated from Existing 

Shoulder Width

CMF Type

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width 1 2

CMF (Total) 4 0.82 0.87

CMF (K, A, B, C) 4 0.82 0.87

CMF (K,A,B) 4 0.83 0.88

CMF (Total) 5 0.76 0.82

CMF (K, A, B, C) 5 0.76 0.82

CMF (K,A,B) 5 0.78 0.83

CMF (Total) 6 0.71 0.76

CMF (K, A, B, C) 6 0.71 0.76

CMF (K,A,B) 6 0.73 0.78

Table 5 - CMFs for Bicycle Crashes for Shoulder Widths on Urban Arterials (Park et al, 2016)

As shown in the table, an improvement from 1’ or 2’ shoulders to 4’, 5’ or 6’ shoulders results in 

reductions of crashes by 18%, 24% and 29%, respectively, for total bicycle-motorist crashes of all 

severities. There is not much of a difference from the total crash CMF by severity when compared to the 

K, A, B, C or K, A, B CMFs since most crashes involving a bicyclist result in an injury (non-Property 

Damage Only). These are substantial improvements for the context in study. The study was on principal 

arterials in urban areas, with speeds ranging from 20-65mph, with 2-8 lanes and an AADT range of 1000 

to 94,500 vehicles per day in Florida. 

Any connections to what could be expected for CLH based on this analysis is speculative but some 

assumptions can be presented. It is unlikely that the CMFs would be this low for a rural, two-lane 

highway like CLH with low to moderate traffic. The crash history indicates that there have been no 

vehicle-bicycle crashes in the time period analyzed (but close calls are cited). Furthermore, it is difficult 

to fully assess what the potential reduction could be without bicycle traffic data. 

As shown in the 3R analysis, Oregon values a K crash (fatality) the same as an A crash (serious injury). 

Adjusted for inflation, the costs associated with these crashes are $974,400 each. Therefore, the 

occurrence of K and A severity crashes greatly impacts the benefit/cost ratio for proposed improvements. 

In other words, an improvement that eliminates several K or A severity crashes over its design life can 

add up quickly on the benefit side, making the cost effectiveness of improvement more positive. 

3. 3R Analysis Results for Ultimate Cross-Sectional Improvements on Existing 

Alignment

The results from the 3R spreadsheet analysis from the NCHRP Project 15-50 are shown for all eight 

sections of the CLH corridor. Some key assumptions are listed below, with a complete list of 

assumptions, input and the raw results in Appendix D. 

 

11 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/study_detail.cfm?stid=476 
89 

• Only the results from Improved Shoulder Width values of 4’, 5’ and 6’ are shown. Shoulder 

widths of 2’ and 3’ do not meet bicycle needs for the corridor. Shoulder widths of 7’ or 8’ are 

assumed to be beyond the scope of ultimate improvements. For reference, the ODOT state 

highway leading to Mt. Bachelor has 6’ shoulders and more traffic than CLH. 

• Higher traffic values are used for Sections 1-6 (ending at Elk Lake). For Sections 7 and 8, the 

lower traffic projections are used due to less use south of Elk Lake. 

• This 3R analysis does not consider the bicycle traffic variable that is a major mode for the 

corridor. The analysis follows Part C of the Highway Safety Manual, which contains a default 

crash distribution. The default crash distribution, based on the research that helped form the 

equations and procedures in the Highway Safety Manual, shows that vehicle-bicycle crashes 

make up 0.2% of the default proportion. For CLH, it can be assumed that this would likely be 

higher in a significant time period. From the available crash data, there have been no known 

vehicle-bicycle crashes to date, however, past crash data does not predict future crashes. With the 

high bicycle use throughout the corridor, it is likely this proportion would be higher. Without 

adequate data, this default distribution should not be altered beyond HSM defaults. The crash 

severity distribution and calibration factor (related to the default safety performance function) 

were also unaltered for this analysis due to a lack of data for the CLH corridor. For reference, the 

ODOT calibration factor for two-lane, rural, undivided highways was 0.74 according to 

information from 2016. This means that for Oregon two-lane rural highways, the research shows 

that these highways experienced 26% less crashes than the national data set used for the Highway 

Safety Manual. This could mean that proposed improvements will have a smaller aggregate effect 

on the reduction of crashes for rural highways, including CLH. However, since CLH would not 

have been part of the research for that calibration factor, its effects are excluded from this study. 

• The alternatives including a 4’ shoulder with shoulder rumble strips were excluded since shoulder 

rumble strips (and likely edge line rumble strips) are not viable for bicyclists using a 4’ paved 

shoulder. To use shoulder rumble strips, a minimum shoulder width of 5’ is assumed. 

• This analysis assumes no modifications to the horizontal or vertical alignment. Typically, 3R 

projects do not deviate from the existing alignment except for minor modifications or 

improvements. Improving the shoulder width from an existing 1-2’ to 5-6’ for example, may push 

the project into a reconstruction category in some views. Regardless of the type of project, the 

analysis here with respect to these improvements is still valid. For any significant offset 

alignment that may be proposed, there would be additional costs beyond the assumed values for 

this 3R analysis. 

• A maintenance action on the existing roadway in conjunction with the improvements is assumed 

to be included (2” mill, 2” inlay), however, the cost for this is excluded from the analysis per the 

NCHRP Report since the analysis is geared towards looking at additional items to include with a 

regular maintenance project. 

• The benefit/cost (B/C) ratios are valid to compare relative to each other within the Sections. 

Using estimated seasonal ADT for this analysis inflates the B/C ratio since there is no traffic for a 

significant portion of the year and the cost for improvements remains the same. 

• The existing 11’ lanes will remain. Improving to 12’ is not as important as improving the 

shoulder widths. Improving shoulder width by an additional foot rather than increasing the lane 

width to 12’ can be shown to be a neutral change with respect to motorist safety, and arguably 

improves the bicyclist safety on the shoulder for a larger overall safety effect. 

• Adding delineators at the roadway edge is included in the “Improve Striping/Delineation” 

improvement. 

• The costs include pavement costs and costs of specific improvements (rumble strips, delineators, 

etc.) as well as incidentals for drainage, erosion control, traffic control signing and pavement 

markings. The Total Cost shown for each option is the construction cost for the entire Section, not 

a per-mile cost. A full list of assumptions are available in Appendix D. 
90 

a) Section 1

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 6: 

Net 

Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/Del

ineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$409,201 0.365 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $234,824 $644,025

-$451,949 0.353 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $247,092 $699,041

-$484,385 0.344 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $253,597 $737,982

-$384,764 0.338 11 4 1V:4H Yes No Yes $196,318 $581,081

-$423,219 0.338 11 5 1V:4H No Yes Yes $215,851 $639,070

-$527,907 0.334 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $265,090 $792,998

-$465,184 0.330 11 6 1V:4H No Yes Yes $228,902 $694,086

-$426,472 0.330 11 5 1V:4H Yes No Yes $209,626 $636,097

-$468,180 0.323 11 6 1V:4H Yes No Yes $222,934 $691,113

-$457,515 0.322 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $217,523 $675,038

Table 6 - Section 1 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:4 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 

The existing sideslopes along Section 1 were assumed to be 1:4. A typical with 1:4 is likely adequate in 

this low-fill section but flattening to 1:6 is desirable if it can fit in the budget. 

b) Section 2

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 7: 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$1,613,811 0.193 11 5 1V:3H Yes Yes Yes $385,689 $1,999,500

-$1,715,764 0.191 11 6 1V:3H Yes Yes Yes $405,838 $2,121,603

-$1,638,270 0.178 11 5 1V:3H No Yes Yes $354,527 $1,992,796

-$1,738,937 0.178 11 6 1V:3H No Yes Yes $375,962 $2,114,899

-$1,744,718 0.173 11 6 1V:3H Yes No Yes $366,159 $2,110,877

-$1,644,473 0.173 11 5 1V:3H Yes No Yes $344,301 $1,988,774

-$1,544,228 0.173 11 4 1V:3H Yes No Yes $322,443 $1,866,672

-$1,986,645 0.171 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $410,099 $2,396,744

-$2,089,606 0.170 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $429,241 $2,518,846

-$2,111,284 0.160 11 6 1V:4H No Yes Yes $400,859 $2,512,143

Table 7 – Section 2 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:3 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 
91 

Flattening to 1:4 slopes is highly desired if the additional ~$400k could be spent. 1:3 slopes are 

traversable but not recoverable. Section 2 contains some high, steep fill slopes, so accommodating 1:4 

slopes may be prohibitive for economic, environmental or slope stability concerns. Instead, guardrail 

could be used for a significant part of this section. A larger fill height value was used in the 3R analysis to 

try to account for some additional costs for walls, special cut requirements and guardrail in the results 

above. 

c) Section 3

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 8: 

Net 

Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$19,568 0.875 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $136,869 $156,437

-$19,721 0.853 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $114,425 $134,146

-$31,444 0.821 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $144,020 $175,464

-$28,586 0.815 11 5 1V:6H No Yes Yes $125,811 $154,397

-$30,991 0.798 11 5 1V:6H Yes No Yes $122,182 $153,173

-$30,172 0.772 11 4 1V:6H No No Yes $101,934 $132,106

-$40,006 0.769 11 6 1V:6H No Yes Yes $133,418 $173,424

-$42,261 0.755 11 6 1V:6H Yes No Yes $129,939 $172,200

-$40,947 0.729 11 5 1V:6H No No Yes $110,186 $151,133

-$51,722 0.696 11 6 1V:6H No No Yes $118,438 $170,160

Table 8 - Section 3 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:6 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 

This section of CLH is relatively straightforward as it is on a tangent with low-fill and generally flat side 

slopes. There is a bridge towards the end of the section with approximately 5’-7” shoulders that may need 

modified to fully accommodate bicyclists. This cost is not reflected in Table 8 but is accounted for in the 

estimate in Overall 3R Analysis Discussion. 

d) Section 4

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 9: 
92 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$1,217,635 0.222 11 5 1V:3H Yes Yes Yes $347,191 $1,564,826

-$1,295,055 0.220 11 6 1V:3H Yes Yes Yes $365,329 $1,660,385

-$1,240,440 0.205 11 5 1V:3H No Yes Yes $319,139 $1,559,580

-$1,316,703 0.204 11 6 1V:3H No Yes Yes $338,436 $1,655,139

-$1,322,380 0.200 11 6 1V:3H Yes No Yes $329,611 $1,651,991

-$1,246,498 0.199 11 5 1V:3H Yes No Yes $309,935 $1,556,432

-$1,170,615 0.199 11 4 1V:3H Yes No Yes $290,258 $1,460,873

-$1,506,548 0.197 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $369,165 $1,875,712

-$1,584,875 0.196 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $386,396 $1,971,271

-$1,605,178 0.184 11 6 1V:4H No Yes Yes $360,847 $1,966,025

Table 9 - Section 4 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:3 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 

Flattening the sideslopes to 1:4 or flatter is also desired if the additional ~$300k could be fit into the 

budget. This section contains a mix of low-fill and high-fill areas as well as through-cut areas. Slope 

flattening could be achieved in the lower-impact areas with solutions such as guardrail in other areas. A 

higher fill value was used in the analysis to account for intricate solutions that may be required. 

e) Section 5

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 10: 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$574,712 0.451 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $472,020 $1,046,732

-$659,903 0.429 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $496,680 $1,156,583

-$524,543 0.429 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $394,618 $919,161

-$601,774 0.419 11 5 1V:6H No Yes Yes $433,883 $1,035,657

-$607,643 0.409 11 5 1V:6H Yes No Yes $421,369 $1,029,012

-$685,391 0.402 11 6 1V:6H No Yes Yes $460,117 $1,145,508

-$690,743 0.393 11 6 1V:6H Yes No Yes $448,119 $1,138,863

-$556,545 0.387 11 4 1V:6H No No Yes $351,541 $908,086

-$637,938 0.373 11 5 1V:6H No No Yes $379,999 $1,017,936

-$719,331 0.362 11 6 1V:6H No No Yes $408,457 $1,127,787

Table 10 - Section 5 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:6 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 
93 

f) Section 6

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 11: 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$191,895 0.681 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $409,761 $601,656

-$218,205 0.670 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $442,519 $660,724

-$142,722 0.669 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes No $289,072 $431,794

-$126,757 0.660 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes No $245,969 $372,726

-$225,413 0.657 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $431,168 $656,581

-$171,259 0.648 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes No $315,461 $486,720

-$253,075 0.646 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $462,574 $715,649

-$153,515 0.641 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes No $274,137 $427,651

-$195,302 0.637 11 4 1V:4H Yes No Yes $342,568 $537,870

-$217,368 0.636 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $379,570 $596,938

Table 11 - Section 6 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:4 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 

This is a windy section along Elk Lake that had a higher crash rate, making the improvements more 

effective (higher B/C ratios). Improving the slopes to 1:6 is desired if the additional ~$60k could be 

afforded. 

g) Section 7 

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 12: 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

-$2,363,993 0.443 11 5 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $1,878,508 $4,242,501

-$2,070,569 0.432 11 4 1V:4H Yes No Yes $1,574,361 $3,644,930

-$2,752,963 0.426 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $2,042,916 $4,795,879

-$2,440,329 0.419 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $1,757,979 $4,198,308

-$2,801,615 0.411 11 6 1V:4H Yes Yes Yes $1,955,450 $4,757,066

-$2,478,272 0.409 11 5 1V:4H No Yes Yes $1,712,350 $4,190,622

-$2,501,668 0.399 11 5 1V:4H Yes No Yes $1,657,826 $4,159,494

-$3,195,444 0.398 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $2,114,999 $5,310,443

-$2,856,747 0.398 11 5 1V:6H No Yes Yes $1,887,253 $4,744,000

-$2,876,699 0.390 11 5 1V:6H Yes No Yes $1,836,173 $4,712,872

Table 12 - Section 7 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 5’ shoulders, 1:4 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline and 

shoulder rumble strips and high-visibility/durable pavement markings had the highest B/C ratio. 
94 

This is a relatively mild section of alignment. Improving the slopes to 1:6 is desired if the additional 

~$60k could be afforded. 

h) Section 8

The top 10 combinations are shown in Table 13: 

Net Benefit

B/C 

Ratio

Improved 

Lane 

Width 

(ft)

Improved 

Shoulder 

Width (ft)

Improved 

Slope

Install 

Centerline 

Rumble 

Strip

Install 

Shoulder 

Rumble 

Strip

Improve 

Striping/

Delineation

Total 

Benefit Total Cost

$91,481 4.531 11 4 1V:6H Yes No No $117,391 $25,910

-$36,177 0.939 11 4 1V:6H Yes No Yes $558,783 $594,959

-$99,484 0.825 11 4 1V:6H No No Yes $469,565 $569,049

-$1,401,010 0.335 11 5 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $705,008 $2,106,018

-$1,621,011 0.314 11 6 1V:6H Yes Yes Yes $741,999 $2,363,011

-$1,454,983 0.301 11 5 1V:6H No Yes Yes $625,124 $2,080,107

-$1,465,651 0.290 11 5 1V:6H Yes No Yes $598,910 $2,064,561

-$1,672,624 0.284 11 6 1V:6H No Yes Yes $664,477 $2,337,100

-$1,682,516 0.275 11 6 1V:6H Yes No Yes $639,038 $2,321,554

-$1,526,396 0.251 11 5 1V:6H No No Yes $512,254 $2,038,650

Table 13 - Section 9 3R Analysis Results (Top-10)

It can be seen that the 4’ shoulders, 1:6 slopes (no improvement over existing), with centerline rumble 

strips only had the highest B/C ratio. 

The shoulders would have to be widened to 5-6’ to be able to use shoulder rumble strips. Increasing the 

shoulder width and using both rumble strip countermeasures and the improved striping/delineation 

countermeasures greatly increases the Total Benefit but are not nearly as cost effective as the top three 

options that do not widen the shoulder from the 4’ width. Since traffic should be the lowest on this 

section, including bicycle traffic, further widening the shoulders is not likely practical. 

4. Overall 3R Analysis Discussion

The results from this analysis show no or slightly diminishing returns with shoulder widths greater than 

5’. Improving shoulder widths to 6’ or more slightly lowers the B/C ratio for each additional foot in 

shoulder width. Therefore, with respect to this specific analysis, a 5’ shoulder width is the best option, in 

conjunction with several other improvements (rumble strips and improved striping/delineation) for 

Sections 1-7. Section 8, with existing 4’ shoulders, is the exception due to already having wider 

shoulders. Widening the shoulders on Section 8 by 1-2’ isn’t likely a practical option. As discussed 

above, vehicular and bicycle traffic is likely much lower on this section than other sections farther north 

and is less of a priority. 

Again, the inherent improvements to vehicle-bicycle conflicts with a 4-6’ shoulder are not fully captured 

in this 3R analysis. See Shoulder Width for more discussion. Additionally, the operational and “level of 

stress” effects of a 4’, 5’ and 6’ shoulder for bicyclists is not taken into account with this analysis. These 

are important considerations that are difficult to objectify. 

Table 14 shows the overall 3R cost estimate with the highest benefit/cost improvements for each section, 

in 2018 dollars. The totals assume a 4’, 5’ or 6’ shoulder for the entire CLH corridor, which is not likely 

preferred. See Recommendations for the possible specific improvement options. 
95 

 

Table 14 - Overall 3R Cost Estimate

5. Other Specific Countermeasures

This section will present several safety countermeasures that could apply at any stage of improvements to 

the corridor. 

a) Signing 

The following sections outline several signing improvements that should be considered throughout the 

corridor. Regular maintenance of damaged signs is strongly encouraged, along with maintenance of snow 

poles to help avoid damage in plowing season. 

Section

Highest B/C for 

4' Shoulders

Highest B/C for 

5' Shoulders

Highest B/C for 

6' Shoulders

1 $580,000 $640,000 $700,000

2 $1,870,000 $2,000,000 $2,120,000

3 $130,000 $160,000 $180,000

4 $1,460,000 $1,560,000 $1,660,000

5 $920,000 $1,050,000 $1,160,000

6 $540,000 $600,000 $660,000

7 $3,640,000 $4,240,000 $4,760,000

8 $26,000 $2,110,000 $2,360,000

Total $9,166,000 $12,360,000 $13,600,000

Structure Adjustments 

(Bridge, several culverts, 8%) $730,000 $990,000 $1,090,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) $90,000 N/A N/A

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $460,000 $620,000 $680,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $1,830,000 $2,470,000 $2,720,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $1,370,000 $1,850,000 $2,040,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $460,000 $620,000 $680,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $1,370,000 $1,850,000 $2,040,000

Contingency (20%) $1,830,000 $2,470,000 $2,720,000

Grand Total = $17,306,000 $23,230,000 $25,570,000

Overall 3R Cost Estimate
96 

1) Curve Warning Signing 

Additional horizontal curve warning signing is recommended for the curves meeting the provisions of 

Section 2C.06 in the MUTCD. A review of the existing advisory speeds is also recommended as some of 

the 50-mph plaques may be high for the radius of horizontal curve present. 

2) Intersection Warning Signing

As mentioned in some of the site-specific recommendations, intersection warning signage is 

recommended for the major intersections in the CLH corridor. Supplemental plaques may be desired to 

complement guide signing, recommend speeds or display the distance to the intersection. 

Figure 64 - MUTCD W2-1 Intersection Warning Sign

3) Bicyclist Signing 

Traditional warning signing for bicyclists is recommended at strategic locations, such as the beginning of 

the study area and end of the study area, with intermittent signs near major intersections, etc. The W11-

1/W16-1P assembly could be used at these locations to remind motorists and bicyclists to share the road. 

Innovative signing solutions may be installed as well or instead of traditional signs, especially to improve 

bicyclist safety at key locations. Bicyclist-actuated or bicyclist-detecting flashing beacons or other digital 

signs could be used to alert motorists to expect bicyclists in the roadway in areas of limited sight distance 

or as a general warning for the next XX miles. Permanently-flashing beacons, in conjunction with bicycle 

warning signs, could also be used to alert motorists to expect bicyclists on the roadway. The effectiveness 

Figure 65 - MUTCD W11-1/W16-1P Assembly
97 

of permanent flashing signs is questionable. Signs that activate specifically when a bicyclist activates it or 

passes by (with auto detection) yield better compliance rates by motorist. However, these types of signs 

would be limited due to their expense and desire to maintain effectiveness. For example, they could not

likely be used for every situation where there is not adequate sight distance around curves in the CLH 

corridor, as there are numerous locations. 

The Coordinated Technology Implementation Program (CTIP) is currently funding an experimental 

dynamic warning system to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists. The system combines a bicycle 

counter with a dynamic warning sign that flashes for a set amount of time while the bicyclists traverse a 

specific hazard area, depending on the site. This type of sign system could be used as an overall corridor 

message as well as specific areas of concern, such as locations of limited sight distance, tight horizontal 

geometry, steep grades, etc. 

Figure 66 - Dynamic Warning System for Bicyclist Safety

Two sign systems have been installed within the Colorado National Monument area. Initial, unofficial 

results indicate that the signs are working as intended for both warning motorists and counting bicyclists. 

An information webinar and final report will be published in the near future. 
98 

ODOT plans to install a similar system, using the same bicycle counter vendor, on OR-242 on McKenzie 

Pass in June, 2019. However, ODOT plans to opt for flashing beacons rather than an in-sign LED lighting 

system, which the CTIP project is using. 

Preliminarily, the team believes that an entry-to-the-corridor type sign could be used on each end. One 

near the beginning of the project study area, and another, likely on the north leg of the S. Century Drive 

intersection for motorists headed north. This southern sign location can be verified after obtaining traffic 

data for the corridor to determine if there is a need near the Klamath County line or not. Or, if the 

predominant bicyclist movement is from north to south (from Bend) along the Century Drive loop, the 

south entry sign may not be as necessary. This sign can warn motorists of the overall presence of 

bicyclists over the next XX miles and can be actuated when bicyclists ride over the loops. A selected 

assumed riding speed can be used to set the flashing time to take into account the time needed for a 

bicyclist to reach the end of the study area. The main limits for this sign should be the beginning through 

S. Century Drive (30 miles), since this is the portion of the corridor that does not have 4’ paved shoulders 

where bicycles can ride. Therefore, the entry sign can use the W11-2 bicycle warning sign and beacons 

with a supplemental plaque that reads: 

IN ROADWAY

NEXT 30 MILES

The sign would likely flash for much of the busier summer days with higher use of bicyclists repeatedly 

activating the sign. 

For specific areas of sight distance concerns, the same W11-2/beacons sign can be used with a 

supplemental plaque that reads:

IN ROADWAY

NEXT XX MILES

The miles to list in the supplemental plaque will depend on the location of each sign. For example, these 

signs could be placed at the beginning and end of Section 2 to cover each direction. 
99 

Figure 67 - Example of Dynamic Warning Sign Locations

This is approximately 2.3 miles in length, so the plaque could read NEXT 2 1⁄2 MILES. The flashing time 

would depend on a design value for bicycle riding speed and would depend on grades, which may vary 

for each direction. If the design riding speed is 20 mph for example, then the beacons would need to flash 

for 7.5 minutes (using 2.5 miles divided by 20 mph). Each subsequent rider in that time period would 

restart the 7.5 minutes. When there are no riders, the beacons no longer flash and the signs are less 

prominent to motorists. 

This is an experimental traffic control device and, like any traffic control device, should not be overused, 

even with the dynamic flashing feature. These signs should be reserved for where there are specific safety 

deficiencies such as limited horizontal sight distance where the distance does not meet 60 mph AASHTO 

criteria. Determining all of these areas is beyond the scope of this report and can instead be performed in 

preparation for a signing project. It is believed that several nearby areas should be grouped together, such 

as the above example in Section 2, where it is believed that there are several horizontal curves with 

obstructions that limit sight distance below AASHTO criteria. Again, the collection of bicycle and traffic 

data can help determine the highest need for these warning signs. The use of these intermittent signs in 

the corridor, flashing when bicycles actuate them, can help validate driver’s expectations and provide 

frequent reminders to watch out for bicyclists when they are actually present up ahead. 

For initial cost estimates of this improvement option, see Appendix E. If selected for using on CLH, the 

County and/or Forest should raise public awareness about the signs and post an informational flier on 

websites, educational material, etc. 

The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan states that segments with flashing warning beacons announcing 

the presence of bicyclists may, depending on judgment, reduce the LTS by one, but no less than LTS 2. 

For special occasions of high bicycle use or on higher-use days (such as weekends), or in lieu of the 

above options, portable changeable message signs could be used instead of permanent bicyclist-related 

signing. An example message could be: 
100 

Phase 1: EXPECT

BIKES

ON HWY

Phase 2: NEXT

30 MILES

 Summer, 2019 Update: 

Via the FLAP funding for this planning project, WFLHD procured two of the dynamic warning signs and 

counter systems (for counting both vehicles and bicyclists) for Deschutes County. The systems arrived in 

late summer, not in time for County forces to install before CLH was closed for the winter. The systems 

will be installed in spring, 2020 and will begin continuous data collection as well as provide the dynamic 

warning to motorists. See Appendix F – Dynamic Warning Sign Recommendation Memorandum for 

more information on the locations for installation and other details. 

4) Pedestrian Signing 

At locations where pedestrians may be walking along the roadway or crossing the roadway, pedestrian 

signing may be considered. 

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are effective for gaining compliance from motorists for 

pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled (non-signalized) areas. Typically, they are utilized in urban areas 

where speeds are lower (up to 35-40mph). If a need to further improve the safety of pedestrian crossings 

remains at Devils Lake and Green Lakes after the Wilderness Area strategies are in effect, RRFBs may be 

a good option here if pedestrians can be channeled to a specific crossing location. However, lowering the 

regulatory speed limit must be considered in conjunction with this installation. Lower motorist speeds 

will help improve safety in this location as well. Several studies have examined the effect of speed on 

crashes involving pedestrians with respect to severe injuries and fatalities:

“Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle 

reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 

mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an 

impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 

mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or 

death for a 70-year-old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the 

risk for a 30-year-old pedestrian struck at 35 mph.”12

As can be seen, lower speeds will greatly improve pedestrians’ chances of survival. Limited areas 

of reduced speed limits may need increased enforcement presence in order to be effective. 

Besides Devils Lake and Green Lakes, in their current use pattern prior to Wilderness Area changes, there 

are not known pedestrian safety concerns in the CLH corridor. Pedestrians are generally limited to turnout 

areas, resorts and day-use parking lots and trails. Pedestrian safety concerns within day-use area access 

roads were not investigated in this study. 

As understood by the team, the considerations for pedestrian safety would apply to equestrian use; there 

are no other known concerns with equestrian crossings in the corridor. 

 

12 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/library/details.cfm?id=4714 
101 

5) Delineators

Roadway delineators can be an effective countermeasure to reduce roadway departure crashes, especially 

at night. If shoulder rumble strips can be installed with shoulder widening projects, the effect delineators 

have on reducing crashes is likely reduced since the rumble strips will also help motorists to correct 

before leaving the roadway. Before shoulder widening projects can occur, delineators are recommended if 

county maintenance is in agreement, since snow plow operations will likely damage many delineators 

each year. Delineators can provide positive guidance to motorists, especially throughout horizontal 

curves. 

6) Guide Signing

As discussed throughout, all destinations throughout the corridor should be evaluated and signing 

improvements made to improve wayfinding and increase legibility which can have a positive effect on 

highway safety. For major destinations (e.g. Devils Lake, Elk Lake, S. Century Drive, etc.), additional 

advance signing is recommended prior to the destination (e.g. Elk Lake 1000 FT ). Signs at the turn to 

the destination should be evaluated for legibility with increases in font size where needed to improve 

readability in advance of the turn. Reducing the occurrences of motorists slowing down to read small 

signs or missing turns and having to turn around can reduce chances of crashes. 

As discussed later in Todd Lake Intersection, decision sight distance (DSD) is recommended to be the 

criteria used for placing advance guide signs ahead of destinations. A consistent distance throughout the 

corridor is recommended. 

7) Regulatory Signing 

It is recommended that Speed or Speed Limit regulatory signs be installed at key areas throughout the 

corridor, such as near major destinations. 

One strategy to improve future safety performance is to evaluate the use of reduced speed limits in key 

locations, such as near Devils Lake (see Site-Specific Recommendations). However, further engineering 

study is recommended, as the arbitrary lowering of posted speed limits may not achieve the desired effect 

of lowering speeds, as motorists typically drive the speed they feel comfortable with. If engineering study 

(possibly including the collection of speed data) supports lower speed limits, enforcement is often 

necessary. 

8) Other Signing

Some signs, such as near S. Century Drive, are cluttered and difficult to read. With improvements to 

guide signing, this sign could be simplified to include the most relevant information and made larger. 

Other information could be given for the CLH corridor in a kiosk located in a turnout near this location. 

The kiosk could contain information for attractions in the area and notices regarding bicycle use in the 

corridor to educate motorist on safety. The Forest welcome center may be adequate for this kind of 

information on the other end of CLH, but another similar kiosk could be considered near the study begin 

as well. 

b) Striping

The use of 6-inch edge lines has been shown to be an effective low-cost safety countermeasure to reduce 

roadway departure crashes. Widening from a 4-inch edge line to a 6-inch edge line has even been shown 

to reduce day-time KABC crashes in rural areas by 41.5%.13 For all crash types and all severities, rural 

crashes were reduced by 12.5%.14 

 

13 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=4741 14 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=4736 
102 

With widened shoulders, this may further reduce the vehicle-bicycle potential for conflict as the wider 

stripe more strongly delineates the separation. In urban areas with bicycle lanes, wider stripes are used for 

this reason. 

In the interim, prior to any geometric improvements, 6-inch edge lines are recommended as a new 

standard for Deschutes County and the Forest on annual restriping projects. 

c) Rumble Strips (Traditional and Low-Noise)

1) Centerline Rumble Strips

As shown in the 3R analysis, centerline rumble strips are cost effective, high benefit/cost ratio 

countermeasures to improve safety. Centerline rumble strips may have helped prevent some of the crashes 

from occurring in the available crash history, as they are an important countermeasure to reduce roadway 

departure crashes. Centerline rumble strips are well-studied with generally very positive crash 

modification factors. 

Traditional rumble strips, typically milled-in, are a proven safety countermeasure. In some locations, 

there are concerns regarding the amount of ambient noise that can disturb residences, campers, wildlife 

and other users of recreational areas near a highway. Recently, several new designs have been in 

experimentation to help reduce the ambient noise while still providing adequate noise and vibration 

within the vehicle to obtain the safety effect. These are sometimes called “mumble strips” and the 

indentions in the pavement are sinusoidal in form rather than the typical rectangular shape. The California 

Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Oregon Department of Transportation and Washington 

Department of Transportation have all completed pilot projects or are using these new designs in sensitive 

areas with pilot policies. These designs can be used to alleviate concern with additional noise in the CLH 

corridor. Consult with WFLHD or these agencies directly to obtain the latest details.

An additional factor to consider is how centerline rumble strips may affect the safety of bicyclists when 

motorists are approaching from behind. If centerline rumble strips were installed on CLH prior to any 

shoulder widening, motorists would still need to move over to adequately pass bicyclists, and would cross 

over the centerline rumble strip. This noise can alert the bicyclist(s) ahead that a vehicle is approaching 

from behind and improve their awareness to their position within the roadway, possibly moving as far to 

the right as possible to avoid potential conflict. This may have a positive effect on vehicle-bicycle 

crashes. On the other hand, with the moderate to high use of bicyclists throughout the CLH corridor, 

passing vehicles would create noise each time they passed the bicyclists and could be detrimental to the 

experience in the corridor. Again, the newer designs for rumble strips have been shown to partially 

alleviate this. 

If the shoulders are widened to 4’ or more, this effect will likely be lessened, as motorists may not always 

move over to the opposing lane to pass bicyclists, as there will be more separation built in to the typical 

roadway section. 

2) Shoulder or Edge-Line Rumble Strips 

Shoulder rumble strips, placed just outside the edge line pavement markings, or edge line rumble strips, 

which are constructed at the edge line location followed by the pavement marking application, are also 

both cost effective, high benefit/cost ratio countermeasures to improve safety. 

Shoulder rumble strips were not included in the 3R analysis for any 4’ shoulder options since bicyclists 

need at least 4’ of operating width and the rumble strip reduces the available width on the shoulder. 

Shoulder rumble strips could be used on shoulders 5’ and greater. 

Edge line rumble strips could possibly be used with 4’ shoulders if 4’ of shoulder width remained for the 

bicyclist, but more evaluation is needed. One additional benefit of edge-line rumble strips is that the 
103 

pavement markings can better reflect light from the backside of the rumble strip. Additionally, edge line 

rumble strips can increase the durability and retroreflectivity of the pavement markings.15

For both types of rumble strips, the durability of the pavement is not in jeopardy as long as the pavement 

is in fair to good condition prior to the installation. Since CLH is generally plowed just once per year at 

the opening of the highway, rumble strips should not affect plowing performance. 

d) SafetyEdgeSM

A SafetyEdgeSM treatment at the edge of roadway has been shown to be a significant benefit to vehicular 

traffic attempting to return to the roadway. For bicyclists, the Safety EdgeSM has been shown to help them 

recover back to the roadway as well16. The SafetyEdgeSM treatment is considered standard practice for 

most agencies and is a recommended countermeasure for the CLH corridor in conjunction with applicable 

pavement actions. 

e) Vegetation Clearing

As discussed in the Existing Conditions, there are numerous areas of limited sight distance along 

horizontal curves and at several intersections due to trees and other vegetation obstructing the view. 

Vegetation removal to the original cleared areas is necessary to improve sight lines. Additional clearing 

within the County right-of-way along horizontal curves is strongly recommended to meet AASHTO 

criteria for stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance where possible. 

Several areas were noted in the field review that were observed to have limited sight distance but further 

review is needed in the field to determine exact areas where there are deficiencies. A removal of 

additional trees to the clear zone limits can have a significant improvement on reducing crash severity as 

well. Additionally, vegetation clearing can improve the visibility of animals to motorists, which can 

provide more reaction time for motorists to slow down in advance of a potential animal collision. No 

objective data is known to quantify the effects of clearing vegetation in order to calculate a crash 

modification factor. It is believed that vegetation and tree removal, to improve sight distance, ensure signs 

are not blocked, reduce animal crashes and reduce crash severity with fixed objects (trees) within the 

clear zone, would result in a very high benefit/cost ratio. 

f) Enforcement and Emergency Management 

Regular enforcement of speeding, reckless driving and other violations is an important aspect of highway 

safety.

In 2016, speeding was a factor in 27% of nationwide rural traffic fatalities overall. Forty-six percent of 

the speeding-related fatalities in rural areas occurred on the weekend, likely when traffic is higher. 

Focusing enforcement activities on weekends may be the best use of resources. As noted in Speeds, 

anecdotal evidence suggests there is regular speeding occurring in the corridor, especially on the long 

tangent sections. 

For fatalities involving alcohol-impaired driving, nationwide, the total number has decreased from 2007 

to 2016 by 20% overall, including by 31% in rural areas. Nevertheless, in 2016, there were 5,093 alcoholimpaired driving fatalities that occurred in rural areas, 49% of the total alcohol-impaired driving fatalities. 

It is unknown if the CLH corridor experiences frequent drinking drivers relative to other rural and urban 

areas closer to residential areas and cities. Some alcohol use is expected at the resort, camping and dayuse areas throughout the corridor. Without alcohol establishments such as bars and restaurants, the rate of 

 

15 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/t504039/ 16 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/brochure/ 
104 

drinking drivers may be less than other routes in Deschutes County and surrounding areas. The overall 

enforcement presence can help reduce drinking drivers throughout the corridor. 

Restraint use has reached a rate of 89.5% in rural areas in 2016 according to NHTSA. For traffic 

fatalities, however, 49% of passenger vehicle occupants killed in rural areas were unrestrained. Sixty-two 

percent of rural pickup truck occupants killed were unrestrained, the highest percentage of any passenger 

vehicle occupants killed among both rural and urban areas. 

In 2016, 67% of drivers killed in rural areas died at the scene, compared to 50% in urban areas. Of the 

40% of all drivers killed that were transported to hospitals, 1% died en route. Of the 1% who died in 

route, 62% of these were drivers in rural areas. This indicates that the more remote and rural areas have 

longer response times by emergency management services. The CLH corridor is semi-remote relative to 

other recreational lands. It is recommended that Deschutes County and Deschutes National Forest 

regularly review and maintain their emergency management plans to best serve crashes that occur 

throughout the CLH corridor.17 Through education, buckle-up campaigns can be undertaken to remind 

motorists of the importance of restraint use. 

g) Education 

The ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides strategies for educating travelers “on the rules of the 

road to promote understanding of legal rights and responsibilities and how all modes and users can safely 

and courteously interact with each other” (pg. 31, OBPP). The strategies that may be applicable to CLH 

are listed below: 

• Provide education and outreach on rules of the road and personal responsibility in using the 

system to all road users. Identify existing materials or develop new materials as needed to address 

targeted audiences and seek creative distribution methods and partnerships to disseminate 

information to users.

• Educate motorists on the risks of distracted driving, impaired driving, and speeding to bicyclists 

and pedestrians.

• Educate pedestrians and bicyclists on the risks of distractions, such as texting, while walking or 

biking.

• Identify and share educational materials and other best practices that support safe behaviors for 

bicyclists and pedestrians and their interaction with other modes. Deliver materials through 

traditional networks such as the Transportation Options programs and others, and seek innovative 

new partnerships and mechanisms for delivery of materials to target audiences.

• Provide information on how to safely bike or walk when new technologies are deployed or 

innovations constructed, such as how to use rapid flashing beacons, and how other modes should 

interact with such technologies, including connected and automated vehicles. 

• Identify and share best practices to encourage and provide sufficient secure and convenient 

bicycle parking at key destinations.

• Enhance personal security through implementation of well-lit areas, maintained vegetation, 

adequate opportunities to leave the facility, and other mechanisms to enhance visibility of 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities from the roadway and nearby land uses.

• Communicate need for enforcement of laws as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle safety and 

security.

• Educate and train law enforcement on risks of motor vehicle crashes to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Other general highway safety education messages such as buckle up campaigns, distracted driving 

awareness and drunk driving should be included. 

 

17 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812521
105 

The mechanisms for outreach of educational materials could include Deschutes County and Deschutes 

National Forest websites, social media, visitor centers, kiosks in the corridor and portable changeable 

message signs at key locations in the corridor. 

h) Other Strategies

The highway is closed in the winter, generally from November 1 to May 15. The team discussed possible 

strategies to open the highway to bicycle traffic (possibly races or similar events) prior to vehicular traffic 

to give cyclists more vehicle-free opportunities. 

As is discussed throughout different sections of this document, a County ban on parking along CLH at 

undesignated areas is an option but may be difficult to pass an ordinance and would severely limit the 

amount of visitors that can use these areas based on the current parking lot sizes. Expansion of one or 

several Forest Service parking lots is also an option but may be difficult to achieve due to environmental 

and financial constraints as well as possible Wilderness Strategies. Finally, an expansion of one or several 

parking lots may not necessarily solve this parking problem, as there is a popular opinion that they cannot 

ever be big enough for all the desired use at some locations. 

6. Site-Specific Recommendations

Three areas of site-specific recommendations are presented below. Other, more minor site-specific 

recommendations are presented in Recommendations. 

Some of the recommendations presented are based on discussions the team had during the September, 

2018 site visit. Since then, the changes resulting from Forest Wilderness Strategies may greatly affect the 

need for these recommendations. Therefore, options will be presented based on how the Wilderness 

Strategies affect the use at these sites. See Section C of the Planning Document for more discussion on 

Wilderness Strategies. 

a) Todd Lake Intersection

The Todd Lake intersection is near the end of a horizontal curve to the west. Figure 23 and Figure 24

show the reduced intersection sight distance due to vegetation and trees growing along the roadside. 

Removing these trees and vegetation to establish clear sight triangles is recommended. There is no official 

speed data at this time for CLH, but based on anecdotal evidence from LEOs, using a design speed of 

60mph is recommended rather than the 55mph basic rule speed. Chapter 9.5 in the Green Book gives 

criteria for intersection sight distance for various scenarios. For the Todd Lake intersection, Case B1 is 

the controlling case for vehicles making turns out of either approach road. Table 9-5 gives time gap 

values used to calculate the recommended intersection sight distance (ISD). The traffic mix along CLH is 

generally passenger cars (and pickup trucks) but there are significant amounts of vehicles pulling trailers 

especially at some locations like the equestrian area on the south approach of the Todd Lake intersection. 

Vehicles pulling trailers require more time to pull out of the approach and into their respective lane along 

mainline. Due to a high use of vehicles pulling trailers at this intersection, the “Single-unit truck” time 

gap value of 9.5 seconds is used to approximate this effect. The calculation from equation 9-1 gives an 

ISD of 838’, rounded to 840’ for design. Figure 66 shows the existing ISD to the west in red and the 

theoretical ISD in green (840’). 
106 

Figure 68- Todd Lake ISD Improvements
107 

It can be seen that substantial clearing would be needed to the west of the intersection. Some of this 

clearing would need to occur outside of the assumed 50’ easement from centerline of CLH. If this is not 

possible, it is recommended to clear as much as possible to improve ISD to the maximum extent practical. 

Adding warning signs as noted below is recommended in either case. 

While traffic studies along CLH and at the intersections would help identify major intersections relative 

to the corridor, it is believed anecdotally that Todd Lake is a high-use intersection. It is recommended that 

W2-1 signs be added in advance of the intersection from both directions. 

Figure 69 - MUTCD W2-1 

For guide (destination) signs, some upgrades are recommended in order to give better notice of 

destinations throughout the CLH corridor. For Todd Lake, installing a guide sign in advance of the 

intersection for both approaches is recommended, with the Day Use Area and Todd Horse Camp 

destinations included on the signs. At the intersection itself, the aesthetic “Todd Lake Day Use Area” sign 

appears adequate to note the intersection point for the day use area. A symbol guide sign with a 

directional arrow could be considered for the south approach to note the equestrian area accessed through 

this approach road. 

Figure 70 - MUTCD RS-064

Currently, there is an existing guide sign noting the Todd Horse Camp which may be small for expected 

speeds along CLH (no letter height measurements available). 
108 

Figure 71 - Existing Todd Horse Camp Sign

The concept of decision sight distance (DSD) should be considered for placement of advanced guide 

signs to better alert motorists of upcoming destinations and to prepare for their turning maneuver. The 

AASHTO Green Book Chapter 3.2.3 describes the decision sight distance concept. Due to some of the 

intersections that access recreational areas throughout the CLH corridor being somewhat hidden from 

view (e.g. Green Lakes access), these advanced traffic control devices can help advise motorists in 

advance and may have a positive effect on safety and general wayfinding. For a 60mph design speed, the 

recommended DSD from Table 3-3 is likely between 610’ – 990’ since a turn to an approach road does 

not usually require a stop (Avoidance Maneuver A in Table 3-3) and would be closer to Avoidance 

Maneuver C (a speed/path/direction change on a rural road). Site-specific conditions should be considered 

and where feasible, a uniform distance should be considered for these advanced guide signs throughout 

the corridor (i.e. 800’ or 1000’). Simple and consistent messages are prudent uses of traffic control 

devices and best meet the intentions of the MUTCD. 

Finally, updated traffic counts and turning movements can help establish whether or not turn lanes (left 

and/or right-turn lane(s)) are recommended for the intersection in medium-term improvements. 

For the Todd Lake Day Use Area parking lot, some minor modifications could be examined to identify 

any efficiencies that can be gained within the parking lot limits. Improvements to the Forest Service roads 

that access the Todd Lake Day Use Area parking lot, and beyond to other hiking areas (Broken Top 370 

Rd), are likely beyond the scope of potential CLH improvements. 

In the case that the Wilderness Strategies do not reduce demand or are not enacted for whatever reason, 

other solutions may be practical to reduce congestion and prevent traffic jams along the roads at and 

beyond Todd Lake, using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) or related systems. A vehicle counting 

and detection system could be installed to monitor entry traffic to the Day Use Area and display on a sign 
109 

when the capacity for parking in the area has been reached. This real-time information could be available 

at a kiosk at the Deschutes National Forest welcome center along ODOT’s Highway 372 and through 

web-based and/or smart phone applications that could help travelers make decisions about where to visit 

in the CLH corridor before even starting the trip. This could help spread out the use to other, lesser-used 

areas throughout the corridor as well when certain areas have high congestions. 

Another non-ITS solution could be the use of Forest Service personnel or volunteers to assist with 

counting vehicles entering and exiting and giving travelers this information about whether the parking lot 

is full, etc. For either option, it may be advantageous to construct an adequate turn around near the Todd 

Lake intersection so vehicles can turn around before heading up to the windy Forest road and parking lot. 

The ITS and vehicle-counting options are likely only relevant if demand is not reduced through the 

Wilderness Strategies. 

b) Green Lakes Trailhead and Parking Lot Area 

Assuming the Wilderness Strategies go into effect in 2020 and significantly reduce the use as expected, 

this will likely reduce or eliminate the issue of parking along CLH. The available permit quota at Green 

Lakes is planned to be 80 permits for day-use and 14 group permits for overnight. According to the data 

provided by the Forest Service, on September 8 and 9, 2018, there were 103 and 110 vehicles parked in 

the parking lot area (off the highway), respectively, on those days. A count of the individual, marked 

stalls indicates that there are approximately 46 single parking spots for passenger vehicles and six 

RV/trailer parking stalls (of which several passenger vehicles were parking in each during the visit). 

Therefore, much of the parking is occurring in unofficial areas within the Green Lakes parking area. The 

proposed quota indicates that all parking could occur within the Green Lakes parking area, off of the 

highway. As long as the Forest Service does not enforce parking infractions within the parking area, with 

vehicles parked along the access roads, etc., this may completely eliminate the parking along CLH for 

visitors accessing the trails here. 

If the strategies do not work as intended or are not established after all, in order to reduce the amount of 

parking that is occurring outside of the parking lot and along Cascade Lakes Highway, it is recommended 

that the Green Lakes parking lot be examined to see how a reconfiguration could add spaces and increase 

efficiency within the existing footprint. If an opportunity comes along for an expansion of the parking lot, 

this should be considered as well, as the safety benefits of helping to keep vehicles from parking along 

CLH would be tremendous. In conjunction with possible expansion and reconfiguration, a no parking 

ordinance should be considered by the County to eliminate parking along the CLH roadside. 

Another possible solution here could be to add turnouts along the north side of CLH near the Green Lakes 

parking lot with angled parking and a sidewalk on the outside of the turnouts to connect to the Green 

Lakes access road. It is unknown if this will require an expansion of the County’s current easement in 

order to fit these in. Official turnouts for parking could be a substantial safety improvement over current 

parking patterns. A careful evaluation of available intersection sight distance at the intersection with the 

Green Lakes access road would be needed. Currently, parking along the roadside here could be limiting 

intersection sight distance for vehicles making turns out of the Green Lakes access road. 

Other possible corridor-wide improvements would increase safety for this site as well, such as 

intersection warning signage, advanced guide signage and cross-sectional improvements. To match the 

Devils Lake high-use area, Congestion and Pedestrian signs could be added near the limits of parking 

along CLH. After Wilderness strategies go into effect, these would likely need removed if substantial

parking no longer occurs along CLH. 
110 

Delineators or No Parking signs should be considered near the limits of the actual intersection on the 

north side of CLH in order to maintain sight lines for intersection sight distance. These may not be 

necessary after Wilderness strategies go into effect. 

c) Devils Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area

For the Devils Lake area, the Wilderness Area permit quota will also significantly affect the use at this 

location. The Devils Lake/Wickiup trailheads will be limited to 100 day-use permits and 16 overnight 

group permits. According to the data provided by the Forest Service, on September 8 and 9, 2018, there 

were 199 and 194 vehicles parked in the parking lot area (off the highway), respectively, on those days. 

Since the Devils Lake parking lot area is not paved, there are no marked stalls to count. Regardless, there 

is apparently adequate space to handle the anticipated permit use, plus some expected use of Devils Lake 

itself. This is especially evident when considering that the permits are issued by individual, and typically 

hikers are not alone; i.e. they will be carpooling and taking up less available parking spaces than if all 

permittees each brought a vehicle. 

A secondary proposal by the Forest Service at this location is the trail reroute of the South Sisters Climber 

Trail #36 to start and coincide with the Elk Devils Trail #12 before branching off to be rejoined with the 

rest of the South Sisters Trail. This means that the South Sisters Trail would no longer officially cross the 

CLH and would instead share the underpass on the Elk Devils Trail #12. Assuming this proposal proceeds 

to completion, this will also significantly improve the safety of hikers and pedestrians in this area. Trail 

users can then park in the Devils Lake parking lot and cross under CLH to access either trail. 
111 

Figure 72 - Deschutes National Forest South Sister Climber Trail Reroute Proposal 18

While the proposed Wilderness Area strategies will likely nearly eliminate parking along CLH to access 

the trails as well as pedestrians crossing across the highway, there is still a chance that trail users will 

inadvertently or deliberately park along CLH to access the trails based on previous experience or a desire 

to park as close to the trails as possible. There is still a chance that there will be pedestrian crossings as 

well with the large turnout located on the inside of the curve, etc. The team offers strategies to reduce this 

likelihood. 

1. Install signage in this area to require day-use hikers, overnight hikers and Devils Lake day-use 

users to use the official Devils Lake parking lot. 

2. Establish No Parking areas with signs throughout this area to eliminate parking from unofficial 

areas such as shoulders. Parking could still be allowed along paved turnouts and possibly along a 

portion of the turnout along the inside of the 400’ radius curve. 

3. Install guardrail on the outside of the horizontal curve, continue through the underpass (where 

there is existing guardrail) and extend a bit beyond to physically eliminate parking on this side, 

approximately 6-7’ from the traveled way. Installing guardrail here could be justified by the 

existing assumed speed limit, curvature of the road and foreslopes outside of the shoulder. 

4. Install guardrail on the inside of the curve as well to physically prevent parking where desired. 

Guardrail near the existing north end of the lake could be justified due to the permanent body of 

 

18 https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49620 
112 

water within the clear zone of the highway, which is a warrant according to the AASHTO 

Roadside Design Guide. 

As discussed in Devils Lake Trailhead, the turnout on the inside of the curve is a safety concern itself due 

to inadequate sight distance when exiting the turnout. The strategies mentioned above may be used to 

limit or eliminate parking here. An unofficial boat launch (for non-motorized boats) is located at the north 

end of Devils Lake. Additional measures beyond the above to address this turnout could include:

1. Installing traditional delineators, breakaway bollards or removal breakaway bollards (to 

uninstall/reinstall for snow seasons) to explicitly delineate where parking can occur based on the 

best areas of sight distance, or physically eliminate parking. It may be difficult to completely 

eliminate the use of the north end of the lake for boat access but discouraging or eliminating the 

parking along the turnout may nearly eliminate this use. 

2. Reduce the speed limit through this area to 35 mph for example. The speed limit could coincide 

with the available intersection sight distance along the turnout. Additional vegetation clearing 

may be considered as well along the inside of the curve. A reduced speed limit may alleviate the 

concern along the turnout enough so that parking here is no longer a concern. Enforcement would 

be required, though the existing horizontal curve helps to self-govern speeds within the curve 

limits. If the Wilderness Area strategy and trail reroute proposals do not go through, with a 

reduced speed limit, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) could be a viable 

countermeasure to reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at the South Sisters trail crossing. Careful 

consideration would be necessary to promote the device’s use by pedestrians, including possible 

physical barriers like guardrail to channel pedestrians to the official crossing. At a 35mph speed 

limit, more traditional crossing treatments, such as crosswalks and pedestrian signing at the 

crosswalk, are also viable options. 

With or without the Wilderness Area strategies and trail reroute proposal going forward, as mentioned 

previously, a mid- or long-term bypass of this area could be explored as the most extreme option to 

alleviate many of the issues with this area. A concept of what this might look like is shown as a green 

line:
113 

Figure 73 - Devils Lake Reroute Concept

A reroute could mean that the existing highway and parking lot could remain with no to little 

improvements, since parking along existing CLH would no longer be nearly the safety concern. This 

would remove parking and pedestrian conflicts from mainline CLH and the existing highway could be 

accessed as an approach road with one or two intersections along the new alignment. For this type of 

planning study, a very high level estimate can be considered based on a per-mile construction cost basis. 

New construction, in moderate to complex terrain, may be on the order of $3 million per mile. The 

example shown in Figure 71 is just under 1 mile along the green alignment. 

If there are no alterations to the posted speed limit, horizontal curve warning signs are recommended to be 

installed here for the sharp horizontal curve. 
114 

D. Order of Priority for Site-Specific Recommendations

Funding sources are limited. The strategic investment into prioritized projects, leveraged where possible 

among agencies, is important to achieving the goals for multi-modal transportation over time. Therefore, 

this section is dedicated to prioritizing and ranking improvements to the CLH corridor from all applicable 

perspectives (economic, safety, social, environmental, etc.). 

The ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan states that local government (Oregon cities and counties) 

roadway spending for 2013 was estimated at $231.8 million for roadway capital and $23 million for 

bicycle and pedestrian capital (pg. C-5, OBPP). Appendix C of the Plan lists Revenue Funding 

Mechanisms that could be utilized to allocate for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Table 7 in that 

Appendix can be used to collect funding mechanism ideas. 

1. Recommendations

Since the study began to develop this Plan, several changes have occurred that affect the 

recommendations for short and mid-term solutions to meet the goals of the Plan. These are discussed in 

more detail in previous sections and Section C of the Planning Document. Due to changes in the 

Wilderness Strategy, the specific safety concerns at the Green Lake and Devils Lake areas may be 

substantially mitigated due to a limit on use quotas available, beginning in 2020. At Devils Lake, a 

proposed trail reroute, which makes the existing underpass part of the official trail for South Sisters, 

should help improve the safety of pedestrians using the trail. In light of these developments, the team 

offers multiple solutions and considerations for future improvements that will depend on how the use 

changes over the next few years. Relatedly, the traffic on CLH is likely to be affected with the reduction 

in available quotas. A change in traffic volume and traffic patterns may affect the long-term solutions as 

well but it is likely the ultimate shoulder width recommendations remain as described. However, the 

extent of the shoulder width recommendations may change as traffic patterns are reevaluated. It is also 

conceivable that a No Parking County ordinance will no longer need to be considered throughout the 

CLH corridor once traffic is spread throughout the corridor. Limited parking along the shoulder 

throughout the corridor is unlikely to be a major concern once the currently congested areas are mitigated. 

In order to best improve safety in the near-term and mid to longer term, the following sequence of 

improvements is recommended in the Improvement Matrix shown in Table 15. 

The relative costs are subjective but for CLH are considered to be approximately $0-50k for Very Low, 

$50-100k for Low, $100k-1M for Medium and $1M+ for High. The timeline to implement the 

improvement is also somewhat subjective and the assumed timeline is shown for each category. Some of 

the Very Low cost improvements are considered very low cost since they are a small increase on a regular 

effort or countermeasure already in place, such as annual striping maintenance. 

The green, yellow and red colors indicate whether the team feels the improvement is worth pursuing on 

the path to improving highway safety and bicycle facilities throughout the CLH corridor. Green indicates 

that the team believes this to be an effective improvement and part of the sequence of improvements. 

Yellow indicates that either the improvement is believed to be marginally effective, more data is needed 

in order to better evaluate or the effects of the Wilderness Strategies need to commence first. Red 

indicates that the team believes this improvement is not an effective improvement to support the overall 

goals for CLH. 

Each improvement will be described following the Improvement Matrix, with some high level cost 

estimates based on the 3R analysis for the geometric improvement (shoulder widening) options and some 

other specific cost estimates located in Appendix E. 
115 

Table 15 - CLH Improvement Matrix

Relative 

Cost

Near-Term (0-5 years) Mid-Term (5-10 years) Long-Term (10+ years)

NV1: Vegetation clearing 

(maintenance of original cleared 

areas); Improved/ additional guide, 

warning and regulatory signing; 6-

inch edge line striping 

MV1: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times

LV1: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times

NV2: Increased enforcement 

presence, especially during peak 

times; educational outreach 

strategies

MV2: Educational outreach 

strategies LV2: Educational outreach strategies

NV3: Maintain good crash records; 

set simple performance goals

MV3: Maintain good crash records, 

monitor performance goals

LV3: Maintain good crash records, 

monitor performance goals

NV4: Minor improvements at Devils 

Lake along CLH to limit parking. 

NV5: Moderate improvements at 

Devils Lake along CLH to limit 

parking. 

NL1: Additional clearing along 

curves, intersections; traditional 

bicycle warning signing

ML1: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

LL1: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

NL2: Centerline rumble strips and 

delineators. 

NL3: Collect regular traffic data at 

key locations

NL4: Dynamic warning signs for 

bicyclists.

NM1: Transit Pilot Project MM1: Parking lot expansion of 

Green Lakes and Devils Lake

NM2: Parking lot enhancements 

(revise existing layouts to be more 

efficient)

MM2: Additional congestion 

management/ITS solutions

NM3: Improvements at Devils Lake 

along CLH to limit parking, reduce 

speeds and improve crossing safety.

MH1: Widen to 4' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH1: Widen to 4' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH2: Widen to 5' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH2: Widen to 5' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH3: Widen to 6' shoulders from 

begin through Elk Lake with minor 

areas of realignment

LH3: Widen to 6' shoulders from Elk 

Lake south to S. Century Dr.

MH4: Bypass of existing Devils Lake 

alignment. 

Medium High

Timeline to Implement

Low Very Low
116 

Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV1) – Vegetation Clearing (Maintenance), Improved/Additional Signing, 

6-inch Edge Line Striping: 

• Clear vegetation back to original cleared areas to improve sight distance throughout the corridor. 

• Evaluate all guide signing in the corridor. Replace signs too small for 60mph operating speeds. 

Add advance guide signing for major destinations in a consistent manner. 

• Add warning signage for remaining horizontal curves not meeting 55mph posted speeds per 

MUTCD. Add intersection warning signage for major intersections. In advance of any special 

innovative bicycle warning signage, install traditional standard MUTCD bicycle/Share the Road 

warning sign assemblies at key locations in the corridor. 

• Add Speed or Speed Limit signs at key locations (near major destinations/approach roads, 

begin/end of jurisdictional limits). Consider temporary speed drops at Devils Lake and Green 

Lakes until Wilderness Strategies go into effect. 

• Make 6-inch edge line striping the new standard for CLH. 

• Consider removing sign panels for winter to avoid damage from plow operations in spring. 

Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV2) – Increased Enforcement, Educational Strategies: 

• Utilize County and Forest Law Enforcement Officers especially during peak times. Increase 

presence when feasible. Increased enforcement is intended to help manage motorist speeds and 

manage compliance with various regulations (Wilderness Area enforcement, any illegal parking, 

etc.). 

• Review existing educational materials as related to highway safety from both the County and 

Forest resources. Team up together and with other advocacy groups (BPAC, bicycle groups, trail 

maintenance/hiking organizations, resort HOA, RV touring, fishing/hunting groups, etc.) to 

provide campaigns, materials and disseminate information to a variety of audiences. Use social 

media, websites and occasional changeable message signs in the corridor. 

Near-Term, Very Low Cost (NV3) – Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

• Work with County and Forest LEOs to ensure a process is in place to collect adequate crash data 

and store records for easy access and retrieval. The format that ODOT uses for crash data 

collection is preferred for consistency with state records. 

• Set simple performance measures with an end goal of zero fatal and serious injury crashes by a 

certain date in the future. Some examples are listed in ODOT Design Manuals and Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Plan. See the OBPP for a full list of possible measures. Monitor performance measures 

annually and communicate with elected officials on the status of measures and goals. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NV4) – Minor Improvements to Limit Parking Near Devils Lake along CLH:

• As discussed in Devils Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area, implement the desired minor 

modifications (signing) to limit parking along CLH as needed once Wilderness Area Strategies go 

into effect. This may require a county ordinance and county and/or Forest enforcement. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NV5) – Moderate Improvements to Limit Parking Near Devils Lake along CLH:

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies. Similar to NM3 but 

focused on short-term measures] Reduce parking limits with bollards, delineators or similar 

barriers placed at areas most undesirable for parking (e.g. along turnout on inside of horizontal 

curve). Guardrail may be used as well. 

• See Appendix E – Cost Estimates for the various options with preliminary cost estimates. 
117 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL1) – Vegetation Clearing (Additional), Traditional Bicycle Signing: 

• Determine areas where additional vegetation clearing, beyond the original cleared limits, will 

increase sight distance along horizontal curves and near intersections to meet AASHTO 

recommendations for a 60mph design speed, or as high as practical. Some areas of concern are 

noted throughout this study but an extensive evaluation should be performed. Additionally, 

identify where additional vegetation clearing can be accommodated to meet clear zone guidelines, 

especially in higher-risk areas such as the outside of horizontal curves. Clear and grub this 

vegetation.

• Install traditional (static, not flashing) bicycle warning signs at key locations throughout the 

corridor. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL2) – Centerline Rumble Strips, Delineators: 

• Install centerline rumble strips and post-mounted delineators throughout the entire CLH corridor. 

Use ODOT delineator standard drawings to keep consistent with other ODOT state highways. 

These typically decrease the spacing between delineators on sharper horizontal curves. If desired, 

utilize lower-noise, “mumble” strips as are being experimented with in California, Oregon and 

Washington state. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL3) – Traffic Data: 

• Using traditional traffic counting methods or innovative methods (intermittent or permanent 

stations), conduct traffic data collection on a regular basis. See Traffic Data for more information 

on the locations the team believes are most important at this time as well as the frequency of 

collection. 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NL4) – Dynamic Warning Signs for Bicyclists: 

• Install several dynamic warning signs at key locations throughout the corridor as described in 

Bicyclist Signing. These could be installed before or after the collection of vehicular and bicyclist 

traffic data throughout the corridor. If continuous counters such as the type used in the CTIP 

project are installed, these signs can be added on to the system at a later date. Preliminary cost 

estimates are provided in Appendix E. 

Near-Term, Medium Cost (NM1) – Transit Pilot Project: 

• Evaluate the effectiveness (ridership, reduction in congestion) of the proposed transit program in 

the corridor. Depending on the effectiveness, consider continuing the transit program into future 

years. (A FLAP application for a transit pilot project is currently under consideration for 

funding). 

Near-Term, Low Cost (NM2) – Parking Lot Enhancements: 

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Revise the parking lots

and access roads as desired at Todd Lake, Green Lakes and Devils Lake. This could include 

paving areas at Todd Lake and Devils Lake within the existing footprint and adding striping to 

maximize efficiency for all users (including equestrian use at Devils Lake). Signs may be needed 

to direct users such as RVs and trailers to appropriate areas. The goal here would be to ensure as 

many vehicles can park within the parking lots as possible and off of CLH. 
118 

Near-Term, Medium Cost (NM3) – Improvements at Devils Lake along CLH to Reduce Parking, Lower 

Speeds and Improve Crossing Safety: 

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies and other possible 

options that may have been tried, such as NV4 and NV5.] If the strategies do not proceed or do 

not have the intended effect on parking along CLH, implement a permanent speed reduction 

within the Devils Lake area, coupled with physical barriers such as guardrail to limit parking, 

channel pedestrians to one crossing location and install high visibility crossing signage, crosswalk 

markings and possibly a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB). 

• Several of the options in this area, and referenced in the Appendix E – Cost Estimates, could be 

combined and tried, working from least costly and impactful to more costly. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV1) – Continue Increased Enforcement: 

• Continuation of NV2. Use traffic and crash data to best focus efforts and locations. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV2) – Continue Educational Outreach: 

• Continuation of educational outreach strategies from NV2. Use traffic and crash data to best 

focus efforts and locations. 

Mid-Term, Very-Low Cost (MV3) – Continue Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

• Continuation of NV3. Evaluate performance goals and adjust based on safety performance and 

traffic data. 

Mid-Term, Low Cost (ML1) – Continue Traffic Data: 

• Continuation of NL3. Adjust frequency and locations as needed. 

Medium-Term, Medium Cost (MM1) – Parking Lot Expansion at Green Lakes and Devils Lake: 

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Expand high-use 

parking lots in the corridor such as Green Lakes and Devils Lake to add capacity to parking areas 

and reduce parking on CLH. 

Medium-Term, Medium Cost (MM2) – Congestion Management, ITS Solutions: 

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] Utilize state-of-the-art 

technology to monitor use throughout the corridor in real time and provide information via media 

to help users make decisions about destinations. 

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH1) – Widen to 4’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

• Construct 4’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Add a foot of shoulder width in front of guardrail and 

any other structures to meet AASHTO guidelines for shy distance. Improve side slopes where 

possible and increase horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet 

AASHTO criteria. Install additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone 

guidelines. Install centerline rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and 

high-type pavement markings. Adjust structures and extend or replace culvert as needed. 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 
119 

• 3R Analysis cost:

 

Table 16 - MH1 Costs from 3R Analysis

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH2) – Widen to 5’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

• Construct 5’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips. Possible structure adjustments and 

culvert extensions or replacements. 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 

• 3R Analysis cost:

Sections Included Highest B/C for 4' Shoulders

1 $580,000

2 $1,870,000

3 $130,000

4 $1,460,000

5 $920,000

6 $540,000

Subtotal = $5,500,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $440,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) $55,000

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $275,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $1,100,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $830,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $275,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $825,000

Contingency (20%) $1,100,000

Grand Total = $10,400,000

MH1 Costs
120 

 

Table 17 - MH2 Costs from 3R Analysis

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH3) – Widen to 6’ Shoulders from Begin to Elk Lake: 

• Construct 6’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the begin of the study through 

Elk Lake with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips. Possible structure adjustments and 

culvert extensions or replacements. 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(Green Lakes, etc.). 

• 3R Analysis cost:

Sections Included Highest B/C for 5' Shoulders

1 $640,000

2 $2,000,000

3 $160,000

4 $1,560,000

5 $1,050,000

6 $600,000

Subtotal = $6,010,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $480,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) N/A

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $300,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $1,200,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $900,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $300,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $900,000

Contingency (20%) $1,200,000

Grand Total = $11,290,000

MH2 Costs
121 

 

Table 18 - MH3 Costs from 3R Analysis

Medium-Term, High Cost (MH4) – Bypass of Devils Lake: 

• [Dependent upon the final outcome and effects of Wilderness Strategies.] However, this could be 

an option in either situation. Construct a bypass of the Devils Lake area as described in Devils 

Lake Trailhead and Parking Lot Area. A high-level estimate of $3M per mile (for construction 

costs) is assumed, with approximately 1 mile in length to complete this bypass. This could also be 

an option in the Long-Term. 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV1) – Continue Increased Enforcement: 

• Continuation of MV1. Use traffic and crash data to best focus efforts and locations. 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV2) – Continue Educational Outreach: 

• Continuation of educational outreach strategies from MV2. Use traffic and crash data to best 

focus efforts and locations. 

Sections Included Highest B/C for 6' Shoulders

1 $700,000

2 $2,120,000

3 $180,000

4 $1,660,000

5 $1,160,000

6 $660,000

Subtotal = $6,480,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $520,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) N/A

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $320,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $1,300,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $970,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $320,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $970,000

Contingency (20%) $1,300,000

Grand Total = $12,180,000

MH3 Costs
122 

Long-Term, Very Low Cost (LV3) – Continue Crash Records, Performance Measure Goals: 

• Continuation of MV3. Evaluate performance goals and adjust based on safety performance and 

traffic data. 

Long-Term, Low Cost (LL1) – Continue Traffic Data: 

• Continuation of ML1. Adjust frequency and locations as needed. 

Long-Term, High Cost (LH1) – Widen to 4’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

• Construct 4’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S. 

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Add a foot of shoulder width in front of guardrail 

and any other structures to meet AASHTO guidelines for shy distance. Improve side slopes where 

possible and increase horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet 

AASHTO criteria. Install additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone 

guidelines. Install centerline rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and 

high-type pavement markings. Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or 

replacements. 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(S. Century Dr., etc.). 

• 3R Analysis cost:

Table 19 - LH1 Costs from 3R Analysis

 

Sections Included Highest B/C for 4' Shoulders

7 $3,640,000

8 $26,000

Subtotal = $3,670,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $290,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) $40,000

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $180,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $730,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $550,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $180,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $550,000

Contingency (20%) $730,000

Grand Total = $6,920,000

LH1 Costs
123 

Long-Term, High Cost (LH2) – Widen to 5’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

• Construct 5’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S. 

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements. 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(S. Century Dr., etc.). 

• 3R Analysis cost (note that Section 8 will maintain the existing 4’ shoulder width; costs are to 

install rumble strips and other countermeasures): 

Table 20 - LH2 Costs from 3R Analysis

 

Long-Term, High Cost (LH3) – Widen to 6’ Shoulders from Elk Lake to S. Century Dr.: 

• Construct 6’ paved shoulders as an upgraded typical section from the Elk Lake through S. 

Century Dr. with minor areas of realignment. Improve side slopes where possible and increase 

horizontal sight distance as needed along the curves that do not meet AASHTO criteria. Install 

additional guardrail as needed where slopes cannot meet clear zone guidelines. Install centerline 

rumble strips if not already installed, post-mounted delineators and high-type pavement markings. 

Possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements. 

Sections Included Highest B/C for 5' Shoulders

7 $4,240,000

8 $26,000

Subtotal = $4,270,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $340,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) N/A

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $210,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $850,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $640,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $210,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $640,000

Contingency (20%) $850,000

Grand Total = $8,010,000

LH2 Costs
124 

• Install left-turn and right-turn lanes as warranted by current traffic counts at major destinations 

(S. Century Dr., etc.). 

• 3R Analysis cost:

Table 21 - LH3 Costs from 3R Analysis

 

a) Shoulder Widths 

The preferred shoulder widths for each section of the CLH corridor will be the most impactful decision 

for the long-term vision of the corridor. The team offers several options of ultimate shoulder 

improvements with a summary of the points discussed previously throughout this document. There are no 

preferred shoulder widths at this time because additional traffic data is needed to validate the use and 

need throughout the corridor. The following options are considered the reasonable menu of options based 

on the analysis performed to date throughout this document. 

Option 1: 

1. MH3: construct 6’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = $12.2M 

2. LH2: construct 5’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $8.01M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives.

Option 1 Total Cost = $20.2M (2018 dollars) 

Sections Included Highest B/C for 6' Shoulders

7 $4,760,000

8 $26,000

Subtotal = $4,790,000

Structure Adjustments (Bridge, 

several culverts, 8%) $380,000

Additional Shoulder Width at 

Structures (1%) N/A

Geometric Intersection 

Improvements (5%) $240,000

Additional Cost Due to 

Location, Seasonality (20%) $960,000

Mobilization, Survey, Testing 

(15%) $720,000

Construction Engineering (5%) $240,000

Preliminary Engineering (15%) $720,000

Contingency (20%) $960,000

Grand Total = $9,010,000

LH3 Costs
125 

Option 2:

1. MH2: construct 5’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = 

$11.29M 

2. LH2: construct 5’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $8.01M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives.

Option 2 Total Cost = $19.3M (2018 dollars) 

Option 3 Sequence:

1. MH2: construct 5’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = 

$11.29M 

2. LH1: construct 4’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $6.92M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives.

Option 3 Total Cost = $18.21M (2018 dollars) 

Option 4 Sequence:

1. MH1: construct 4’ shoulders from the begin of study through Elk Lake. Estimated cost = $10.4M 

2. LH1: construct 4’ shoulders from Elk Lake through S. Century Dr. Estimated cost = $6.92M 

3. S. Century Dr. to end of study – maintain 4’ shoulders with minor improvements from other 

alternatives.

Option 4 Total Cost = $17.32M (2018 dollars) 

The four options, containing three different shoulder widths, proposed throughout the study area are the 

culmination of the analysis and study throughout this document based on a variety of sources. While 4’ 

shoulders are the minimum width to meet AASHTO guidelines for bicycle use, if the 5’ or 6’ widths are 

pursued, a performance-based design is strongly recommended in order to maximize funding, 

implementation schedule and resources. The overarching variable that feeds the shoulder width 

dimension, as described previously, is traffic (both vehicular and bicyclists). For an example of a 

performance-based design, Option 1 steps down (narrows) in shoulder width throughout the corridor 

which aligns with the assumed drop in traffic and recreational use throughout the corridor from north to 

south. While vehicular traffic may drop throughout the corridor, bicyclist traffic may remain relatively 

constant through S. Century Drive. Still, the vehicular-bicyclist conflict potential is believed to drop 

throughout the corridor. The traffic and use will be verified through additional traffic counts in the future. 

Other discussion to support a future final recommendation includes: 

• The begin through Elk Lake section contains some of the most hazardous horizontal geometry 

and steep vertical geometry. The safety performance of this section will benefit from wider 

shoulders (specifically, wider than the minimum 4’ for AASHTO bike shoulders, therefore the 5’ 

or 6’ options) due to the resulting increase in horizontal sight distance, a wider shoulder for 

bicyclists to negotiate steep grades and additional shoulder width for the recovery of errant 

vehicles. This benefit carries more weight due to the unlikelihood of any major horizontal and 

vertical alignment improvements in these locations. Major alignment improvements in these 

locations would require significantly higher cost, environmental impacts and intricate 

geotechnical solutions, among other considerations. 
126 

• According to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the recommended improvements will 

reduce the Level of Stress for bicyclists from Level 3 or 4 (depending on ADT data per location) 

to Level 2 for shoulder widths of 4-6’. According to this criteria, shoulder widths greater than 6’ 

would not improve the Level of Stress for bicyclists in the section with highest traffic. To achieve 

Level 2, adequate stopping and horizontal sight distance is needed, and wider shoulders in the 5-

6’ range would help improve horizontal sight distance in order to meet AASHTO stopping sight 

distance criteria in the section with sharpest horizontal geometry. 

• According to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide, based on the traffic counts and 

assumed growth in the corridor, for Rural Arterials, the recommended shoulder widths are 6-8’. 

For Rural Collectors, the recommended shoulder widths are 5-8’ depending on traffic. The 

Design Guide states that 6’ shoulders are recommended if the shoulders are provided for bicycle 

use with a desire to maintain a 6’ shoulder in areas of steep uphill grades, which is also cited in 

the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities. Option 1 would construct 6’ shoulders in the area of 

the steepest grades in the corridor to satisfy this recommendation. 

• If a 6’ shoulder is selected for the highest use section (study begin through Elk Lake), this reduces 

the need to widen at vertical obstruction locations, such as guardrail installations, per guidance in 

the ODOT Design Manual for shy distance. Due to the terrain, this section will also likely contain 

significant guardrail in order to keep cut and fill limits to a minimum in order to construct the 

wider shoulders. If a 5’ shoulder is selected, this is the minimum width given to reduce bicyclists 

from shying away from the barrier. For all shoulder widths, it is preferred to widen the shoulder 

by an additional 2’ at locations of vertical obstructions, so this recommendation will be evaluated 

for feasibility when scoping these future projects. 

• If 6’ shoulders are selected, this will allow the use of rumble strips on the shoulder. For 5’ 

shoulders, rumble strips or stripes can still be explored, with a possible modification to the strip 

width in order to maintain the 4’ clearance along the shoulder for bicyclist use. Rumble strips or 

stripes will not be viable on shoulders of 4’ width. 

• If 6’ shoulders are selected for the first section, this matches the shoulder width on the adjoining 

ODOT section of Cascade Lakes Highway, where use is believed to be higher than the area under 

study. 

• The proposed shoulder widths are believed to be in alignment with the Bikeway Design Standards 

from the Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, where 4’ is the minimum, 5’ is needed where curb or 

barrier is present and 6’ is used in “high use” locations. Subjectively, the begin through Elk Lake 

section may be considered high use due to the higher seasonal vehicular traffic mixed with 

significant bicyclist traffic. 

• The Guide for Bicycle Facilities states that it is “desirable to increase the width of shoulders 

where higher bicycle usage is expected. Additional shoulder width is also desirable if motor 

vehicle speeds exceed 50mph; if use by heavy trucks, buses, or recreational vehicles is 

considerable; or if static obstructions exist at the right side of the roadway” (pg. 4-7, GDBF). A 6’ 

shoulder width is believed to satisfy this guidance. 

• Wider shoulders, specifically of 6’ width, are recommended by the Guide for Bicycle Facilities 

when using centerline rumble strips, another recommended countermeasure for CLH. 

• For example, when examining Option 1, for the proposed 5’ shoulder width section, it can be 

seen that it is approximately $1M to increase the shoulders to 6’ in this section as well, making 

the total $9,010,000 instead of $8,010,000. This could be considered as more accurate traffic data 

is obtained in order to see if this additional cost is beneficial to users. However, in a performancebased approach, the line must be drawn somewhere in order to realize cost savings. The $970k 

may be better spent on other countermeasures or improvements throughout the CLH corridor, or 

another County route. 

• As can be seen from the results of the 3R analysis for all shoulder width improvement projects (4-

6’), there are no project options that reach a benefit/cost ratio of 1.0 or better, which is commonly 
127 

considered the minimum ratio needed to justify a project. However, as discussed in Overall 3R 

Analysis Discussion, the possible vehicle-bicycle conflicts are not fully accounted for in this 

analysis, the operational improvements for both bicyclists and vehicles are not accounted for and 

the “level of stress” a bicyclist feels is not accounted for in these ratios. On the other hand, these 

benefit/cost ratios are calculated based on traffic data that is assumed to be present all year long, 

which is not the case with CLH, so the true benefit/cost ratios would be lower based on the 

methodology used. Regardless, it can be difficult to find projects in highway engineering with 

significant geometric or cross-sectional improvements that can calculate a benefit/cost ratio at 1.0 

or above. Often, traffic along the route where improvements are being considered has to be 

substantially higher than many rural two-lane highways in order for the aggregate safety impacts 

to be large enough to tip the ratio to 1.0 and above. However, benefit/cost ratios are never the sole 

reason to pursue or reject a possible project. 

• There is a recreational and mobility aspect to this project that is difficult to quantify as well. 

Through the team’s conversations during field review, the team heard that there are people who 

would like to use the corridor but do not currently feel comfortable doing so, based on the 

existing conditions. With the implementation of some of the possible improvements described in 

this report (shoulder widths but also others), this would hopefully allow all desired use to occur 

throughout the corridor with improvements to the safety performance for all users. 

The menu of options for shoulder width improvements come with a significant cost that is unlikely to be 

able to be borne by Deschutes County alone. Outside sources of funding that include federal funding, 

such as the FLAP program, would likely be needed in order to make projects such as these a viable

option. The FLAP program requires a minimum match from local agencies, which in Oregon is currently 

10.27%. 

At the high end of the shoulder width options, this would put the approximate local investment at $1.25M 

for MH3 and $820,000 for LH2 to complete the shoulder projects, which is still a significant investment 

for a county. 

If the minimum shoulder width options were used throughout the corridor instead, the costs are $10.4M 

for MH1 and $6.92M for LH1 in order to bring the corridor to 4’ shoulder widths throughout. This would 

put the approximate local investment at $1.07M for MH1 and $711,000 for LH1, which is still a 

significant county and/or local match investment. 

b) Traffic Data

As mentioned throughout the RSA, additional traffic data for motorists and bicyclists at minimum is 

desired at key locations throughout the corridor. Counting traditional vehicle groups (i.e. passenger cars, 

light trucks, heavy trucks, RVs, motorcycles, bicyclists, etc.) is desired to obtain better data on the users 

of the corridor. 

The proposed Wilderness Strategies are going to significantly alter the traffic patterns throughout the 

CLH corridor. The permit quotas apply to the busy season, defined as the Friday before Memorial Day 

through September 30. It is possible that visitors attempting to avoid the quotas will attempt to make their 

trips outside of this season, which could lead to similar issues in the existing conditions outside the quota 

season. However, the weather and time of year is not as conducive to hiking and camping trips outside of 

the peak season. With major reductions at Todd Lake, Green Lakes and Devils Lake, some of that traffic 

will be spread throughout the rest of the CLH corridor, as intended by the Forest Service. Some of the 

existing traffic may no longer visit the CLH corridor at all. This further strengthens the need for accurate 

traffic data over the next few years once the strategies go into effect to best evaluate the new traffic 
128 

patterns and tailor future projects accordingly. It is possible the recommendations in this document could 

be altered to fit the new data. 

Obtain traffic counts at key locations for both motorists and bicyclists for both 2019 and the year that 

Wilderness Area strategies become effective to gauge traffic impacts. This will help verify that the areas 

of widened shoulders is reasonable from a performance perspective. The team recommends obtaining 

counts at these key locations:

1. Study Begin

2. Todd Lake Intersection

3. Green Lakes Intersection

4. Devils Lake Intersection

5. Elk Lake Resort Intersection

6. S. Century Dr. Intersection 

The counts at each intersection will include turning movements and through movements so that the traffic 

between each node is recorded, which will cover the entire CLH corridor. 

Traffic count collection should be designed to account for the peaks and valleys of traffic depending on 

the day of the week, time of year, etc. while being cognizant of events that may cause spikes in use above 

typical use, like bicycle racing events. The team encourages the use of automated traffic counters in order 

to collect as much data as possible to develop accurate average values. 

It is likely that the bicyclist traffic will continue to remain at its current use or grow, regardless of the 

Wilderness Area strategies. With motorist traffic spreading out to other areas throughout the CLH 

corridor, the vehicle-bicycle conflict areas may spread out as well. New “hot spot” safety areas may arise. 

The current lower-traffic sites south of Elk Lake may see their traffic increase, including on the long 

tangents where speeds were believed to be higher. It is desired that speed data be collected as well, 

whether in conjunction with traffic counts and/or enforcement actions, but this data is not as important as 

collecting representative traffic data over time. 

If funding allows, it would be best to count traffic in 2019, before Wilderness Area Strategies go into 

effect, and then again in 2020 to determine the effects the strategies are having. Beyond 2020, count 

collection could be reduced to every 2 years for the short-term, then every 5 years or as it can be fit into 

the County’s budget. 

Innovative technology is available to continually count bicycle traffic in conjunction with bicycle warning 

signs warning motorists of bicyclists ahead in the roadway at key areas. The NCHRP Report, Methods 

and Technologies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection: Phase 2, presents important 

findings from a comparison of available counting methods for bicyclists and pedestrians.19 Some of the 

bicycle counter options include: 

• Eco Counter (inductive loop system) as a continually counting, permanent system; can tie-in to 

dynamic warning sign (see Bicyclist Signing). The vendor states that the system can be installed 

with another set of inductive loops to also count vehicles. 

• Other inductive loop systems as continually counting, permanent systems. 

• Bicycle-specific pneumatic tubes as mobile, temporary systems. 

• Magnetometer systems.

 

19 https://www.nap.edu/download/24732 
129 

Another source of data are mobile technology platforms such as Strava, Inc., which makes user data 

available for purchase. This would not give a total count of bicyclists in the CLH corridor, but could 

provide insights into destinations and travel times throughout the corridor.20 

1) Summer, 2019 Update

Deschutes County, in partnership with the City of Bend, OR, obtained counts for several locations along 

CLH during the summer of 2019. Appendix G – 2019 Traffic Data contains the complete dataset. The 

data contains both vehicular and bicyclist counts for Thursday, July 25, 2019 through Thursday, August 

1, 2019. However, data collection ended at approximately 9am on August 1, so this data is excluded from 

the following tables. 

Vehicular Data

East of 

Green Lakes 

Intersection

South of Elk 

Lake Resort 

Intersection

North of S. 

Century Dr. 

Intersection

South of S. 

Century Dr. 

Intersection

Day of Week Daily Traffic Daily Traffic Daily Traffic Daily Traffic

7/25/2019 Thursday 1699 772 518 571

7/26/2019 Friday 2299 1552 971 904

7/27/2019 Saturday 3411 2170 1102 1084

7/28/2019 Sunday 3154 2074 1305 1186

7/29/2019 Monday 1805 1018 554 564

7/30/2019 Tuesday 1802 946 469 547

7/31/2019 Wednesday 1803 960 507 572

Resultant ADT = 2282 1356 775 775

Saturday/Sunday ADT = 3283 2122 1204 1135

Fri/Sat/Sun ADT = 2955 1932 1126 1058

M-Th ADT = 1777 924 512 564

Table 22 - July, 2019 Traffic Data

 

 

20 https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Innovative-Ped-and-Bike-Counts-White-Paper-Alta.pdf 
130 

Bicyclist Data

East of 

Green 

Lakes 

Intersection

South of Elk 

Lake Resort 

Intersection

North of S. 

Century Dr. 

Intersection

South of S. 

Century Dr. 

Intersection

Day of Week

Daily 

Bicyclists Daily Bicyclists Daily Bicyclists Daily Bicyclists

7/25/2019 Thursday 13 8 8 5

7/26/2019 Friday 1 8 3 9

7/27/2019 Saturday 2 10 5 4

7/28/2019 Sunday 2 7 1 0

7/29/2019 Monday 0 13 5 5

7/30/2019 Tuesday 0 6 1 2

7/31/2019 Wednesday 0 10 1 1

Resultant ADT = 3 9 3 4

Saturday/Sunday ADT = 2 9 3 2

Fri/Sat/Sun ADT = 2 8 3 4

M-Th ADT = 3 9 4 3

Table 23 - July, 2019 Bicyclist Data

It appears that the pneumatic tube at the Green Lakes intersection did not capture bicyclists accurately 

after July 25. This is evident by the drop-off in recorded bicyclists (shaded in yellow), as well as the 

higher counts at the Elk Lake intersection, which is farther into the corridor and presumably experiences 

less vehicular and bicyclist traffic at this location than Green Lakes. The data for this location should 

probably be omitted from any analysis. 

This data helps to provide a rough baseline and update of traffic values from previous years (see Traffic 

Data). The limited data sets from 2013 and 2019 appears to show a substantial increase in use between 

these years. The weekend traffic is significantly higher as expected. The 2019 data did not include any 

data during holidays or other known major events in the corridor, therefore, it will be important to look 

for these traffic increases in future data collection efforts (such as with the dynamic warning 

signs/counters that will collect continuous data). Also, it appears that traffic decreases as expected from 

north to south. The 2019 traffic data from the begin of this study through Elk Lake appears to be on par 

with many state highways in Oregon during the summer season, which validates many of the concerns 

and recommended countermeasures discussed in this document. However, it will be important to examine 

the effects of the Wilderness Area Strategies on traffic in the coming years.

E. Conclusions

While the Cascade Lakes Highway corridor has not experienced known crashes between vehicles and 

bicyclists, there is an increasing potential for these conflicts that may continue to rise in the future. 

Deschutes County and Deschutes National Forest are commended for taking proactive steps to increase 

safety for all users on their facilities, rather than waiting for crashes to occur. 

The recommendations outlined in this Road Safety Audit are intended to assist Deschutes County and 

Deschutes National Forest with their next steps in the planning process for multimodal transportation and 

safety improvements to the Cascade Lakes Highway corridor. 
131 

F. References 

1. Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse. USDOT & University of North Carolina Safety 

Research Center. 2018. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ 

2. Draft Decision Notice, Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project. USDA Forest Service. 

November, 2018. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105465_FSPLT3_4483291.pdf 

3. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. AASHTO, 2012. 

4. Guidelines for Integrating Safety and Cost-Effectiveness into Resurfacing, Restoration, and 

Rehabilitation (3R) Projects. NCHRP Project 15-50. 2018. 

5. Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition. AASHTO. 2010. 

6. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway Administration, 2009. 

7. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation, May 19, 2016. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/OBPP.pdf. 

8. Oregon Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide. Appendix L of the 

ODOT Highway Design Manual. Third Edition, 2011. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_L-Bike-PedGuide.pdf. 

9. Oregon Revised Statute 2017 ORS 811.065. Oregon Revised Statute. 

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.065 
This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix B: Traffic Data 
This page intentionally left blank 
CASCADE LAKES HWY MP 31.215

1 MI NORTH OF ELK LAKE LOOP

DATE DAY ADT

5/9/2013 Thursday 44 1/2 day

5/10/2013 Friday 260

5/11/2013 Saturday 450

5/12/2013 Sunday 449

5/13/2013 Monday 112

5/14/2013 Tuesday 159

5/15/2013 Wednesday 144

5/16/2013 Thursday 90

5/17/2013 Friday 144

5/18/2013 Saturday 122

5/19/2013 Sunday 356

5/20/2013 Monday 260

5/21/2013 Tuesday 242

NO DATA

6/3/2013 Monday 296

6/4/2013 Tuesday 408

6/5/2013 Wednesday 463

6/6/2013 Thursday 406

6/7/2013 Friday 557

6/8/2013 Saturday 1260

6/9/2013 Sunday 1508

6/10/2013 Monday 459

6/11/2013 Tuesday 360

6/12/2013 Wednesday 301

6/13/2013 Thursday 260

6/14/2013 Friday 547

6/15/2013 Saturday 1193

6/16/2013 Sunday 1397

6/17/2013 Monday 452

June average ADT = 658

Growth rate cited in FLAP application 

= 3%

2018 ADT Estimate = 762.5705

2020 ADT 809

2040 ADT 1461

Appendix B - County Traffic Data

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600 5/10/2013 5/12/2013 5/14/2013 5/16/2013 5/18/2013 5/20/2013 5/22/2013 5/24/2013 5/26/2013 5/28/2013 5/30/2013 6/1/2013 6/3/2013 6/5/2013 6/7/2013 6/9/2013 6/11/2013 6/13/2013 6/15/2013 6/17/2013
CASCADE LAKES HWY MP 26.215

0.2 MI WEST OF GATE (@DUTCHMAN)

DATE DAY ADT

5/9/2013 Thursday

5/10/2013 Friday

5/11/2013 Saturday

5/12/2013 Sunday

5/13/2013 Monday 199

5/14/2013 Tuesday 277

5/15/2013 Wednesday 223

5/16/2013 Thursday 141

5/17/2013 Friday 249

5/18/2013 Saturday 201

5/19/2013 Sunday 563

5/20/2013 Monday 302

NO DATA

6/3/2013 Monday 563

6/4/2013 Tuesday 605

6/5/2013 Wednesday 746

6/6/2013 Thursday 682

6/7/2013 Friday 918

6/8/2013 Saturday 1965

6/9/2013 Sunday 2243

6/10/2013 Monday 750

6/11/2013 Tuesday 517

6/12/2013 Wednesday 495

6/13/2013 Thursday 387

6/14/2013 Friday 867

6/15/2013 Saturday 1779

6/16/2013 Sunday 2090

6/17/2013 Monday

June average ADT = 1043

Growth rate cited in FLAP 

application = 3%

2018 ADT Estimate 

= 1210

2020 ADT 1283

2040 ADT 2318

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 5/13/2013 5/15/2013 5/17/2013 5/19/2013 5/21/2013 5/23/2013 5/25/2013 5/27/2013 5/29/2013 5/31/2013 6/2/2013 6/4/2013 6/6/2013 6/8/2013 6/10/2013 6/12/2013 6/14/2013 6/16/2013
Appendix C: Crash Data 
This page intentionally left blank 
S

SER# P S W DATE

INVEST E C O DAY A

RD DPT E H R TIME PRTC INJ G

UNLOC? D C S L K LAT LONG LRS LOCTN (#LANES) CONTL DRVWY LIGHT SVRTY V# TYPE TO P# TYPE SVRTY E X RES LOC ERROR ACT EVENT CAUSE 

01050 N N N 07/15/2014 999.99 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR ANIMAL 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 035 12

OTH W -E

PDO NONE

2.61

01006 Y N N N N 07/24/2009 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N Y CLR ANIMAL 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 035,010 01

COUNTY S -N

Y N INJB

1113 N N STRGHT

NONE S -N

N

N

NONE

 52.4315111 33.1249862 

00992 Y Y N N N 07/25/2009 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR NON-COLL 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 05,32,01

COUNTY E -W

Y N

50598 N N STRGHT

NONE N -S

N N

 25.2948231 1.6572993 

01292 Y N N N N 09/26/2011 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N Y CLR OVERTURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 01

N -S

NONE

STRGHT

N -S

N 11A 02 0 N DAY INJ MTRCYCLE 01 DRVR INJB 47 M OR-Y 034 000 06

N 43 58 53.04 -121 48

32.63

02 NONE 0 TURN-L

OR<25

PRVTE N -E 000 00

PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 59 F OR-Y 003 000 00

887 N N STRGHT

NONE S -N

Y INJC 69

N

S D

SER# P R S SPCL USE

INVEST E A U C CRASH TRLR QTY MOVE A S

RD DPT E L G H COLL OWNER FROM INJ G E LICNS

UNLOC? D C S L SVRTY TYPE TO SVRTY E X RES

NONE 1

PRVTE

STRGHT

S -N

PSNGR CAR INJC 69 F

923 N N N ANIMAL NONE 0 STRGHT

Appendix C - Crash Data

02 PSNG 000 000 00

07/17/2013 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N N CLR 01 035 12

K LAT LONG LRS LOCTN (#LANES) CONTL DRVWY LIGHT V# P# TYPE LOC ERROR ACT EVENT CAUSE

01

000 79,062,025 25

O DAY DIST FROM FIRST STREET RD CHAR (MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR

R TIME INTERSECT SECOND STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF PRTC PED

W DATE MILEPNT COUNTY ROADS INT-TYPE

0.69

43 53 24.64 -121 46 (02) OR>25

25

6P 01 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR M OR-Y 80,081 017 00

TH 150 LAVA LAKE RD S (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY FIX PRVTE 000 79,062,025

OR<25

N 06/25/2015 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 1 79,062,029 25

01273 N N N N N 08/26/2014 CASCADE LAKES HWY INTER 3-LEG N N CLR S-1TURN 01 NONE 0 06

COUNTY TU 0 ELK LAKE RD CN NONE N DRY TURN PRVTE 000 00

00

Y N 9A

43 45

 

57.4858494 

-121 50 11.835372 4

01

(02)

N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 44 M OR-Y OR<25 081 000 01

8P

43 51 -121 47

03

(02)

N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 37 M OR-Y OR<25 000 000 12

COUNTY MO 500 THREE TRAPPERS RD S (NONE) NONE N DRY NCOL PRVTE 000

N 08/20/2011 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR ANIMAL 01 NONE 0 035 12

SA 120 THREE TRAPPERS RD N (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY OTH PRVTE 000 035 00

12

SA 400 00000 W (NONE) NONE N DRY NCOL PRVTE 000 00

6A

44 1

 45.55

99999 

-121 44 8.3699988 04 (02) N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 26 F OR-Y OR<25 080,052,047 000 05,32,01

10A

43 58 -121 48

03

(02)

N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 53 M OR-Y

OR<25

000 000

035 12

MO 00000 W (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY OTH PRVTE 000 00

8P

44 2

 10.21

99999 

-121 45

58.929998 4

03 (02) N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 21 F OR-Y OR<25 081 000 01

N 09/06/2010 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR ANIMAL 01 NONE 0

Y 43 47 15.97 -120 57 (02) OR<25

FR 00000 UN (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY OTH PRVTE 000 00

000 035 00

N 9P 03 N DARK PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 58 F OR-Y 000 000 12

L G INTERSECT SECOND STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF COLL OWNER FROM E LICNS PED

NONE TU UN (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY PRVTE

D

R MILEPNT COUNTY ROADS INT-TYPE SPCL USE

A U DIST FROM FIRST STREET RD CHAR (MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR CRASH TRLR QTY MOVE S
NONE OTH PRVTE E -W

N N PDO PSNGR CAR NONE 53 F OR-Y 

OR<25

 53.405904 27.450672 

00991 Y N N N N 07/28/2013 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N Y CLR OVERTURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 079 01

STATE W -E 000

Y INJA 20 000

N

STRGHT

W -E 000

INJB 22 000

1430 N N STRGHT

COUNTY S -N 000

Y INJC 62 017

N

16.09

01141 Y Y N N N 08/25/2012 CASCADE LAKES HWY INTER 3-LEG N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 058 01,03,05

N FIX W -E

N PDO NONE

 53.0896811 32.74596 

00952 N N N N N 07/21/2011 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 062,092 12

E -W

INJB

 49.6682688 20.9536811 

00954 N N N N N 06/24/2015 CASCADE LAKES HWY GRADE N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 079,035,010 10

N -S 00

INJB 10

56.12

01399 N N N N N 09/19/2014 CASCADE LAKES HWY INTER 3-LEG N N CLR S-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 06

0 N -S

NONE 49

-121 48

02 NONE 0 TURN-L

PRVTE N -E 000 00

PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR INJC 48 F OTH-Y 000 000 00

N-RES

S D

SER# P R S SPCL USE

INVEST E A U C CRASH TRLR QTY MOVE A S

RD DPT E L G H COLL OWNER FROM INJ G E LICNS

UNLOC? D C S L SVRTY TYPE TO SVRTY E X RES

NONE 0

PRVTE

TURN-L

N -E

PSNGR CAR INJC 45 F

1446 N N N ANIMAL NONE 0 STRGHT

NONE OTH PRVTE S -N

N

N

PDO PSNGR CAR NONE 35 M OR-Y

OR<25

12.83

00878 N N N N N 07/18/2010 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR ANIMAL 01 NONE STRGHT 035 12

E -W

INJB

 37.6268093 34.2568993 

01421 N N N N N 10/13/2013 CASCADE LAKES HWY INTER 3-LEG N N CLD S-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 06

COUNTY S -N

N NONE 45

N

TURN-L

S -W

PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 65 M OR-Y 000 000 00

PRVTE 000 00

43 49 -121 47 OR<25

36.3695879 33.6586559

02 NONE 0

SU 0 NF4630 CN UNKNOWN N DRY TURN PRVTE 000 00

11A 03 0 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR M OR-Y 034 000 06

N 43 58 -121 48 (02) OR<25

N 10A 03 N DAY INJ MTRCYCLE 01 DRVR 64 M OR-Y 000 000 12

COUNTY SU 150 NF4625 S (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY OTH PRVTE 000 035 00

SU 85 NF4625 N (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY 000 035 00

7A

43 57 23.21 -121 48

03

(02)

N DAY 01 DRVR 000 000 12

02 PSNG 000 000 00

09/28/2014 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N N CLR 01 035 12

K LAT LONG LRS LOCTN (#LANES) CONTL DRVWY LIGHT V# P# TYPE LOC ERROR ACT EVENT CAUSE

02

000 00

O DAY DIST FROM FIRST STREET RD CHAR (MEDIAN) INT-REL OFFRD WTHR

R TIME INTERSECT SECOND STREET DIRECT LEGS TRAF- RNDBT SURF PRTC PED

W DATE MILEPNT COUNTY ROADS INT-TYPE

N 43 58 .38 32 N-RES

N 12P 04 0 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR F OTH-Y 36,034 000 06

N 43 44 42.88 -121 49 (02) N-RES

COUNTY FR NF4600 CN UNKNOWN N DRY TURN PRVTE 000 00

COUNTY WE 19 NF4285 S (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY FIX PRVTE 007 079,035,010

Y 8P 01 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 31 M OTH-Y 083,080,081 017

N 43 52 -121 46 (02) OR<25

Y 12P 01 N DAY INJ MTRCYCLE 01 DRVR 21 M OR-Y 081 000 12

N 43 58 -121 48 OR<25

STATE TH 50 NF4270 N (NONE) NONE N DRY FIX PRVTE 000 062,092 00

OTHER SA 0 NF-4625 W STOP SIGN DRY PRVTE 000 058 00

N UNK 05 0 DARK PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 31 M OR-Y 081 000 01,03,05

43 59 8.91 -121 48 (02) OR>25

6P 01 N DAY INJ MTRCYCLE 01 DRVR M OR-Y 79,080,081 10

FR 4 NF-4625 N (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY FIX PRVTE 079 00

N 07/28/2017 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 0 079 10

PRVTE 079 00

PSNGR CAR 02 PSNG F 000 00

44 1 -121 44 (02) OR<25

58.5386039 38.20164

01 NONE 0

SU 110 SPARKS LAKE RD W (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY NCOL PRVTE 079 00

1P 01 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR M OR-Y 081 01

WE 95 SPARKS LAKE RD W (NONE) NONE N DRY 000 035 00

8P

44 1 -121 44

03

(02)

N DAY 01 DRVR 000 000 12
1448 Y N N N STRGHT

COUNTY E -W

Y INJC 73

N

1069 Y Y N N STRGHT

STATE E -W

Y NONE

N

36.61

01053 N N N N N 08/12/2012 TODD LAKE RD INTER 3-LEG N N CLR S-1TURN 01 NONE 0 STRGHT 06

CN N W -E

02 N NONE 00

02 NONE 0 TURN-L

PRVTE W -N 000 00

PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR NONE 50 F OR-Y 000 000 00

OR<25

8.059115 24.3403493

N 12P 0 DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR Unk UNK 034 000 06

N 44 1 -121 41 UNK

44 1 11.12 -121 41 (02) UNK

COUNTY SU 0 CASCADE LAKES HWY STOP SIGN DRY TURN PRVTE 000 00

SA 19 TODD LAKE RD W (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY FIX N/A 000 00

8P 01 N DAY PDO PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR 00 Unk UNK 000 000 00

45.73

N 06/25/2016 CASCADE LAKES HWY STRGHT N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 9 79,010 30

44 1 10.92 -121 41 (01) OR<25

1P 01 N DAY INJ PSNGR CAR 01 DRVR M OR-Y 081 000 01

MO 200 CENTURY DRIVE HWY W (NONE) UNKNOWN N DRY FIX PRVTE 000 62,010 00

N 09/29/2014 CASCADE LAKES HWY CURVE N Y CLR FIX OBJ 01 NONE 0 62,010 01

OR<25
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

CRASH ID 1535617 CRASH ID 1476177 CRASH ID 1482152

DMV Serial No 1180 DMV Serial No 857 DMV Serial No 1053

CRASH Date 9/3/2013 CRASH Date 7/7/2012 CRASH Date 8/12/2012

CRASH Hour 17 CRASH Hour 21 CRASH Hour 12

CRASH Hour Desc 05:00 PM to 05:59 PM CRASH Hour Desc 09:00 PM to 09:59 PM

CRASH Hour 

Desc

12:00 PM 

(Noon) to 

12:59

County Code 9 County Code 9 County Code 9

County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes

City Code Null City Code Null City Code Null

City Name Null City Name Null City Name Null

Urban Area (FAUB) Null Urban Area (FAUB) Null

Urban Area 

(FAUB) Null

Urban Area Name 

(FAUB)

Urban Area Name 

(FAUB)

Urban Area 

Name (FAUB)

Functional Class Code 6 Functional Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional Class Desc RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL Functional Class Desc RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0

Route ID Null Route ID Null Route ID Null

Route Name Null Route Name Null Route Name Null

Route Type Null Route Type Null Route Type Null

Highway Num 372 Highway Num Null Highway Num Null

Highway Name CENTURY DRIVE Highway Name Null Highway Name Null

Highway Suffix Highway Suffix Null Highway Suffix Null

Roadway Num 1 Roadway Num Null Roadway Num Null

HWY Component Code 0 HWY Component Code Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

Highway Component 

Desc Mainline State Highway Highway Component 

Desc

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Mileage Type 0 Mileage Type Null Mileage Type Null

Mileage Type Desc Regular Mileage Mileage Type Desc Mileage Type 

Desc

Connection No Null Connection No Null Connection No Null

Milepoint 21.98 Milepoint Null Milepoint Null

LRS 037200100S00 LRS Null LRS Null

Latitude Degree 44 Latitude Degree 44

Latitude 

Degree 44
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Latitude Minute 0 Latitude Minute 0

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude Second 8.531244 Latitude Second 52.168279

Latitude 

Second 8.059115

Longitude Degree -121 Longitude Degree -121

Longitude 

Degree -121

Longitude Minute 39 Longitude Minute 41

Longitude 

Minute 41

Longitude Second 58.385736 Longitude Second 0.412256

Longitude 

Second 24.340349

Latitude Decimal Deg 44.00237 Latitude Decimal Deg 44.014491

Latitude 

Decimal Deg 44.018905

Longitude Decimal Deg -121.666218 Longitude Decimal Deg -121.683448

Longitude 

Decimal Deg -121.690095

Segment Marker ID 293_12828 Segment Marker ID 33_843921

Segment 

Marker ID 11_12180

Segment LRS Measure 105.382202 Segment LRS Measure 2824.221191

Segment LRS 

Measure 0

Unlocatable Flag 0 Unlocatable Flag 0

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Special Jurisdiction ID Null Special Jurisdiction ID 40

Special 

Jurisdiction ID Null

Special Jurisdiction Desc Special Jurisdiction Desc Deschutes National 

Forest

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Recreational Rd Name Null Recreational Rd Name 4107

Recreational 

Rd Name Null

Intersecting Rec Rd 

Name Null Intersecting Rec Rd Name NF370

Intersecting 

Rec Rd Name Null

Street No Null Street No Null Street No TODLKR

Street Name Street Name Street Name TODD LAKE 

RD

Intersecting Street No Null Intersecting Street No Null

Intersecting 

Street No 4107

Intersecting Street Name Intersecting Street Name

Intersecting 

Street Name

CASCADE 

LAKES HWY

Intersection Sequence 

No Null Intersection Sequence No Null

Intersection 

Sequence No 1

Distance from 

Intersection Null Distance from 

Intersection 43

Distance from 

Intersection 0

Direction from 

Intersection 0

Direction from 

Intersection 3

Direction from 

Intersection 9

Direction from 

Intersection Desc UN Direction from Intersection Desc E

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

CN

Posted Speed 55 Posted Speed 55 Posted Speed Null
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Rd Character Code 3 Rd Character Code 5

Rd Character 

Code 1

Rd Character Desc Straight Roadway Rd Character Desc Curve (horizontal curve)

Rd Character 

Desc Intersection

Off Roadway Flag 1 Off Roadway Flag 0 Off Roadway 

Flag 0

Intersection Type Null Intersection Type Null

Intersection 

Type 3

Intersection Type Desc Null Intersection Type Desc Null

Intersection 

Type Desc 3-LEG

Intersection Related Flag 0 Intersection Related Flag 0

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Roundabout Flag 0 Roundabout Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Driveway Related Flag 0 Driveway Related Flag 0 Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Number of Lanes 4 Number of Lanes 2

Number of 

Lanes Null

Number of Turning Legs Null Number of Turning Legs Null

Number of 

Turning Legs 0

Median Type Code 0 Median Type Code 0 Median Type 

Code Null

Median Type Desc No median Median Type Desc No median Median Type 

Desc

Location of Impact 1 Location of Impact 3

Location of 

Impact 2

Crash Type Code 8 Crash Type Code 7

Crash Type 

Code D

Crash Type Desc Fixed Object Crash Type Desc Animal

Crash Type 

Desc

From same 

direction - one 

turn, one 

straight

Collision Type Code 9 Collision Type Code &

Collision Type 

Code 6

Collison Type Desc Fixed Object or Other 

Object Collison Type Desc Miscellaneous

Collison Type 

Desc

Turning 

movement

Crash Severity Code 5 Crash Severity Code 5

Crash Severity 

Code 5

Crash Severity Desc Property Damage Only Crash Severity Desc Property Damage Only

Crash Severity 

Desc

Property 

Damage Only

Weather Condition 1 Weather Condition 1

Weather 

Condition 1

Weather Desc Clear Weather Desc Clear Weather Desc Clear
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Road Surface Condition 1 Road Surface Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition 1

Road Surface Condition 

Desc Dry Road Surface Condition Desc Dry

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry

Light Condition 1 Light Condition 1

Light 

Condition 1

Light Condition Desc Daylight Light Condition Desc Daylight

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight

Traffic Control Device 

Code 99 Traffic Control Device Code 99

Traffic Control 

Device Code 4

Traffic Control Device 

Desc Unknown or not definite Traffic Control Device Desc Unknown or not definite

Traffic Control 

Device Desc Stop Sign

TCD Functioning 1 TCD Functioning 1

TCD 

Functioning 1

Investigating Agency 2 Investigating Agency 0

Investigating 

Agency 2

Investigating Agency 

Desc

County Police - Report 

received

Investigating Agency 

Desc

Not Investigated by 

Police

Investigating 

Agency Desc

County Police - 

Report 

received

School Zone Indicator 0 School Zone Indicator Null

School Zone 

Indicator 0

Work Zone Indicator 0 Work Zone Indicator Null

Work Zone 

Indicator 0

Alcohol Involved Flag 0 Alcohol Involved Flag 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0

Drug Involved Flag 0 Drug Involved Flag 0 Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Speed Involved Flag 0 Speed Involved Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 0

Hit and Run Flag 0 Hit and Run Flag 0

Hit and Run 

Flag 1

Population Range Code Null Population Range Code Null

Population 

Range Code Null

Population Range Desc Null Population Range Desc Null

Population 

Range Desc Null
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Rd Control Code 5 Rd Control Code 6

Rd Control 

Code 6

Rd Control Desc RURAL HWY SYSTEM Rd Control Desc RURAL COUNTY ROAD

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

ODOT Region ID 4 ODOT Region ID 4 ODOT Region 

ID 4

ODOT District ID 10 ODOT District ID 10

ODOT District 

ID 10

Total Vehicles 1 Total Vehicles 1 Total Vehicles 2

Total Deaths 0 Total Deaths 0 Total Deaths 0

Total Serious Injuries 0 Total Serious Injuries 0

Total Serious 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate Injuries 0 Total Moderate Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 0

Total Minor Injuries 0 Total Minor Injuries 0

Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total Non-Fatal Injuries 0 Total Non-Fatal Injuries 0

Total NonFatal Injuries 0

Total Un-injured Age 00-

04 0

Total Un-injured Age 00-

04 0

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Vehicle Occupants 2 Total Vehicle Occupants 3

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 3

Total Un-injured Persons 2 Total Un-injured Persons 3

Total Uninjured 

Persons

3

Total Pedestrians 0 Total Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total Pedestrian Deaths 0 Total Pedestrian Deaths 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total Pedestrian Injuries 0 Total Pedestrian Injuries 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total Pedal-cyclists 0 Total Pedal-cyclists 0

Total Pedalcyclists 0

Total Pedal-cyclist 

Deaths 0

Total Pedal-cyclist 

Deaths 0

Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0

Total Pedal-cyclist 

Injuries 0

Total Pedal-cyclist 

Injuries 0

Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Total Unknown NonMotorists 0Total Unknown NonMotorists 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorists 0

Total Unknown NonMotorist Deaths 0Total Unknown NonMotorist Deaths 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Deaths

0

Total Unknown NonMotorist Injured 0Total Unknown NonMotorist Injured 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Injured

0

Total Persons Involved 2 Total Persons Involved 3

Total Persons 

Involved 3

Total Safety Equip Used 2 Total Safety Equip Used 0

Total Safety 

Equip Used 2

Total Safety Equip Unused 0Total Safety Equip Unused 0

Total Safety 

Equip Un-used 0

Total Safety Equip 

Unknown if Used 0

Total Safety Equip 

Unknown if Used 3

Total Safety 

Equip 

Unknown if 

Used

1

Crash Month 9 Crash Month 7 Crash Month 8

Crash Day 3 Crash Day 7 Crash Day 12

Crash Year 2013 Crash Year 2012 Crash Year 2012

Day of Week 3 Day of Week 7 Day of Week 1

Crash Cause 1 Code 12 Crash Cause 1 Code 12

Crash Cause 1 

Code 6

Crash Cause 1 Desc Other (not improper 

driving) Crash Cause 1 Desc Other (not improper driving)

Crash Cause 1 

Desc

Improper 

overtaking

Crash Cause 2 Code Null Crash Cause 2 Code Null

Crash Cause 2 

Code Null

Crash Cause 2 Desc Crash Cause 2 Desc

Crash Cause 2 

Desc

Crash Cause 3 Code Null Crash Cause 3 Code Null

Crash Cause 3 

Code Null

Crash Cause 3 Desc Crash Cause 3 Desc

Crash Cause 3 

Desc

Crash Event 1 Code 79 Crash Event 1 Code 35

Crash Event 1 

Code Null
Crashes 2013 - 01180 Crashes 2012 - 00857 Crashes 2012 - 01053

Crash Event 1 Desc Crash Event 1 Desc Deer or elk, wapiti

Crash Event 1 

Desc

Crash Event 2 Code 35 Crash Event 2 Code Null

Crash Event 2 

Code Null

Crash Event 2 Desc Crash Event 2 Desc

Crash Event 2 

Desc

Crash Event 3 Code Null Crash Event 3 Code Null

Crash Event 3 

Code Null

Crash Event 3 Desc Crash Event 3 Desc

Crash Event 3 

Desc

GIS Processing Date 5/22/2017 GIS Processing Date 10/1/2013 GIS Processing 

Date 10/1/2013

Effective Date 2015 Effective Date 2012 Effective Date 2012
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

CRASH ID 1696227 CRASH ID 1592412 CRASH ID 1523637

DMV Serial No 1069 DMV Serial No 1448 DMV Serial No 798

CRASH Date 6/25/2016 CRASH Date 9/29/2014 CRASH Date 6/24/2013

CRASH Hour 20 CRASH Hour 13 CRASH Hour 10

CRASH Hour 

Desc

08:00 PM to 

08:59 PM

CRASH Hour 

Desc

01:00 PM to 

01:59 PM

CRASH Hour 

Desc

10:00 AM to 

10:59 AM

County Code 9 County Code 9 County Code 9

County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes

City Code Null City Code Null City Code Null

City Name Null City Name Null City Name Null

Urban Area 

(FAUB) Null Urban Area (FAUB) Null Urban Area (FAUB) Null

Urban Area 

Name (FAUB) Null Urban Area Name (FAUB) Null Urban Area Name (FAUB)

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0

Route ID Null Route ID Null Route ID Null

Route Name Null Route Name Null Route Name Null

Route Type Null Route Type Null Route Type Null

Highway Num Null Highway Num Null Highway Num Null

Highway Name Null Highway Name Null Highway Name Null

Highway Suffix Null Highway Suffix Null Highway Suffix Null

Roadway Num Null Roadway Num Null Roadway Num Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Null

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Null

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Mileage Type Null Mileage Type Null Mileage Type Null

Mileage Type 

Desc Null Mileage Type Desc Null Mileage Type Desc

Connection No Null Connection No Null Connection No Null

Milepoint Null Milepoint Null Milepoint Null

LRS Null LRS Null LRS Null

Latitude 

Degree 44 Latitude Degree 44 Latitude Degree 44
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Second 11.12 Latitude Second 10.92 Latitude Second 39.767556

Longitude 

Degree -121 Longitude Degree -121 Longitude Degree -121

Longitude 

Minute 41 Longitude Minute 41 Longitude Minute 43

Longitude 

Second 36.61 Longitude Second 45.73 Longitude Second 49.641384

Latitude 

Decimal Deg 44.019756 Latitude Decimal Deg 44.0197 Latitude Decimal Deg 44.027713

Longitude 

Decimal Deg -121.693503 Longitude Decimal Deg -121.696036 Longitude Decimal Deg -121.730456

Segment 

Marker ID 11_10017880 Segment Marker ID 11_10017880 Segment Marker ID 11_10016920

Segment LRS 

Measure 3488.443115 Segment LRS Measure 2821.670898 Segment LRS Measure 183174.2344

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Special 

Jurisdiction ID Null Special Jurisdiction ID Null Special Jurisdiction ID Null

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Null

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Null

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Recreational 

Rd Name Null Recreational Rd Name Null Recreational Rd Name Null

Intersecting 

Rec Rd Name Null Intersecting Rec Rd Name Null Intersecting Rec Rd Name Null

Street No 4107 Street No 4107 Street No 4112

Street Name CASCADE 

LAKES HWY Street Name CASCADE LAKES HWY Street Name SOUTH CENTURY DR

Intersecting 

Street No TODLKR Intersecting Street No OH372 Intersecting Street No 9193

Intersecting 

Street Name

TODD LAKE 

RD

Intersecting 

Street Name

CENTURY 

DRIVE HWY

Intersecting 

Street Name

SPARKS LAKE 

RD

Intersection 

Sequence No 1

Intersection 

Sequence No 1

Intersection 

Sequence No 1

Distance from 

Intersection 19 Distance from Intersection 200 Distance from Intersection 28

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Posted Speed 55 Posted Speed Null Posted Speed 0
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Rd Character 

Code 3

Rd Character 

Code 5

Rd Character 

Code 3

Rd Character 

Desc

Straight 

Roadway

Rd Character 

Desc

Curve 

(horizontal 

curve)

Rd Character 

Desc

Straight 

Roadway

Off Roadway 

Flag 1

Off Roadway 

Flag 1

Off Roadway 

Flag 0

Intersection 

Type Null Intersection Type Null Intersection Type Null

Intersection 

Type Desc Null Intersection Type Desc Null Intersection Type Desc Null

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Number of 

Lanes 2

Number of 

Lanes 1

Number of 

Lanes 2

Number of 

Turning Legs Null Number of Turning Legs Null Number of Turning Legs Null

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Desc No median Median Type Desc No median Median Type Desc No median

Location of 

Impact 1

Location of 

Impact 1

Location of 

Impact 3

Crash Type 

Code 8

Crash Type 

Code 8

Crash Type 

Code 7

Crash Type 

Desc Fixed Object Crash Type Desc Fixed Object Crash Type Desc Animal

Collision Type 

Code 9

Collision Type 

Code 9

Collision Type 

Code &

Collison Type 

Desc

Fixed Object 

or Other 

Object

Collison Type 

Desc

Fixed Object 

or Other 

Object

Collison Type 

Desc Miscellaneous

Crash Severity 

Code 5

Crash Severity 

Code 4

Crash Severity 

Code 5

Crash Severity 

Desc

Property 

Damage Only

Crash Severity 

Desc

Non-Fatal 

Injury

Crash Severity 

Desc

Property 

Damage Only

Injury Severity 

Desc

Participant 

uninjured, 

over the age 

of 4

Weather 

Condition 1 Weather Condition 1

Weather 

Condition 1 Weather Desc Clear Weather Desc Clear
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Weather Desc Clear Road Surface 

Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry Road Surface Condition Desc Dry

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry Light Condition 1

Light 

Condition 1

Light 

Condition 1

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight Light Condition Desc Daylight

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight Traffic Control Device Code 99 Traffic Control Device Code 1

Traffic Control 

Device Code 99 Traffic Control 

Device Desc

Unknown or 

not definite

Traffic Control 

Device Desc Traffic Signals

Traffic Control 

Device Desc

Unknown or 

not definite

TCD 

Functioning 1

TCD 

Functioning 1

TCD 

Functioning 1

Investigating 

Agency 2

Investigating 

Agency 2

Investigating 

Agency 1

Investigating 

Agency Desc

County Police - 

Report 

received

Investigating 

Agency Desc

County Police - 

Report 

received

Investigating 

Agency Desc

State Police - 

Report 

received.

School Zone 

Indicator 0

School Zone 

Indicator 0

School Zone 

Indicator 0 Work Zone Indicator 0 Work Zone Indicator 0

Work Zone 

Indicator 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 1

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 1

Speed 

Involved Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 1

Hit and Run 

Flag 0

Hit and Run 

Flag 0

Hit and Run 

Flag 0

Population 

Range Code Null Population Range Code Null

Population 

Range Code Null Population Range Desc Null Population Range Desc Null
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Population 

Range Desc Null Rd Control Code 6

Rd Control 

Code 6

Rd Control 

Code 6

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

ODOT Region 

ID 4

ODOT Region 

ID 4

ODOT Region 

ID 4

ODOT District 

ID 10 ODOT District ID 10

ODOT District 

ID 10 Total Vehicles 1 Total Vehicles 1

Total Vehicles 1 Total Deaths 0 Total Deaths 0

Total Deaths 0 Total Serious 

Injuries 0

Total Serious 

Injuries 0

Total Serious 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 0

Total Minor 

Injuries 1

Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total NonFatal Injuries 1Total NonFatal Injuries 0

Total NonFatal Injuries 0

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 1

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 1

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 1

Total Uninjured 

Persons

0

Total Uninjured 

Persons

1

Total Uninjured 

Persons

1

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total Pedalcyclists 0Total Pedalcyclists 0

Total Pedalcyclists 0

Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0

Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorists 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorists 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorists 0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Deaths

0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Deaths

0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Deaths

0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Injured

0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Injured

0

Total Unknown 

Non-Motorist 

Injured

0

Total Persons 

Involved 1

Total Persons 

Involved 1

Total Persons 

Involved 1

Total Safety 

Equip Used 1

Total Safety 

Equip Used 1

Total Safety 

Equip Used 1

Total Safety 

Equip Un-used 0

Total Safety 

Equip Un-used 0

Total Safety 

Equip Un-used 0

Total Safety 

Equip 

Unknown if 

Used

0

Total Safety 

Equip 

Unknown if 

Used

0

Total Safety 

Equip 

Unknown if 

Used

0 Crash Month 9 Crash Month 6

Crash Month 6 Crash Day 29 Crash Day 24

Crash Day 25 Crash Year 2014 Crash Year 2013

Crash Year 2016 Day of Week 2 Day of Week 2

Day of Week 7 Crash Cause 1 

Code 1

Crash Cause 1 

Code 12

Crash Cause 1 

Code 30 Crash Cause 1 Desc

Too fast for 

conditions (not 

exceed posted 

speed)

Crash Cause 1 

Desc

Other (not 

improper 

driving)

Crash Cause 1 

Desc

Driving in 

excess of 

posted speed

Crash Cause 2 

Code Null Crash Cause 2 Code Null

Crash Cause 2 

Code Null Crash Cause 2 Desc Null Crash Cause 2 Desc

Crash Cause 2 

Desc Null Crash Cause 3 Code Null Crash Cause 3 Code Null

Crash Cause 3 

Code Null Crash Cause 3 Desc Null Crash Cause 3 Desc

Crash Cause 3 

Desc Null Crash Event 1 Code 62 Crash Event 1 Code 35
Crashes 2016 - 01069 Crashes 2014 - 01448 Crashes 2013 - 00798

Crash Event 1 

Code 79 Crash Event 1 Desc

Tree, stump or 

shrubs

Crash Event 1 

Desc

Crash Event 1 

Desc

Cut slope or 

ditch 

embankment

Crash Event 2 

Code 10 Crash Event 2 Code Null

Crash Event 2 

Code 10 Crash Event 2 Desc

Overturned 

after first 

harmful event

Crash Event 2 

Desc

Crash Event 2 

Desc

Overturned 

after first 

harmful event

Crash Event 3 

Code Null Crash Event 3 Code Null

Crash Event 3 

Code Null Crash Event 3 Desc Null Crash Event 3 Desc

Crash Event 3 

Desc Null GIS Processing Date 12/5/2017 GIS Processing Date 5/22/2017

GIS Processing 

Date 6/1/2018 Effective Date 2015 Effective Date 2015

Effective Date 2016
Crashes 2013 - 00923 Crashes 2016 - 01253 Crashes 2013 - 00991

CRASH ID 1528325 CRASH ID 1671967 CRASH ID 1528547

DMV Serial No 923 DMV Serial No 1253 DMV Serial No 991

CRASH Date 7/17/2013 CRASH Date 7/31/2016 CRASH Date 7/28/2013

CRASH Hour 20 CRASH Hour 14 CRASH Hour 13

CRASH Hour 

Desc

08:00 PM to 

08:59 PM

CRASH Hour 

Desc

02:00 PM to 

02:59 PM

CRASH Hour 

Desc

01:00 PM to 

01:59 PM

County Code 9 County Code 9 County Code 9

County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes County Name Deschutes

City Code Null City Code Null City Code Null

City Name Null City Name Null City Name Null

Urban Area 

(FAUB) Null Urban Area (FAUB) Null Urban Area (FAUB) Null

Urban Area 

Name (FAUB)

Urban Area 

Name (FAUB) Null Urban Area Name (FAUB)

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Code 7

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

Functional 

Class Desc

RURAL MAJOR 

COLLECTOR

NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0 NHS Flag 0

Route ID Null Route ID Null Route ID Null

Route Name Null Route Name Null Route Name Null

Route Type Null Route Type Null Route Type Null

Highway Num Null Highway Num Null Highway Num Null

Highway Name Null Highway Name Null Highway Name Null

Highway Suffix Null Highway Suffix Null Highway Suffix Null

Roadway Num Null Roadway Num Null Roadway Num Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

HWY 

Component 

Code

Null

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Null

Highway 

Component 

Desc

Mileage Type Null Mileage Type Null Mileage Type Null

Mileage Type 

Desc

Mileage Type 

Desc Null Mileage Type Desc

Connection No Null Connection No Null Connection No Null

Milepoint Null Milepoint Null Milepoint Null

LRS Null LRS Null LRS Null

Latitude 

Degree 44 Latitude Degree 44 Latitude Degree 44
Crashes 2013 - 00923 Crashes 2016 - 01253 Crashes 2013 - 00991

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Minute 1

Latitude 

Second 53.405904 Latitude Second 58.57 Latitude Second 58.538604

Longitude 

Degree -121 Longitude Degree -121 Longitude Degree -121

Longitude 

Minute 44 Longitude Minute 44 Longitude Minute 44

Longitude 

Second 27.450672 Longitude Second 37 Longitude Second 38.20164

Latitude 

Decimal Deg 44.031502 Latitude Decimal Deg 44.032936 Latitude Decimal Deg 44.032927

Longitude 

Decimal Deg -121.740959 Longitude Decimal Deg -121.743611 Longitude Decimal Deg -121.743945

Segment 

Marker ID 11_10016920 Segment Marker ID 11_10017879 Segment Marker ID 11_10016920

Segment LRS 

Measure 180045.9219 Segment LRS Measure 21103.72461 Segment LRS Measure 179037.4531

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Unlocatable 

Flag 0

Special 

Jurisdiction ID Null Special Jurisdiction ID 40 Special Jurisdiction ID Null

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Deschutes 

National 

Forest

Special 

Jurisdiction 

Desc

Recreational 

Rd Name Null Recreational Rd Name 4107 Recreational Rd Name Null

Intersecting 

Rec Rd Name Null Intersecting Rec Rd Name 9193 Intersecting Rec Rd Name Null

Street No 4107 Street No Null Street No 4107

Street Name CASCADE 

LAKES HWY Street Name Null Street Name CASCADE LAKES HWY

Intersecting 

Street No 9193 Intersecting Street No Null Intersecting Street No 9193

Intersecting 

Street Name

SPARKS LAKE 

RD

Intersecting 

Street Name Null Intersecting Street Name

SPARKS LAKE 

RD

Intersection 

Sequence No 1

Intersection 

Sequence No Null Intersection Sequence No 1

Distance from 

Intersection 95 Distance from Intersection 105 Distance from Intersection 110

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 7

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Direction from 

Intersection 

Desc

W

Posted Speed 0 Posted Speed 55 Posted Speed 0
Crashes 2013 - 00923 Crashes 2016 - 01253 Crashes 2013 - 00991

Rd Character 

Code 5

Rd Character 

Code 5

Rd Character 

Code 5

Rd Character 

Desc

Curve 

(horizontal 

curve)

Rd Character 

Desc

Curve 

(horizontal 

curve)

Rd Character 

Desc

Curve 

(horizontal 

curve)

Off Roadway 

Flag 0

Off Roadway 

Flag 0

Off Roadway 

Flag 1

Intersection 

Type Null Intersection Type Null Intersection Type Null

Intersection 

Type Desc Null Intersection Type Desc Null Intersection Type Desc Null

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Intersection 

Related Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Roundabout 

Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Driveway 

Related Flag 0

Number of 

Lanes 2

Number of 

Lanes 2

Number of 

Lanes 2

Number of 

Turning Legs Null Number of Turning Legs Null Number of Turning Legs Null

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Code 0

Median Type 

Desc No median Median Type Desc No median Median Type Desc No median

Location of 

Impact 3

Location of 

Impact 3

Location of 

Impact 1

Crash Type 

Code 7

Crash Type 

Code C

Crash Type 

Code &

Crash Type 

Desc Animal Crash Type Desc

From same 

direction - 

both going 

straight

Crash Type 

Desc Overturned

Collision Type 

Code &

Collision Type 

Code 5

Collision Type 

Code 8

Collison Type 

Desc Miscellaneous Collison Type Desc

Sideswipe - 

Overtaking

Collison Type 

Desc Non-collision

Crash Severity 

Code 5

Crash Severity 

Code 4

Crash Severity 

Code 4

Crash Severity 

Desc

Property 

Damage Only

Crash Severity 

Desc

Non-Fatal 

Injury

Crash Severity 

Desc

Non-Fatal 

Injury

Weather 

Condition 1

Injury Severity 

Desc

Nonincapacitating 

Injury

Weather 

Condition 1

Weather Desc Clear Weather 

Condition 1 Weather Desc Clear
Crashes 2013 - 00923 Crashes 2016 - 01253 Crashes 2013 - 00991

Road Surface 

Condition 1 Weather Desc Clear Road Surface Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry Road Surface Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry

Light 

Condition 1

Road Surface 

Condition Desc Dry Light Condition 1

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight Light Condition 1

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight

Traffic Control 

Device Code 0

Light 

Condition Desc Daylight Traffic Control Device Code 99

Traffic Control 

Device Desc No control Traffic Control 

Device Code 99 Traffic Control 

Device Desc

Unknown or 

not definite

TCD 

Functioning 1

Traffic Control 

Device Desc

Unknown or 

not definite

TCD 

Functioning 1

Investigating 

Agency 0

TCD 

Functioning 1

Investigating 

Agency 1

Investigating 

Agency Desc

Not 

Investigated 

by Police

Investigating 

Agency 2

Investigating 

Agency Desc

State Police - 

Report 

received.

School Zone 

Indicator Null Investigating Agency Desc

County Police - 

Report 

received

School Zone 

Indicator 0

Work Zone 

Indicator Null School Zone Indicator 0 Work Zone Indicator 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0 Work Zone Indicator 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Alcohol 

Involved Flag 0

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 0

Drug Involved 

Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 1

Hit and Run 

Flag 0

Speed 

Involved Flag 0

Hit and Run 

Flag 0

Population 

Range Code Null Hit and Run Flag 0

Population 

Range Code Null

Population 

Range Desc Null Population Range Code Null Population Range Desc Null
Crashes 2013 - 00923 Crashes 2016 - 01253 Crashes 2013 - 00991

Rd Control 

Code 6

Population 

Range Desc Null Rd Control Code 6

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

Rd Control 

Code 6

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

ODOT Region 

ID 4

Rd Control 

Desc

RURAL 

COUNTY ROAD

ODOT Region 

ID 4

ODOT District 

ID 10 ODOT Region ID 4

ODOT District 

ID 10

Total Vehicles 1 ODOT District 

ID 10 Total Vehicles 1

Total Deaths 0 Total Vehicles 2 Total Deaths 0

Total Serious 

Injuries 0 Total Deaths 0 Total Serious Injuries 1

Total Moderate 

Injuries 0

Total Serious 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 1

Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total Moderate 

Injuries 2

Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total NonFatal Injuries 0Total Minor 

Injuries 0

Total NonFatal Injuries 2

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total NonFatal Injuries 2

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 2

Total Uninjured Age 00-

04

0

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 2

Total Uninjured 

Persons

2

Total Vehicle 

Occupants 5

Total Uninjured 

Persons

0

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total Uninjured 

Persons

3

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrians 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Deaths

0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total Pedalcyclists 0

Total 

Pedestrian 

Injuries

0

Total Pedalcyclists 0

Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0

Total Pedalcyclists 0Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0

Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0Total Pedalcyclist Deaths 0Total Pedalcyclist Injuries 0