What Clackamas County’s Draft List of 50 Priority Intersections Means

Clackamas County’s draft list of 50 priority intersections is a planning tool—not a definitive ranking of today’s most dangerous places to drive. It uses historical crash frequency and severity to identify intersections for safety attention. Understanding the table means reading its method, dates and responsible agencies together.

As of the October 7, 2026 review, the materials support calling this a draft or proposed Transportation Safety Action Plan update. Adoption has not been verified.

Three distinctions matter:

• The 2026 plan uses 2019–2023 crash data, not live conditions.
• Its 50 intersection priorities and 100 priority road segments come from different screening approaches.
• A priority designation is neither a finding of legal fault nor a promise of funded construction.

First, distinguish the draft plan from an adopted program

The county’s project page describes a new draft and anticipates Board discussion in the fall. That tells readers where the proposal stands in the planning materials; it does not establish a completed adoption vote.

October 7 update: The October 6 policy-session packet asks for direction to submit the proposed update for adoption at a later business meeting. A recommendation to take that next step is not proof that the Board adopted the plan. Nor does the worksheet, by itself, establish what happened at the policy session.

This procedural distinction matters when discussing both the table and the proposed safety targets. Readers can use a draft to understand the county’s analysis without treating every proposal as an adopted commitment. Any later adoption should be identified by its own record and date—not read backward into these materials.

How the county selected the 50 intersections

Historical data, with severity carrying more weight

The draft plan, in its Planning Process section, identifies ODOT crash data from 2019 through 2023. “2026” describes the plan year, not when all the analyzed crashes occurred.

Its Network Analyses section describes Equivalent Property Damage Only, or EPDO, screening. In plain language, the method considers how often crashes occurred and how severe they were. Fatal and serious-injury crashes receive much greater weight than crashes involving property damage alone.

That makes this different from sorting intersections by total crash count. A count treats each reported crash as one event; severity weighting gives greater importance to the most harmful outcomes. The exact factors and scoring formula are not verified here, so the table should not be used to calculate a score independently.

The scope—and limits—of the screening

The draft covers roadways in the county except I-205 and I-5, and includes state routes. Its geographic scope is therefore broader than roads maintained by county government.

The analysis also has a clear limit: the draft says this reactive screening does not identify crash causes. It looks backward at recorded outcomes. It should not be read as a verified estimate of the chance of a crash per trip today. An intersection’s absence from the list does not establish that it is safe.

Read the rank and responsible agency together

Table 1, titled “Top 50 Ranked Intersections,” supplies more than a location name. Its responsible-agency information helps distinguish where an intersection is from who has responsibility for it.

For example, SE McLoughlin Boulevard/OR 99E at SE Roethe Road appears first in the draft table, with ODOT identified as the responsible agency. The intersection’s location in Clackamas County does not turn it into a county-maintained road. Improvements involving state routes require coordination with ODOT.

The ranks also include ties, including at 12, 37 and 44. Those ties should remain visible when describing the table. Renumbering the entries as 50 unique positions would imply a distinction the table does not make. The materials reviewed here do not establish a tie-breaking rule.

When looking up a familiar location, read the intersection name, displayed rank and agency as a group. None of those fields is a verdict about road design or responsibility for a particular collision. The Roethe Road example illustrates how to read the table, not why any individual crash occurred there.

Why the 100 priority segments are a different list

The draft identifies 100 priority roadway segments through proactive and reactive analyses. Proactive screening considers roadway characteristics and can identify locations where severe crashes have not occurred. Reactive rural-segment screening uses Level of Service of Safety (LOSS), comparing observed crash frequency with expected performance. Table 2 identifies each segment as ‘Proactive,’ ‘Reactive’ or ‘Both.’

The alphabetical distinction is important: the first road segment is not identified as the worst. Nor should a reader assume that a segment and an intersection received comparable EPDO scores simply because both appear in the same plan.

The intersection list uses severity-weighted historical crashes. The segment list combines roadway-characteristic screening with reactive crash-history analysis. Combining them into a single ‘most dangerous roads’ ranking would erase those methodological differences.

What the proposed goals and funding discussion mean

Existing and proposed targets are not interchangeable

The county’s 2019 Drive to Zero plan states a goal of eliminating fatal and serious-injury crashes by 2035.

The draft’s Performance Measures section proposes a different path: a 35% reduction by 2035, followed by elimination of fatalities and serious injuries by 2050. These are proposed targets, not a verified adopted extension of an existing deadline.

The baseline for that proposed 35% reduction has not been verified here. Without it, the percentage should not be translated into a specific number of crashes or injuries. Both the existing statement and the draft proposal are policy goals—not guarantees or established enforceable construction deadlines.

A priority is not a funded construction schedule

In the October 6 packet addressed in this October 7 update, the funding discussion identifies the Road Fund, Community Road Fund and grants for future projects. It also states that adoption itself has no cost.

That does not mean future improvements would cost nothing. More importantly, identifying possible funding sources does not establish that construction is funded or scheduled at every one of the 50 intersections. The opposite conclusion would also go too far: these statements do not establish that no work is funded anywhere.

For a particular location, the useful follow-up question is whether there is a project-specific funding and delivery commitment. The priority table alone does not answer it.

What the table cannot decide about an individual crash

Being listed does not prove a road defect, negligence or what caused a collision. Being absent does not prove safety. Those questions require information about the individual event, not just a planning designation.

For that separate issue, see when roadway design or signage warrants a separate investigation. If you need to discuss your circumstances, Johnson Law offers information about Clackamas County injury claims.

Questions about the county’s draft priority lists

Are these Clackamas County’s 50 most dangerous intersections?

That description overstates the finding. They are priorities selected through severity-weighted historical-crash screening. The table is not a live or verified exposure-adjusted ranking of danger.

Are the 100 priority segments ranked the same way?

No. The segment list combines proactive and reactive screening, with some segments identified through both approaches. The segments are listed alphabetically, not in severity order.

Does being listed mean an intersection will be rebuilt?

Not by itself. The reviewed materials do not establish funded or scheduled construction at all 50 locations. Priority identification and a specific construction commitment are different things.

Source notes

The linked county project page establishes the draft description. The linked draft supplies scope (printed page 1), data years (page 3), network methodology (beginning page 12), Table 1 and proposed targets. The October 6 packet supplies the later-adoption request and funding discussion; the 2019 Drive to Zero plan supplies the earlier 2035 goal. Adoption remained unverified in the October 7 review.

This article provides educational information only, not legal advice.