The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3080 Adopting TSP ORDINANCE NO. 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT AND TO AMEND THE STREET DEDICATION MAP Annotated to show ae'a~ns and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined-thfatto and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Assn of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975). WHEREAS, the Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains the vision for Ashland's transportation system to retain Ashland's small-town character by planning for "a transportation system that is integrated into the community and enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment." WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies intended to work towards creating an integrated land use and transportation system to address the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0000 directive for coordinated land use and transportation plans should ensure that the planned transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other large urban areas of the country through measures designed to increase transportation choices and make more efficient use of the existing transportation system." WHEREAS, the TSP is one of several tools, along with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Site Design and Use Standards, Street Standards, neighborhood plans such as North Mountain Neighborhood, and official maps such as the Street Dedication, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps, used to implement the goals and policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the TSP is an important resource that identifies the physical improvements to the transportation system and related studies and programs that will need to be funded and built in the 20-year planning period. Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the Street Dedication Map is one in a series of adopted official maps for long range planning purposes, and is periodically amended to identify streets that will be needed in the future to connect the street network and provide access to undeveloped areas within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following policies addressing street dedications: 1) Development of a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street Dedication map. (10.09.02.32); and 2) Street dedications shall be required as a condition of land development. A future street dedication map shall be adopted and implemented as part of the Land Use Ordinance. (10.09.02.34). WHEREAS, the amendments to the Street Dedication Map address changes in existing conditions and projected needs that are identified in the TSP. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on December 11, 2012 and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the adoption of an updated TSP and amended Street Dedication Map. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on February 5, 2013. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to address changes in existing conditions and projected needs related to land use and transportation patterns, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Previously added supporting documents are acknowledged on this Appendix. SECTION 3. The document entitled "Ashland Transportation System Plan (2013)" attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this referenee is hereby added to the above- Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 3 referenced Appendix to support Chapter X, [TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT] the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. The officially adopted City of Ashland Street Dedication Map, referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter X [TRANSPORTAION ELEMENT] is hereby amended as attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made n part hereof by this . SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accord nce with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of d 2013, and d ly PASSED and ADOPTED this 44 day of 2013. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of AMA, , 2013. o Stromberg, Mayor ReviKved as to form- ( lI l ~ ,w Da 'd Loh , City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions. 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009. Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 ChapterrX- Transiiortation The followmo~'rep rtss a ee atloptedby reference es-a suppoit?document=to4he•AslilandrComorehensiV( PlariCtia95tera)(4T`'r nnsportationM d`'4,Asfiland_Trans66rtation Svstem PlaW(Imonth 2013)!byOrdinance #:on'(datel. Chapter XII, Urbanization The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter XII, Urbanization. 1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 16, 2011. Transportation System Plan Ashland Transportation System Plan Ashland, Oregon Final October 2012 Transportation System Plan Ashland Transportation System Plan Ashland, Oregon Prepared For: City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 (541)552-2411 _ Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 Project Manager: Susan Wright, P.E. Project Principal: Marc Butorac, P.E. P.T.O.E. Project No. 10633.0 October 2012 Da , This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and the State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2032 Table ofContents TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Purpose of the Plan 2 Existing Transportation System Summary ....................................................................................................2 Land Uses and Population Inventory ...............................................................................................2 Street System Inventory ................................................................................................................10 Public Transportation System Inventory .......................................................................................17 Rail System Inventory 21 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Inventory 23 Air Transportation Inventory .........................................................................................................29 Pipeline Inventory ..........................................................................................................................29 Water Transportation Inventory 29 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review ...................................................................33 City of Ashland's Transportation Goals and Objectives .................................................................33 State, Regional, and Local Plan and Policy Review ........................................................................35 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................38 Active Transportation Facilities .....................................................................................................38 Traffic Analysis ...............................................................................................................................49 Collision Analysis 54 Bridge Conditions ...........................................................................................................................56 Air, Rail, Pipeline, and Water .........................................................................................................58 Intra-Modal and Inter-Modal Connections ....................................................................................58 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding ............................................................................................................60 Future "No-Build" Traffic Operations 60 Future Population and Employment Assumptions ........................................................................60 Future Transportation Conditions 64 Multi-Modal Level-of-Service 73 Future Transportation Funding ......................................................................................................79 General Policies and Studies .......................................................................................................................84 Summary of General Policies and Studies .....................................................................................91 Pedestrian Plan ...........................................................................................................................................94 Policies and Programs for Improving the Pedestrian Environment 94 Pedestrian Facility Types ................................................................................................................95 Planned Pedestrian Network .........................................................................................................95 Bicycle Plan ...............................................................................................................................................101 Policies and Programs Related to Bicycling and Bicyclists ...........................................................102 fff111fff777///~~~ , iii Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Table of Contents Bicycle Facility Types ....................................................................................................................103 Planned Bicycling Network ..........................................................................................................104 Transit Plan ...............................................................................................................................................109 Intersection and Roadway Plan ................................................................................................................122 Pedestrian Places ......................................................................................................................................142 Other Modes Plan (Air, Rail, Water, Pipeline) ..........................................................................................153 Air .................................................................................................................................................153 Rail ...............................................................................................................................................153 Water ...........................................................................................................................................154 Pipeline ........................................................................................................................................154 Sustainability Plan .....................................................................................................................................156 Transportation Demand Management 156 Carbon Footprint Reduction ........................................................................................................157 Climate Change Benefits from Transportation and Land Use Planning ......................................161 Private Sector Sustainability Solutions ........................................................................................164 Other Relevant Policies, Goals, and Objectives ...........................................................................164 Funding and Implementation ...................................................................................................................166 Funding- Historical Perspective and Future Forecast ................................................................166 Implementation ...........................................................................................................................168 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments ...................................................176 Shared Roadway Street Functional Classification ........................................................................176 Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process ......................................176 Amendment to Support Access Management .............................................................................177 A/ Kittelson & Associates. Inc. Ashland Transportation System Pion October 2012 List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Activity Centers ...................................................................................................................4 Figure 2-2 Percent of Population with Minority Status 5 Figure 2-3 Percent of Households without a Personal Automobile 6 Figure 2-4 Population Density 9 Figure 2-5 Jurisdictional Roadway Responsibilities ...........................................................................12 Figure 2-6 Signal Locations .................................................................................................................13 Figure 2-7 Number of Lanes ...............................................................................................................14 Figure 2-8 Posted Speed ....................................................................................................................15 Figure 2-9 Roadway Surface........ P 16 Figure 2-10 Designated On-Street Parking ..........................................................................................18 Figure 2-11 Freight Routes ...................................................................................................................19 Figure 2-12 ITS Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................20 Figure 2-13 Transit Routes and Stops ..................................................................................................22 Figure 2-14 Rail Lines Owners/Operators ............................................................................................24 Figure 2-15 Pedestrian Network... 25 Figure 2-16 Bicycle Network...... 27 Figure 2-17 Ashland Airport ..................................................................................................................30 Figure 2-18 Regional Airports ...................................................................:.........................................31 Figure 4-1 Active Transportation Demand and Ashland Pedestrian Network ...................................40 Figure 4-2 Active Transportation Demand and Ashland Bicycle Network... 4.. P P P P 4.. P. 4.. P 4 1 Figure 4-3 Pedestrian Traffic Volumes and Collisions ........................................................................42 Figure 4-4 Bicycle Traffic Volumes and Collisions ..............................................................................43 Figure 4-5 Study Intersections ...........................................................................................................50 Figure 4-6 Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices 51 Figure 4-7 Traffic Operations Results. 44 4 4 44 4 ..........................52 Figure 4-8 Bridge Locations and Sufficiency Rating 57 Figure 5-1 Population Growth Assumptions by TAZ 62 Figure 5-2 Employment Growth Assumptions by TAZ .......................................................................63 nnnFigure 5-3 Year 2034 Future No-Build Study Intersections ................................................................65 V Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 List of Figures Figure 5-4 Year 2034 Future No-Build Land Configurations and Traffic Control Devices 66 Figure 5-5 Year 2034 Future No-Build Traffic Conditions ..................................................................67 Figure 5-6 MMLOS-Auto ..................................................................................................................74 Figure 5-7 MMLOS - Transit ..............................................................................................................75 Figure 5-8 MMLOS - Bicycle ..............................................................................................................76 Figure 5-9 MMLOS - Pedestrian .........................................................................................................77 Figure 6-1 Updated City of Ashland Functional Classification Map ...................................................88 Figure 7-1 Planned Pedestrian Network 96 Figure 8-1 Planned Bicycle Network. 44 44 44 0 105 Figure 9-1 Existing and Planned Transit Service ..............................................................................110 Figure 9-2 Transit Supportive Areas... d 4... 0 114 Figure 9-3 2034 Forecasted Household Densities and Transit Service Frequency ..........................117 Figure 9-4 Rubber Tire Trolley Route and Stops ..............................................................................120 Figure 10-1 Existing and Planned Street Network .............................................................................123 Figure 10-2 Access Spacing Standards ...............................................................................................126 Figure 10-3 Planned Intersection and Roadway Projects ..................................................................136 Vi Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 City of Ashland Sidewalk Inventory 23 Table 4-1 Attractiveness Multipliers ................................................................................................39 Table 4-2 Pedestrian Analysis of Boulevard Segments ....................................................................44 Table 4-3 Bicycling Analysis of Boulevard Segments .......................................................................45 Table 4-4 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections with Storage Deficiencies 54 Table 4-5 Potential Countermeasures at Safety Focus Intersections 55 Table 4-6 Bridge Condition Summary 56 Table 5-1 City of Ashland Actual Population and Comprehensive Plan Growth 60 Table 5-2 City Economic Opportunities Analysis Job Forecast 61 Table 5-3 RVMP02 Model and Ashland Projected Population and Employment (within UGB) .....61 Table 5-4 Signal Warrant Analysis - 2034 Future Traffic Conditions 69 Table 5-5 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections with Storage Deficiencies 70 Table 5-6 95th Percentile Volumes that Exceed Capacity or are Metered 71 Table 5-7 RVM02 Model vs. City Plans 72 Table 5-8 RVM02 vs. City Plans 72 Table 5-9 Alternative Funding Sources ............................................................................................80 Table 6-1 Summary of Preferred Plan General Policies and Studies 91 Table 7-1 Pedestrian Projects ..........................................................................................................97 Table 8-1 Bicycle Projects ..............................................................................................................106 Table 9-1 RVTD's Transit Service Enhancement Tiers 112 Table 9-2 Transit Service Frequency and Residential Housing Densities ......................................116 Table 10-1 Access Spacing Standards on City Streets .......................................................................124 Table 10-2 Refinement Plan Studies ................................................................................................134 Table 10-3 Preferred Plan Intersection and Roadway Projects .......................................................137 Table 10-4 Railroad Crossing Projects ..............................................................................................140 Table 13-1 TDM Strategies and Typical Implementing Roles ...........................................................156 Table 14-1 CIP Funding for Construction Years 2008-2017 ..............................................................167 Table 15-1 Sample Crossover Easement/Indenture/Consolidation - Conditional Access Process... 180 ~y+'// vii Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Appendices APPENDICES Appendix 1 Project Prospectus Sheets Appendix 2 Bicycle and Pedestrain Facility Design Toolkit viii Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Preface PREFACE The progress of this plan was guided by the Project Management Team (PMT) made up of City of Ashland staff with input from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The project was also guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the City of Ashland's Transportation Commission (TC), the City of Ashland's Planning Commission (PC), and the City of Ashland's City Council (CC). The TAC provided guidance on technical aspects of the 2034 City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (2034 TSP) and consisted of staff members from the surrounding communities. The TC and PC ensured that the needs of people in the Ashland community are incorporated in the 2034 TSP. City staff also solicited input from other community organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Membership of PMT, TAC, PC and TC are summarized below. City of Ashland Project Management Team (PMT) • John McDonald Mike Faught ODOT Region 3 City of Ashland, Public Works Director City of Ashland Public Works Staff • Mike Faught • Dan Gunter • Jim Olson • Jason Wegner • Karl Johnson • Lea Light Scott Fleury • Jodi Vizzini • John Peterson • Betsy Harshman • Steve Burkhalter Nancy Slocum City of Ashland Planning Staff • Bill Molnar • Brandon Goldman • Maria Harris • April Lucas • Derek Severson City of Ashland Staff • Steve MacLennan • Mary McClary Ashland Police Department Electric Department I IW// ix Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Preface City of Ashland Transportation Commission ■ Tom Burnham Steve Ryan • John Gaffey Julia Sommer • Mike Gardiner Colin Swales Pam Hammond Brent Thompson • Steve Hauck Corinne Vieville Eric Heesacker • Matt Warshawsky • Shawn Kampmann David Young City of Ashland Planning Commission • Larry Blake Richard Kaplan • Troy J. Brown, Jr. • Pam Marsh • Mick Church Deborah Miller • Michael Dawkins • Melanie Mindlin • David Dotterrer • Michael Morris • Eric Heesacker • John Rinaldi, Jr. City of Ashland Council Liaison • David Chapman • Russ Silbiger • Eric Navickas • Dennis Slattery Technical Advisory Committee • Mike Faught • Brandon Goldman City of Ashland, Public Works City of Ashland, Community Department Development • Maria Harris • Ed Moore City of Ashland, Community Oregon Department Land Conservation Development and Development • Mike Kuntz • Paige Townsend Jackson County Rogue Valley Transit District • John McDonald • Ron Hughes I^RRR''777n ODOT Region 3 ODOT x Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Preface Adam Stallsworth Peter Schuytema • ODOT ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit • Carol Savage Larry Blake City of Ashland School District Southern Oregon University • Mike Gardner • Steve MacLennan Freight Delivery Business Public Safety Representative • Michael Dawkins • Pam Hammond Planning Commission Member Chamber of Commerce • Jim Olson City of Ashland, Public Works Department Otak, Inc. • Tom Litster Senior Associate, Urban Planning Alta Planning +Design • Adrian Witte Drew Meisel Senior Transportation Planner Planner Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • Marc A. Butorac, P.E., P.T.O.E. • Susan Wright, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Associate Engineer • Erin M. Ferguson, P.E. • Matthew J. Bell Senior Engineer Planner xi Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 1 Introduction Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Introduction INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The 2034 Ashland Transportation System Plan (2034 TSP) is an important resource for the City to use to implement the community's goals regarding transportation. The City of Ashland is a community that fosters curiosity, creativity, and communication. It has a progressive and active business community that cultivates vibrant cultural and recreational activities to support tourism in the City and establish a healthy, diverse local economy to support Ashland's year-round residents. The citizens of Ashland place great value on creating and maintaining a sustainable and living community by maintaining high development standards, emphasizing historic preservation and developing effective conservation programs. These values and characteristics of the community influenced and in many respects defined the content of the 2034 TSP. In the scope of work to develop the 2034 TSP, the City and community clearly emphasized the desire for the 2034 TSP to integrate multimodal transportation and future land use to create a TSP aligned with the community's values. The process to develop the 2034 TSP was initiated in 2010 and completed in 2012. The resulting plan focuses on policies, projects, programs and studies that: • Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and enhance transit service to make Ashland a less auto dependent community; • Integrate future land use considerations to plan for and preserve opportunities for development that supports and facilitates bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes; and • Enhance livability, small-town character, and the natural environment. In addition to developing the 2034 TSP to be aligned with the community s values, it also meets the state requirements for a TSP and acts as a resource for staff, decision makers, and the public. It represents two years of hard work and collaboration among City staff, Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, City Council, Chamber of Commerce, Technical Advisory Committee and community members. The 2034 TSP is the principal document for identifying the function, form, and location of future transportation facilities, directing resources to transportation projects, and providing the community with the level of investment that will be needed to support anticipated development within the community. It also serves as a supporting document of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan as required by state law. The Ashland Transportation Planning Context Transportation planning in Ashland is shaped by the community members who value the unique combination of small town Americana, rich history, and progressive attitude of embracing new and different problem solving approaches for the purpose of enhancing the experience of living, working rrrr~~and visiting Ashland. Transportation planning in Ashland is also shaped by the topographical and LI , 2 Nittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Introduction physical constraints adjacent to the City. Steep hillsides in the northwestern to southwestern portion of the City act as a natural constraint to growth further west or south. Interstate 5 (1-5) along the northeastern to southeastern portion of the City serves as a constraint and connectivity challenge for growth further east or north. The majority of the City is located within the area defined by 1-5 and the steep hillsides - as a result the City is relatively compact. Based on the community's desires, a key focus of the 2034 TSP was to emphasize projects, programs, and studies to enhance bicycling, walking, and transit as comfortable, convenient, and reasonable means for travel. The City's compact nature supports further development of these modes as many trips within the City limits are relatively short in distance and with improved facilities and transit service can be comfortably, conveniently and reasonably made by bicycling, walking and/or riding transit. Some of the specific issues and opportunities that influenced the development of the 2034 TSP are summarized below. Statewide Highway as Main Street OR 66 and OR 99 pass through Ashland and within Ashland serve dual functions as statewide routes and local arterials needing to serve a variety of land uses and road users. As a result there are several projects and studies identified in the 2034 TSP that focus on finding and establishing a balance of providing a facility that can support different types of road users, land uses and travel purposes. Multimodal Connections to Surrounding Communities As noted above, Ashland is a relatively compact City making travel by bicycling, walking and transit feasible with enhancements to existing facilities and additional facilities to better support those modes. Multimodal connections to surrounding communities (or destinations) such as Medford present more challenges due to the distance between communities and the coordination needed with other agencies and organizations such as the regional transit district. As a result, the 2034 TSP includes a Transit Service Program that outlines the community's transit improvement priorities and identifies funding to support transit improvements. The Transit Service Program is designed to give the City the flexibility they need to be able to coordinate with other agencies to achieve the desired transit service the community would like to have available for travel to, from and within Ashland. i Special Areas There are two areas within Ashland that are notable opportunities for integrated mixed use development consistent with the community's desire to have land uses that support the local economy, enhance the livability of the community and are supportive of multiple transportation modes. These two areas are the Railroad District located a few blocks north of, the downtown couplet and Croman Mill Site located south of OR 66 near 1-5. The 2034 TSP includes projects aimed at providing key transportation connections that will facilitate development in those areas. I IY'/ 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Introduction Plan Background and Regulatory Context The Oregon Revised Statutes require that the TSP be based on the current Comprehensive Plan land uses and that it provide for a transportation system that accommodates the expected growth in population and employment that will result from implementation of the land use plan. Development of this TSP was guided by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.712 and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administrative rule known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012). The TPR requires that alternative travel modes be given consideration along with the automobile, and that reasonable effort be applied to the development and enhancement of the alternative modes in providing the future transportation system. In addition, the TPR requires that local jurisdictions adopt land use and subdivision ordinance amendments to protect transportation facilities and to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities between residential, commercial, and employment/institutional areas. It is further required that local communities coordinate their respective plans with the applicable county, regional, and state transportation plans. Further requirements were adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2009 in Oregon House Bill 2001 - Jobs & Transportation Act (JTA). Among the chief changes introduced in JTA is an emphasis on sustainability. JTA requires the development of a least cost planning model, as well as planning for reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Precise implementation measures and evaluation technologies are still under development. However, these elements were integrated in concept in the development of the TSP. Planning Work Foundation The development of the 2034 TSP began with a review of the local and statewide plans and policies that guide land use and transportation planning in the City. In addition to the previously adopted transportation plan (1998), the TSP incorporates the following other transportation planning efforts: City of Ashland • Comprehensive Plan • Partial TSP Update • Land Use Code • Jackson County • Comprehensive Plan • Transportation System Plan Regional (((~~~rrr77''777 • RVMPO Regional Transportation. Plan 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Introduction • RVMPO Regional Transportation Improvement Plan • RVMPO Freight Study • State • OAR Chapter 660 division 012 • OAR Chapter 734 division 051 • Oregon Highway Plan A complete list of plans and policies reviewed as part of the 2034 TSP development is included in Technical Memorandum #1 Plan and Policy Review within Volume 3. Public Involvement Public involvement for developing and reviewing the 2034 TSP was achieved through: • 12 Joint Transportation Commission (TC) and Planning Commission (PC) TSP meetings and 4 Subcommittee meeting, advertised open to the public; • 1 public forums and one open house; • Targeted outreach to local community organizations and groups such as the Chamber of Commerce; and Public hearings as part of the adoption process. Organization of the TSP The 2034 TSP is comprised of a main document (Volume 1) and two volumes of technical appendices. Volume 1 is the final report of the 2034 TSP. It is organized into the following sections. • Section 1- Introduction (current section) • Section 2 - Existing Transportation System Inventory • Section 3 -Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review • Section 4 - Existing Conditions • Section 5 - Future Demand, Land Use, Funding • Section 6 - General Policies and Studies • Section 7 - Pedestrian Plan • Section 8 - Bicycle Plan rrr~~~r7~ • Section 9 -Transit Plan 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Pion October 1012 Introduction • Section 10- Intersection and Roadway Plan • Section 11-Pedestrian Plans • Section 12 - Other Modes Plan (Air, Rail, Water, Pipeline) • Section 13-SustainabilityPlan • Section 14- Funding and Implementation • Section 15 - Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments (zoning, subdivision, public works construction standards) Sections 1 through 5 of Volume 1 provide important background information on the existing and future anticipated performance of the transportation system. Sections 6 through 15 of Volume 1 present the policies, studies, projects and programs planned for the next 20 to 25 years. Volume 2 includes the technical information that directly supplements Volume 1 including the project prospectus sheets and bicycle/pedestrian treatments toolbox. Volume 3 contains the technical memorandums prepared during the development of the 2034 TSP including the detailed data and analysis that informed the final plan. 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 2 Existing Transportation System Inventory Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SUMMARY This section provides an inventory of the existing transportation system (as of 2010), including elements that influence the transportation system such as land use, population, and environmental constraints. . The purpose of this section is to document the baseline existing transportation system within the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Project Area. The information presented in this section was obtained from a number of sources, including the 1998 TSP, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and the partial update to the TSP performed in 2007. The project team also used Geographic Information System (GIS) files, other data file formats (e.g., excel, PDF), and studies provided by the City of Ashland, Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG), Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD), Jackson County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to assemble the inventory and also conducted limited field data collection and verification. The following elements are inventoried below: • Land Uses and Population; • Street System; • Public Transportation System; • Rail System; • Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems; • Air Transportation System; • Pipeline System; and • Water Transportation System. The majority of the inventory is presented in figures and tabular form with supplemental text provided as needed to further explain the information illustrated. LAND USES AND POPULATION INVENTORY This section identifies the existing, planned, and potential land uses as well as environmental constraints to development. The land use and population inventory helped inform the existing and future conditions analyses; particularly, as the project team worked with the community to develop future alternative scenarios that capture the community's vision for the City of Ashland. Existing maps produced by the City of Ashland illustrate the comprehensive plan, zoning, buildable lands, historic districts, and physical and environmental constraints including floodplain corridors, steep hillside lands, and wildfire lands. A set of these maps is contained in Appendix A of Technical fff111fffMee777morandum #3: System Inventory in the Technical Appendix. 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Existing Transportation System Summary Figure 2-1 illustrates the activity centers that are likely destinations for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other active modes of transportation (e.g., rollerblading and skateboarding). These destinations are based on current City of Ashland maps and GIS data. As part of the existing and future conditions analyses, the activity centers shown in Figure 2-1 were integrated into considerations to improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active modes of transportation. Additional activity centers, such as concentrations of commercial and employment uses, were also considered when making recommendations for enhanced transit service and active transportation improvements. Key destinations identified include Ashland High School, Ashland Middle School, several elementary schools, Southern Oregon University, Ashland Community Hospital and the Ashland Public Library. Lithia Park is the city's largest park, but numerous neighborhood parks also generate significant bicycle . and pedestrian travel. The downtown core is a significant pedestrian destination and accommodates the highest levels of pedestrian activity within the city. Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 are examples of existing destinations in the City of Ashland. Exhibit 2-1 shows Garfield Park, a neighborhood park located off of E Main Street. Exhibit 2-2 is a picture of some of the shopping and downtown activity in Ashland. E 3 Exhibit 2-1: Garfield Park Exhibit 2-2: Downtown Ashland Figure 2-2 illustrates the location, by percentage, of the minority population residing within the City of Ashland. Figure 2-3 illustrates the percent of households without access to a personal automobile. The information displayed in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 is based on 2000 Census Data. One notable finding from these figures is that there are currently large concentrations of minority populations located north of Main Street and near Interstate 5 (1-5) that do not have easy walking access to fixed-route transit. Those living near the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Tolman Creek Road and those living between Iowa Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, however, are within a reasonable walking distance of existing transit service. This base information was used to evaluate public transportation, pedestrian, and bicyclist improvements and opportunities in the existing and future conditions analyses. gT// 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Coy & AsMand Transponabon System Plan Update October 2012 - - - S,-es USGS ESPI. Ty NA AND 0 Dy Hall _ SOU Campus Fire Stabon City Limits Figure M Hospital City UG6 Ashland Activity Centers 2_1 3 y j Schools uky w P"hl-d I 5Pwalbo S1,1" P1-upd,,.e Oaooe( 2012 - - I . r \ , , E` •r . L F . M 1 A r- 4 . C l T' j _ r . i - - wi- D% - 5°k ®20% - 25% - 40% - 45% i i City Limits 5%-10% 25%-30% 45% -50% CityUGB Figure Percent of Population With ~10°h-15°h-30%-35% -50%-75% Minority Status by Census Block 2-2 15%-20%-35%-40% 75%-100% City of A,N-11 Transpon~uon , ~ -mrn Leon ~g,ee.~c. e_ _ - t _ 5 0% - 1% 4% - 5% - 8% - 9% City Limits i Figure %-z~% o 5%-6% 9%_10% ci,yuce Percent of Households Without A j 2%_3% 6%_,% -,5% Personal Automobile by Census Block Group 2-3 3% - 4% - 7% - 8% - 15% - 30% y Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary The City of Ashland's historic and projected population is shown in Exhibit 2-3. As shown, the population in 2009 was estimated to be 21,505. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, the population projection for the TSP horizon year of 2034 is 25,464. The annual population growth rate from 1971 to 2009 has averaged 1.45% per year. Historical population growth has tracked closely with population projections from the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, which assumes a higher growth rate than was assumed for Ashland by Jackson County (RPS) projections. Growth projections by the city are reflected in economic opportunities analysis work completed in 2003 and in 2007. Figure 2-4 illustrates where growth has been occurring in the City of Ashland from 1990 to 2000 using 1990 and 2000 US Census Data. Exhibit 2-3: Historical and Projected Ashland Population 30000 27500 25000 22500 20000 17500 15000 12500 - 10000 1'S^~1h1~.~11~,~91~~^~'S,~h^~1`~91~~ Hlaloric Population C-pmhenai- Plan Projection RPS Projection - - - Linear (Historic Population) It should be noted that population estimates shown in Exhibit 2-3 are for informational purposes only. Population estimates have been updated since 2009 when the TSP project began as shown below. Ashland Population Projections 175W n ~ladtun CarrriLtN~pOKKlKIn tRP6 NnemnJ.-._ L@IP.L~~lR[!~PPP1tlffi7LI1~ 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Pion October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary Relative to Jackson County, the age distribution of the recent increases in population indicate lower shares of youth under 20 years of age and lower shares of the typical working-age range of 25 to 64 years. Retirees over the age of 65 years in Ashland are higher than the state average but remain slightly lower that Jackson County. The Economic Opportunities Analysis of 2007, reviewed as baseline data for Technical Memorandum #1, also provides analysis of growth trends for the City of Ashland. Key findings include: • The population of Ashland is aging and will continue to do so through an in-migration of people nearing retirement age. • Ashland has a large population of college aged residents. • The most robust employment growth will likely be Retail, Health Care, Social Assistance, Leisure and Hospitality. 8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. I City of Ashland Ranspurtanon Syslem Plan Update UMbc 2012 = 2000 Population Density 2010 Population Density (People/Acre) (People/Acre) z! L ~ l J e0_7111 i. L l - " f y t-- _ ' - -Wit - j 0-5 25 - 50 i City Limds s 5-10 -50-75: CityUG9 Figure _,0-25 Population Density by Census Block 2-4 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2022 Existing Transportation System Summary Housing costs in the City of Ashland are the most expensive in Jackson County and may be a constraint on growth, if affordable work force housing is not sufficiently available. STREET SYSTEM INVENTORY Roadway development and construction in the City of Ashland has historically been constrained due to the steep hillside topography through the southwestern portions of the City. 1-5 borders the City along its northern edge and passes through the southeastern edge of the City. In addition to 1-5, two state highways, OR 99 and OR 66, pass through the City of Ashland serving as key boulevards within the urban area. A local network of avenues and neighborhood collectors distribute traffic from OR 99 and OR 66 throughout the remaining urban area. The following set of figures illustrate the current street characteristics within the urban growth boundary including roadway classifications, roadway jurisdiction, intersection characteristics (e.g., signal locations), number of vehicle travel lanes, posted speed limits, on-street parking and other similar characteristics. Functional Street Classifications and Jurisdictional Roadway Responsibilities Prior to this TSP Update, the City of Ashland recognized six functional street classifications in the Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. These classifications are boulevard (i.e., arterial), avenue (i.e., major collector), neighborhood collector (i.e., minor collector), neighborhood street (i.e., local street), alley, and multiuse path. The Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan provides the following descriptions for the street classifications: • Boulevard (8,000 to 30,000 ADT) - Provide access to major urban activity centers for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motor vehicle users, and provide connections to regional traffic ways such as Interstate 5. • Avenue (3,000 to 10,000 ADT) - Provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle access from boulevards to neighborhoods and to neighborhood activity centers. • Neighborhood Collector '(1,500 to 5,000 ADT) - Distribute traffic from boulevards or avenues to neighborhood streets. • Neighborhood Street (less than 1,500 ADT) - Provide access to residential and neighborhood commercial areas. • Alley - A semi-public neighborhood space that provides access to the rear of property; the alley eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard streetscape. • Multiuse Path - Off-street.facilities used primarily for walking and bicycling; these paths can be relatively short connections between neighborhoods or longer paths adjacent to rivers, nnnrrr77J creeks, railroad tracks, and open space. 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Existing Transportation System Summary As part of the TSP Update, the street classifications were reviewed and many were updated to be more consistent with the existing and projected future traffic volumes and function. Figure 6-1 in Section 6 provides the updated street functional classifications. 1-5 serves as the major north-south connection to destinations beyond the Rogue Valley Region and links Ashland to Oregon's largest communities including Eugene, Salem and Portland as well as extends south to California. Three freeway interchanges provide access from City of Ashland surface streets to I- 5; these interchanges are located at Exits 11, 14, and 19. Exits 11 and 14 provide access to the southern end of Ashland, while Exit 19 provides access to the northern end. OR 99 and OR 66 serve as the primary east-west boulevards within Ashland. OR 99 provides access from 1-5 in the southeastern portion of Ashland through the approximate center of the City's urban area extending beyond the northwestern edge of the City's boundary. OR 66 provides access from 1-5 at Exit 14 extending west to intersect with OR 99. OR 66 also extends east beyond the southeastern edge of the City's boundary. The remaining roadways illustrated provide access to/from OR 66 and OR 99 to the surrounding commercial, residential, recreational, employment, and industrial areas within Ashland. Key avenues in Ashland include Tolman Creek Road, Walker Avenue, Mountain Avenue, Oak Street, Helman Street, Hersey Street, Iowa Street, Wimer Street, and Grandview Drive. These avenues provide north-south and east-west connectivity within the urban boundary. Figure 2-5 illustrates the jurisdictional responsibilities for the streets in the City of Ashland. The City of Ashland is responsible for the majority of streets within the urban growth boundary. The exceptions are portions of OR 66 and OR 99, which fall under ODOT responsibility. Portions of OR 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard) have been designated by ODOT with Special Transportation Area (STA) and Urban Business Area (UBA) designations which allow OR 99 to deviate from typical ODOT District OR standards providing the City with additional flexibility when managing and planning their downtown urban core. These sections are located in the downtown Ashland area and on OR 99 northwest of downtown. The specific segments of OR 99 are shown in Figure 2-5. There are also five roadway segments classified as avenues that fall under Jackson County jurisdictional responsibility. Study Intersection and Street Segment Characteristics Figure 2-6 summarizes the intersections (and the existing traffic control) that were analyzed operationally in the existing and future conditions analyses. These study intersections are generally located where neighborhood collector facilities and higher-order roadways intersect. Of the thirty study intersections, eighteen are stop controlled and twelve are controlled by traffic signals. The traffic operations and safety performance of these intersections are presented and discussed below. Figures 2-7 through 2-9 illustrate the roadway segment characteristics including flnumber of lanes, posted speed limits, and type of roadway surface. 11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1.-\CiF ' t (.,i1 cif i:[h'.l~U ir;:n=p Ortal:o~ S`S.c-T P~2n l1[Adtc LJ 2 'yt, . r r e, . i .te 1 , r i - r 7 Sources USGS ESPI TANA AND - ODOT Private City Limits - City undefined City UG8 Figure County - Private/City Jurisdiction Roadway Responsibilities 2-5 C:•,y o; Rshland ttartcpo(tMwn Sy tem Plan U{4ate Oc~cc,u. "tC12 a., . 141 1. T-11 . : i i ~J Sowres USGE ESFI TANd AP.C A Traffic S:anal 0 Pedestrian Signal (FlasningAmber Lignts) Figure City Limits Signal Locations City UGB 2-6 Gty of A,K,nd Transpoq li-System Plan Update OuoOer VD2 i rvip€r li a - k C~l c t _ - _.Y - - _ ~f rte. Sources Uscs. ESRi TF+1- A6i, 2 Lanes . ; City UGB = 3 Lanes - - City Limits Figure 4Lanes Number of Lanes 5 Lane_ 2-7 s Cay of Ashland Transportation System Plan Updale 0-br_7 2012 \ .r 'e per. i T-} (r - - Sources USGS. ESRI TINA AN-0 15 30 45 School Speed Zone - 20 35 " 50 : ; City UGB Figure 25 40 55 City Limits Posted Speed Limits 2-8 65 3 3 r,ny of hsM-tl Trnntponation Sy Firm F'1:]n l7t,tl- 0.m2.n 2"12 I' r I A j Sourtez L~SGS. ES I T Ni,. AND Paved City UGB Gravel City Limits Figure Did Roadway Surface 2-9 Unspecdled Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary As shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9, the majority of roadways within Ashland are paved with posted speeds of 25 mph. Roadway facilities such as Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) and Ashland Street (OR 66) have higher posted speeds particularly as these facilities approach 1-5 and reach the southeastern and northwestern edges of the City limits. Designated On-Street Parking Figure 2-10 illustrates designated on-street parking in the City of Ashland. As shown, designated on- street parking is primarily located in the downtown core of Ashland. While on-street parking is permitted in other areas of Ashland, designations in terms of time and use (e.g., loading zones, commercial uses) occur primarily in the downtown shopping and commercial area and near the hospital. Freight Routes The freight routes within the study area are illustrated in Figure 2-11 and include 1-5, OR 99 and OR 66. 1-5 is designated as a National OR System Freight Route. The City has designated OR 66 and OR 99 as freight routes through the City. The City designated routes are intended primarily for local freight deliveries and local freight movements. Regional and national truck freight movements are intended to occur via 1-5. ITS Infrastructure The only Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure in the area is outside of the urban growth boundary and is located along 1-5. There are two locations along 1-5 with dynamic message signs, one weigh in motion station, and an OR advisory signal for motorists; the location of these items are shown in Figure 2-12. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INVENTORY The Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) provides intercity and regional public transit within Jackson County. RVTD serves the City of Ashland as well as Talent, Phoenix and Medford with fixed-route bus and dial-a-ride paratransit service. Fixed-Route Service RVTD operates fixed-route transit service in Ashland. Route 10 circulates around Ashland and connects to Medford via Talent and Phoenix. Route 10 currently provides service for Ashland from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. The route operates on 20-minute headways from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, 30-minute headways from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 60-minute rrr111hfffe~~ea777dways on Saturdays. Ir/ 17 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. P=nv.nd Transnortabon System Plan UNate Octnher 412 .o _ r ~ 10 Sources USGS. ESRI TANA-AND - Reserved n Time Restricted Figure City Umits Designated On-Street Parking Map 2-10 City UGB City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update October 2012 i . M R. j } r ~ F J , L 1 4 I , 1 i , t S~ - r _ -1- i I r I - Sources USGS, ESRI. TANA. AND Crty Designated Freight Route CA{ Limits - National Highway System Freight Route City UGB Figure Freight Routes 2-11 Cmy of 0. Marta imnsponaaon System F'tan Update Octcncr 2012 , I ~ f~ - t 1ti 11. F . L i _ . 1r-. o r Sources USGS. ESRI T?NA. AND O Dynamic Message Sign City Limits . Highway Advisory Radios City UG9 Figure Weigh inMolion ITS Infrastructure 2-12 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary Figure 2-13 illustrates the transit routes and stops. Currently, there are no park and ride locations within the City of Ashland. Connectivity to other transit is through the Front Street Station in Medford. Ridership levels for the City of Ashland have fluctuated with changes in fares and service. Historically, ridership system-wide and within the City of Ashland have increased in response to sharp increases in fuel prices. Peak ridership levels were reached during 2003 through mid-2006 when no fares were charged to Ashland riders. When fares were increased and the Route 5 loop service was discontinued, ridership dropped sharply. Loop service was restored in 2009 (Route 15); however, fares were increased from $0.50 to $1.00 (which still represented a significant city subsidy to the $2.00 fare on the rest of the RVTD system) and the overall fixed route ridership has been declining over the past two years. Similarly, ridership for the Valley Lift paratransit service, described below, has also had minor but steady decline since 2005 (data is not available prior to 2005). Stop amenities for RVTD's fixed-route bus service include shelters and bike racks at some locations. In addition to the shelters provided by RVTD, the City of Ashland has purchased shelters for additional stops and pays for repair and maintenance of those shelters. RVTD is currently developing new bus stop standards and policies that will determine which stops will qualify for shelters in the future. i Dial-a-Ride Service RVTD also operates a paratransit service through their Valley Lift Program and TransLink. The Valley Lift Program is a shared ride, curb-to-curb, wheelchair accessible transportation service for people with disabilities preventing them from using RVTD's fixed-route bus service. Valley Lift service is provided within % mile buffer on either side of the RVTD fixed-route system. This transportation option fulfills requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RVTD owns and maintains the vehicles; the drivers are contracted through Paratransit Services. Users of this service fall into three categories of eligibility: temporary, conditional and unconditional. During the last fiscal year, ridership averages 750-800 trips per month. The fare is $2.00 and provides a low cost recovery since each trip costs $20-30. TransLink is a 7-county Medicaid transportation service provided to eligible Oregon Health Plan (OHP) and eligible Medicaid clients traveling to authorized medical services. TransLink is funded through the Oregon Department of Human Services. RVTD is considered the Lead Special Transportation Service for ODOT Region 3. In that administrative capacity, the agency schedules and dispatches rides through multiple providers. RAIL SYSTEM INVENTORY Freight rail service is provided through and within the city limits by the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) and the White City Terminal and Utilities (WCTU). The rail line provides service to several local manufacturers, including the timber industry and plants'in the White City industrialized area just north of Medford. CORP acts as a feeder line to Union Pacific. E 21 Kittelson & Associates. Inc. ['.rty of r"M:n<f(r:~n-.F,on;a,on Si..lcm Fl.in U7,d,,tn \ ~clot,er 2012 \t'' i del r 1 1t _ . f . I - - i s - Sources. USGS, ESRI. TANA, ANC - Bus Route 10 City Limits • Bus Stop W/ Seating City UGB Figure Bus Stop Wl°utSeating Transit Routes and Stops 2-13 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary The Siskiyou Line of the Southern Pacific Rail System runs from Springfield, Oregon through Roseburg, Grants Pass, central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland. The line continues into California under the name Black Butte Line. RailAmerica owns the entire rail line from Springfield to Montague, California. The rail enters the City from the north by crossing eastward over OR 99 and passing southeast through the city limits approximately Y2 mile to the east of downtown and OR 99. It runs parallel to OR 99 south of the city and crosses over 1-5 where OR 99 merges into I-5. The rail alignment through Ashland is primarily single track with a section of double track extending approximate 1,500 feet west of Oak Street transitioning to a triple track extending approximately 3,000 feet east of Oak Street and then transitioning back to a double track and then single track over a few hundred feet. Figure 2-14 illustrates the railroad track alignment through Ashland along with the traffic control devices at each of the railroad crossings. The lines are maintained as FRA Class 2, which allows train speeds of 25 mph. Historically the rail lines have primarily handled products of the timber industry including lumber, plywood, veneers, sand, clay, cements, siding, particleboard and feed and fertilizers. Currently the line is not being used by any industry. There is no passenger rail service along the rail line that passes through Ashland (and Medford). The nearest passenger rail service stops is located in Klamath Falls, approximately 80 miles to the east of Ashland. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM INVENTORY This section provides an inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle systems in the City of Ashland based on data provided by the City. The GIS data used to identify existing sidewalks and sidewalk gaps was created by the project team based on information in the city's impervious surface GIS layers. Some modifications to the City's GIS bicycle network were also made based on field observations. Travel trends as well as facility types and demands are discussed below. Pedestrian Network The existing pedestrian network is shown on Figure 2-15. Table 2-1 summarizes the existing sidewalk network coverage within Ashland's UGB. Table 2-1 City of Ashland Sidewalk Inventory Neighborhood Collectors, Sidewalk Present Neighborhood Collectors Avenues Boulevards Avenues, and Boulevards Both Sides 0.6 miles (13%) 6.6 miles (24%) 5.1 miles (34%) 12.3 miles (26%) One Side 1.4 miles (30%) 6.4 miles (24%) 1.5 miles (30%) 9.3 miles (20%) No Sidewalk 2.7 miles (57%) 14.0 miles (52%) 8.6 miles (56%) 25.3 miles (54%) Total . 4.7 miles (100%) 27.0 miles (100%) 15.2 miles (100%) miles (100%) 23 Kittelson 9 Associates, Inc. C.ry of A,6-6 trnn.ponm- Syaem Flan Update Octnoor 2012 (AIM A • i t ~ r - ces USGS. ESRI. TPfi,' At:U Central Oregon 8 Pacific Railroad City Limits • Grade-Separated Crossing CityUGB Figure ! CashinaGates andFlashing Lights Rail Lines Owners/Operators 2-14 ' M Flashing l.iohls 0 Stop signs City of Ashiana TrTnsportaiion Sy V. rm PIT!t Utxl a,r Octa~r+ 20th M . i . v , r ..1 5-,- 4; - 1 1 . - - - r . - = i Sources USGS, ESRI TANA,ANC' - Sidewalk • Traffic Signal City Limits Sidewalk Gaps • Pedestrian Signal _ ; City UGE Figure -Hiker Path ^ Marked Crosswalk Pedestrian Network 21e^! - Multi-Use Path ~ • " Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Existing Transportation System Summary In general, the higher density areas of the City including the downtown and surrounding residential streets are well served with a comprehensive network of sidewalks and crossings. Sidewalk coverage declines as you travel further from downtown and the primary traffic corridor (Main Street - Siskiyou Boulevard), although a number of the newer residential developments on the outskirts of the City have been constructed with sidewalks on both sides of all streets. Table 2-1 shows that just over half (54%) of the major street network (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues and boulevards) does not have sidewalks. The network of boulevards have sidewalks on both sides along just over a third (34%) of its length and on one side for a another 10%. Avenues are covered by 24% with sidewalks on both sides and 24% with sidewalks on one side, i.e. over half of avenues in the City of Ashland (52%) are without sidewalks on either side. Similarly, 57% of neighborhood collectors have no sidewalks. In addition to the sidewalk network, there is approximately 6.8 miles of off-street multi-use path. The density of designated crosswalks, i.e. signalized or marked' crosswalks is approximately 2.9 crossings per mile along boulevards (i.e. one every 0.35 miles or approximately 3-4 minutes walking distance to the closest crossing) and 2.5 crossings per mile along avenues (i.e. one every 0.4 miles or 4 minutes walking distance). In general the downtown and other high-density locations are well served with frequent crossing opportunities. Further from these areas, crossing density is less, but traffic volumes may reduce sufficiently to allow safe and frequent crossing opportunities. Bicycle Network An inventory of the bicycle network (Figure 2-16) shows the following breakdown of bicycle facilities: • Shared roadway/ signed shared roadway: 8.3 miles • Shoulder bikeway: 2.1 miles • Bike lanes: 12.7 miles • Multi-use path: 4.06 miles ■ Greenway Trails: 2.89 miles Overall, approximately 26% of all major' roadways (i.e. neighborhood collectors, avenues and boulevards) have on-street bicycle lanes and 22% are signed as shared roadways or have shoulder bikeways. The local street network has not been included in this analysis, but it is likely many local streets provide a comfortable environment for bicyclists and could form part of a future network of bicycle boulevards. Exhibits 2-4 and 2-5 are photos of some of the existing bicycle network elements in Ashland. Exhibit 2-4 shows an example of on-street bicycle parking provided in downtown Ashland. Exhibit 2-5 shows one of the multi-use paths in Ashland. I1~! 26 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Cay M Ashland Ttanspanak- System Plan Update Dmth 2012 • • J ~ R I~1 ~ l r \ _ ~1 r LI 1!-- l i I Sources USGS ESPI TANA. AND Bike Lane Shared Lane City UGB Bike Path Shoulder lane Figure Bicycle Greenway City Limits Network 2-16 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary *47 VN_ h v r Zr - r Y ;tA Exhibit 2-4: Bicycle Parking in Downtown Ashland Exhibit 2-5: Multi-Use Path in Ashland Example Cross-Sections with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Example cross-sections for boulevards, avenues and local streets are shown below in Exhibit 2-6 which provides examples of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities provided in Ashland. Exhibit 2-6: Cross-Sections with Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 001 ff 3 - r~ , t4ri. - 1. i rte. Siskiyou Boulevard - East of Sherman Street Siskiyou Boulevard - East of Walker Avenue Sidewalks on both sides w/ on-street bike lanes Sidewalks and bike lanes on one side w/ shoulder bikeway other side A' Vu E Hersey Street -West of Carol Street Crispin Street Sidewalks on one side w/ on-street bike lanes Sidewalks on both sides, Cyclists share roadway C 28 Kittelson & Associates, Inc Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Transportation System Summary AIR TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY The Ashland Municipal Airport is located 3 miles northeast of downtown at the eastern boundary of the city limits. (S03) Ashland Municipal Airport, as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration, has a single runway designated 12/30 which is 3,600 feet long x 75 feet wide. The surface area of the airport is approximately 95 acres. The airport is a Category 3 General Aviation Airport defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation. The land within the Ashland city boundary and within the Airport Overlay Zone is zoned as E-1, RR-1, R-1-10 and C-1. Figure 2-17 shows the location of Ashland Municipal Airport. The Ashland Municipal Airport does not offer commercial flights. The nearest commercial flights are out of the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. Medford offers both passenger and freight service to cities throughout the Northwest with connections to larger airports and markets. The Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport is 989 acres in size and is located 3 miles north of the Medford central business district near 1-5. Figure 2-18 illustrates the location of Rogue Valley International Medford Airport as well as several other smaller municipal or regional airport's. PIPELINE INVENTORY Within the Rogue Valley there is a natural gas pipeline owned and operated by Avista Corporation. Originally the pipeline extended from Portland to Medford but a subsequent project connected this pipeline to a line that crosses central Oregon. The distribution lines for this pipeline are located along I- 5 between Grant's Pass and Ashland and the main pipeline is located within the 1-5 corridor. Recently a new pipeline was installed from Ashland to Klamath Falls to increase the natural gas capacity of the local lines and meet increasing demand. There are no intermodal terminals located in or near Ashland. Natural gas can only be transported by pipeline. WATER TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY The Rogue River is the largest body of water in the area but is not large enough to use as a form of transportation, only recreation. The nearest port is located in Coos Bay and is an international/national shipping facility. 29 Kittelson & Associates. Inc. C-" W Ashland Ttanspatat-System Plan Update Ouobzt 2P,12 V iA It ft-I .c y ;Y . ' \ E Sources. USGS. ESkI FANF, AND Airport Overlay Zone City Limits Figure ; City UGB Ashland Airport 2-17 j C,ky N AsHwd 7rorepatatw System Plan Update OfteUV Z112 t S( \ ' Rogue NIaY IMematiortd-MeloNAirport~ of A Central Pd+nt 1 fi Medford tt / Jacksonville Fly By Night Ail' Ashland MunMipel Arport - ~ Ashland r~*,~ - J a 7 Municipal Airport T Local Airport Figure Regional Airports _ -l City Limits 2-18 Section 3 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review TRANSPORTATION GOALS & OBJECTIVES AND PLAN & POLICY REVIEW This section presents the City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan goals and objectives. It also summarizes related state, regional and local plans, policies and regulations that influence the City of Ashland. CITY OF ASHLAND'S TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES In the summer and fall of 2010, the City updated its transportation goals and objectives in collaboration with the City's Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. The goals and objectives provided guidance on the types and priorities of policies, programs, studies and projects that are included in Sections 4 through 10 of this transportation system plan. Goals and Objectives Goal #1: Create a "green" template for other communities in the state and nation to follow. Objectives for Goal 1: 1A. Create a prioritized list of active transportation (e.g., travel by bicycle, by foot and/or a combination of non-auto modes), green projects that reduce the number of auto trips, auto trip length, and vehicle emissions. 16. Expand active transportation infrastructure to include features that encourage non-auto travel. Potential features include bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, wider bicycle trails, and improved lighting for bicycles and pedestrians. 1C. Establish targets for increasing biking, walking, and transit trips over the next 5, 10, and 20 yea rs. 1D. Develop plans for pedestrian-oriented, mixed land-use activity centers with an active transportation focus and green infrastructure. 1E. Identify ways to reduce carbon impacts through changes to land use patterns and transportation choices to make travel by bicycle, as a pedestrian and by transit more viable. 1F. Update City of Ashland code street design standards to provide more flexibility and options for enhanced active transportation facilities. 1G. Implement environmentally responsible or green design standards. 1H. Investigate creative, cutting edge ways including policies to increase active transportation trips in the City of Ashland. 33 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Pion & Policy Review Goal #2: Make safety a priority for all modes of travel. Objectives for Goal 2: 2A. Coordinate with safe routes to school (SRTS) plans for local schools including Southern Oregon University. 2B. Develop an access management plan that can be adopted into code and enforced. 2C. Strategically plan for safety and operational improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. 2D. Develop recommendations for realigning the highly skewed intersections within the City of Ashland that indicate there is notable potential to improve safety. 2E. Recommend appropriate means for managing state highways and major arterials to meet local and through traffic needs in terms of mobility, access, and safety. 2F. Incorporate the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) into development review and capital projects evaluation processes. 2G. Reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. 2H. Reduce the frequency of bicycle and pedestrian related crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. Goal #3: Maintain small-town character, support economic prosperity and accommodate future growth. Objectives for Goal 3: 3A. Develop an integrated land use and transportation plan to increase the viability of active transportation. 3B. Consider modal equity when integrating land use and transportation to provide travel options for system users. 3C. Identify opportunities, guidelines and regulations for bicycle, pedestrian and transit supportive land uses within the City of Ashland. 3D. Identify transportation projects or system adjustments that improve development potential and support increased mixed use development within the current Urban Growth Boundary. 3E. Identify adjustments to transportation and land use codes and regulations that will facilitate higher density developments in transit corridors, and shorter trip length and non-motorized modes of travel throughout the City of Ashland. 3F. Incorporate the Highway Capacity Manual multi-modal procedures into development review and capital improvement.project evaluation processes. 34 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review Goal #4: Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail, air, transit, and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through the City of Ashland. Objectives for Goal 4: 4A. Identify ways to improve street connectivity to provide additional travel routes to the state highways for bicyclists, pedestrians, and autos. 4B. Identify ways to provide sufficient levels-of mobility and accessibility for autos while making minimal investment in new automobile focused infrastructure. 4C. Upgrade pedestrian facilities to ADA compliant standards. 4D. Develop alternative (e.g., multimodal) mobility standards that allow for planned congestion to help achieve multimodal and land use objectives. 4E. Identify corridors where the alternative mobility standards could be beneficial to achieve multimodal and land use objectives. 4F. Recommend creative, innovative ways to more efficiently manage, operate, and fund the transportation system. 4G. Create a comprehensive transportation system by better integrating active transportation modes with transit and travel by auto. STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW Review of over forty documents identified a state, regional, and county regulatory context and a community vision that were considered when evaluating alternatives and ultimately updating the City of Ashland TSP. Technical Memorandum 1 contained in the Technical Appendix presents the detailed review. The following highlights the key findings. A few of the City of Ashland documents are not adopted plans; therefore, did not provide a regulatory context. However, they did provide useful "baseline" insight into the recent history of community planning and citizen input with regard to transportation issues and the relationship of those issues to land use development in the future. • Ashland Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan is the bedrock of goals, policies, and land use designations for updating the TSP. Iti provides clear policies and criteria for evaluating transportation improvements, transit corridors, and any land use concepts for pedestrian nodes and locations for increasing density. • Ashland Land Use Code: The land use code is a supporting document for the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning designations provided starting places for investigating opportunities for future pedestrian nodes and other intensification of development that is integrated with multimodal transportation improvements, particularly enhanced transit service. 35 Katelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transportation Goals & Objectives and Plan & Policy Review Ashland in Action 2000 and the Downtown Plan: Both documents include problem statements and challenges that were considered in updating the TSP. The plans also make specific improvement proposals for the pedestrian and bicycle circulation, transit service, and parking that were considered and discussed in updating the TSP. A Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets: The street standards are comprehensive and hierarchical. They were the starting point for any recommended changes to local street design. The SOU Master Plan Update, the Railroad Property Master Plan, and the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan: Each of these plans is illustrative of important transportation connections and choices that will help define the coming years for the City of Ashland. These plans informed the project lists in the modal plan chapters of this TSP. RVTD Ten Year Long Range Plan: There will be opportunities for an integrated consideration of transit corridors with enhanced service and intensification of land uses. This integrated planning can help define appropriate levels of transit-oriented development and provide needed data for implementing the Tiered Service Expansion proposed by RVTD. Planning should also include consideration of transportation for the elderly and disabled through paratransit services. RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP): Opportunities to coordinate local and regional objectives through specific projects and their timelines for funding and implementation. The RTP includes adopted regional goals for transit service. State Plans and Standards: Coordination of plans and requirements access spacing and design standards for roadway elements will be required for the state highway facilities that also serve as major streets for the City of Ashland. Interchange Area Management Plan for Interchange 14: The TSP update is consistent with the IAMP. Other References: These documents can provide useful guidance and best practices examples for improving multimodal facilities. 36 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. l~ Section 4 Existing Conditions Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS This section documents the current conditions and performance of the City of Ashland's transportation system. Findings from this section were used to identify system deficiencies and opportunities to improve the system to meet the City's goals and objectives. The existing conditions of the following elements of the transportation system are discussed further below: • Active transportation facilities (facilities fog active modes of transportation such as bicyclists and pedestrians); • Traffic counts and traffic analysis; • Collisions analysis; • Access management; • Bridge conditions; • Inter-modal and intra-modal connections; and • Funding analysis. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The term active transportation refers to modes of transportation that require physical activity on the part of the traveler. Traveling as a pedestrian or bicyclist are the two most common forms of active transportation. However, the term also incorporates skateboards, rollerblades, and other such modes. While some of these active modes are less common than pedestrian and bicycle travel, planning and designing for ways to accommodate multiple active transportation modes can help facilitate non-auto travel at the broadest level and help reduce conflicts or friction between non-auto modes. A simple example is making multi-use paths sufficiently wide to allow for safely accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel. This section provides an analysis of the existing pedestrian and bicycle system in the City of Ashland. The analysis considers active transportation demand as well as reviews system, network, and location deficiencies in the pedestrian and bicycling networks using risk and gap analyses. Active Transportation Demand Active transportation demand potential in Ashland has been determined based on the "relative attractiveness" of key destinations in the area. Each attractor will generate demands from within a "comfortable" walking or cycling radius (referred to as the buffer area) - the amount of that demand depends on the relative strength of the attractor to walking and biking, its geographic proximity to potential users, and conglomerations of multiple attractions. Relative strength is represented by a multiplier that rates the attraction of one destination compared to another and is based on our experience in other cities. For example, a transit center is likely to be more rrr777attractive than an individual bus stop. A list of attractors and their multipliers is included in Table 4-1. 38 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions Table 4-1 Attractiveness Multipliers Attractor Multiplier Regional Center 5 Village Center 4 Transit Center 4 Bus Transfer Stop 2 Bus Stop 1 Regional Park 2 Local Park 1 Civic-Justice/Government 1 Civic - Library/Museum 2 Civic - Recreation Center 3 Post-Secondary Institution 4 School (K-12) 2 GIS spatial analyst was used to model potential active transportation demands in Ashland. Areas of high and low potential demand are shown on Figures 4-1 and 4-2 with the pedestrian and bicycle networks overlaid respectively. Not surprisingly, the areas of highest demand are located along the boulevard road network. This reflects land use development patterns that have historically emphasized a compact urban form and directed the concentration of attractors (e.g. strip retail, commercial centers, education facilities, etc.) to be located on major traffic routes and in close proximity to existing population centers. Risk Analysis Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show the location of crashes involving pedestrians or cyclists reported between 1999 and 2009. Crash data used for this risk analysis is from GIS data files provided by the City of Ashland. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes recorded during the weekday p.m. peak hour (3:15 -4:15 PM) at the 31 intersections included in the 2009 count program are also displayed. Pedestrian Risk Analysis In the 30 years between 1999 and 2009 a total of 86 crashes involving pedestrians were reported, including 68 injury crashes and 4 fatal crashes (i.e. approximately 84% of pedestrian-related crashes involved injury or death of the pedestrian). Figure 4-3 shows that crashes involving pedestrians are heavily concentrated along the boulevard road network- in particular along OR 99 and OR 66. 39 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. CIS, of AsNand Franspnnahon SysA-, Plan UpdW, prlaner 20?L 'Eli - t ~ - ~~r 1 r T r -1, RA, I Commercial Center dQ Gty Hall Sioewalk Wale' Commwty Center Fue Statlor G,--.y Park un"esM © Ho'ptai ~CCVLimts Active Transportation Demand o. Figure Scholl C~ L-Enfomemen! AcWeTransDOrW- D.-d ~4SHLAND Library L.w and Ashland Pedestrian Network M 4-1 I Cify r, /Anhltnld 7ranspnnahrn System Plan Update OrlnLe~ 2rJ'C~ t z t_ ~ L'. 1 L dill _ l U I ,aa £ 1 ~ I 1 - ~ I _ -~t~ r 5• d I J.. 1 t• l1 1 1 ~ _ Com-al Cents CM H&N -Bike Le- LJ Waie' C--y~e F-Slat- P""C 1 Active Transportation Demand "Tr OF G1 FtlaoJfl -G--" C- -ASHLAND Figure 5~e~ o L..Enlorcement-S"`-dLenk Active Tren•oonati-V•mmd and Ashland Bicycle Network M 4-2 Q libra~v SbnuBb+Bllewav Low H,g~ I nt Ashland Transpatatlan System Wan Update _ <-toGar 211 r l8 L `1E A I R ti • a i =Z/ x . < I i_ 71 a _ it 1 I - - -I ; ~ - I - r , ~ I I Pedestrian Collision Severity Pedestrian Traffic Volume R-Je's (Weekdays PM) tal~mmity ry Les s than 25 CITY Of Figure 1'~ Injury Fa Parks 2510 50 We',an0s ASHLAND c PedesmanColl,slors 501075 L -';CdyLlmU Pedestrian Traffic Volumes and Collision • 7510 100 M 4-3 - ~ More:^an iC° Ciq n; Mt ,.i T-arsao.aa!Irn System Plan UFdate Or!~~Dr,.7`~'P j E-11 1 I e". t _ l~ AS, ~y v~ y _a i - y N., F = 4 'L Bicycle Traffic Volume „s Bicycle Collision Severity (Weekdays PM) Parks CITY Norrqury Less than 10 "Iellands ASHLAND or Figure A Injury • 10 to 20 -1.- ~ICityLimrts Bicyclist Traffic Volumes and Collisions 4 Bicycle Collisions S 20 to 30 M ® More than K x Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions A segment analysis of these two highways (within the City of Ashland) is included in Table 4-2 and compares the pedestrian-involved crash rate with environmental factors including vehicular traffic volumes, sidewalk coverage, and signalized crossing density and coverage. Table 4-2 Pedestrian Analysis of Boulevard Segments Segment Crashes Involving Signalized Pedestrians Traffic Sidewalk Cro5s~tiy, 1,,gn 1. OR 99 IN Main St) Valley View Rd Maple St 0.2 - 56% 1.7 20% OR 99 IN Main St) Maple St Heiman St 1.0 1,500 83% 1.7 30% OR 99 IN Main St) Helman St Siskiyou Blvd 2.4 1,500 85% 6.0 35% OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd) Uniori St Ashland St 1.1 900 95% 5.0 70% OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd) Ashland St Normal Ave 0.8 800 65% 0.0 30% OR 99 (Slskiyou Blvd) Normal Ave Boundary 0.2 500 52% 1.1 7% OR 66 (Ashland St) Siskiyou Blvd Clay St 0.6 1,100 80% 1.0 20% OR 66 (Ashland St) Clary Boundary 1.0 1,250 65% 1.7 7% -Weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes (3:15-4:15PM) collected in September/October 2009. "Sidewalk coverage calculation determined by presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street. - In general the road segments with the highest pedestrian-involved crash rates were those where high numbers of pedestrian crossings interact with high traffic volumes - such as in and near downtown - and where there is higher traffic volumes and fewer intersections treated with signals. Bicyclist Risk Analysis In the 10 years between 1999 and 2009 a total of 122 crashes involving cyclists were reported including 90 injury crashes (i.e., approximately 74% of crashes involving cyclists resulted in an injury to the cyclist). There were no fatal crashes involving cyclists during this time. Figure 4-4 shows that, similar to pedestrian-involved crash distribution, crashes involving cyclists also tend to be concentrated along the boulevard road network - particularly along OR 99 and OR 66. Cyclist-involved crash rates for segments of OR 99 and OR 66 have been compared to bicycle traffic volume, vehicular traffic volume, bike lane coverage (note: this does not include shared roadways), and signalized crossing density and coverage in Table 4-3. 44 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions Table 4-3 Bicycling Analysis of Boulevard Segments Crashes Signalize Involving d Segment Cyclists Bike Traffic Bike Lane Crossing Signal (crashes/ Volume- Volume* Coverage Density Coverage OR 99 IN Main St) Valley View Rd Maple St 0.0 - - 0% 1.7 20% OR 99 (N Main St) Maple St Helman St 0.5 11 1,500 0% 1.7 30% OR 99 (N Main St) Helman St Siskiyou Blvd 1.7 14 1,500 43% 6.0 35% OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd) Union St Ashland St 1.7 9 900 100% 5.0 70% OR 99(Siskiyou Blvd) Ashland St Normal Ave 2.2 13 800 100% 0.0 30% OR 99(Siskiyou Blvd) Normal Ave Boundary 0.4 15 500 80% 1.1 7% OR 66 (Ashland St) Siskiyou Blvd Clay St 1.1 14 1,100 100% 1.0 20% OR 66 (Ashland St) Clary Boundary 1.0 3 1,250 50% 1.7 7% -Weekday p.m. peak hour bike and traffic volumes (3:15-4:15PM) collected in September/October 2009. There are no obvious trends to explain why one segment performs better than another. In fact, a number of segments that are fully covered by on-street bike lanes and had lower traffic volumes than other segments recorded higher rates of crashes involving cyclists. Gap Analysis System, network, and location deficiencies in the pedestrian and cycling networks have been assessed through a desktop inspection of the existing networks. The findings of this analysis are included below. Pedestrian Network There are a number of gaps in the City's major street (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues, and boulevards) sidewalk network. As described in Section 1, 34% of the 15.2 miles of boulevard network has sidewalks on both sides of the street and 44% has sidewalks on at least one side of the street. For avenues and neighborhood collectors, sidewalk coverage on at least one side of the street is approximately 48% and 43% respectively. Signalized crossings are generally located along the boulevard road network, with the highest concentrations located downtown, in front of the Southern Oregon University,. and near the intersection of OR 99 and OR 66. Detailed signal warrants have not been undertaken given the limited availability of data; however, ODOT's AADT-based preliminary signal warrants can be used to determine if an intersection generally meets the volume levels for signalization. Crossing locations where higher pedestrian / bicycle volumes interact with higher motorized traffic volumes and/or vehicle speeds should be prioritized for engineering studies to consider what (if any) enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments such as marked crosswalks, pedestrian-activated signals and traffic signals are warranted. Based on pedestrian and traffic volumes recorded during the weekday 45 'Kittelson & Associates, Inc. LiI ~~u Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions p.m. peak hour (3:15 - 4:15 PM) at the 31 intersections included in the 2009 count program, the following unsignalized intersections observe the highest conflicts of vehicle and pedestrian traffic: • OR 99 (NB) / Oak Street; • OR 99 (SB) / Oak Street; • OR 99 / Wimer Street / Hersey Street; • Walker Avenue / Iowa Street; and • S Mountain Avenue / Iowa Street. There may be other intersections, mid-block locations, or railway crossings that were not included in the count program that may also qualify for further study. Existing under-serviced demands, such as where "illegal" crossings or informal trails have developed should be considered in the evaluation along with latent demands, which are those pedestrians that would use a crossing or facility if safe and convenient opportunities were provided. Bicycling Network The land use and road network pattern in Ashland is a "fishbone" network that consists of one or two east-west "spines" (OR 99 and OR 66) supported by a north-south collector system. The spinal corridors provide a regional traffic mobility function as well as hosting the majority of the City's attraction-based land uses including its retail, commercial, service, and educational hubs. These locations are also attractive to bicycle riders (see Figure 4-1). The existing bikeway network reflects the same structure as the major road . network (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues, and boulevards); there are few continuous alternatives to the boulevard network, particularly routes that connect riders to the major land use attractions. Overall, the City has approximately 30 miles of bikeway facilities. Approximately half of these are dedicated on-street facilities (i.e., bike lanes or bike shoulders) that cover approximately 32% of the major road network (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues and boulevards) in Ashland. An additional 23% of the bikeway network is off-street (i.e., either multi-use path or greenway trails) with the remainder of the network consisting of shared roadway or signed shared roadway facilities. Network Analysis An analysis of the bicycle network has been conducted that describes the existing system and provides some general comments on gaps in the existing system with a particular focus on facilities that cater towards the "interested but concerned" cycling group. For the purposes of the analysis, the City has been organized into four analysis areas: the north-east quadrant (generally north of Siskiyou Boulevard and east of downtown), the north-west quadrant (north of E Main Street including and west of downtown), south of OR 99, and along OR 99. Exhibit 4-1 illustrates these analysis areas. 46 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions Exhibit 4-1 Network Analysis Areas sNW AI , r Yn..{n f Sou(\th of, OR~ 99 OR*99 9 1 y [ "~5 + NE North-East Quadrant Currently, there is approximately 7 miles of off-street pathway or trail network in the City of Ashland that caters to the "interested but concerned" cyclist. Some of this is contained within parklands and tends to attract recreational cyclists. The multi-use path adjacent to the rail corridor between Tolman Creek Road and 6th Street provides the basis of a comprehensive bike network in the north-east quadrant of the City. On-street bike lanes on E Main Street, OR 66 (Ashland Street), Tolman Creek Road, Walker Avenue, and Mountain Avenue provide connections to the attractions along OR 99 and OR 66 at regular spacing - approximately every 0.5 to 1.0 mile. Future development of the network in the north-east quadrant could include "in-filling" existing connections between the multi-use pathway and OR 99 and OR 66 with a greater emphasis on facilities more appropriate for "interested but concerned" cyclists. This could include on-street (preferably buffered or separated) bike lanes or bicycle boulevards along lower volume streets and alleyways. North-West Quadrant Bicycle facilities in the north-west quadrant consist of three primary north-south bikeways including on- street bike lanes on Mountain Avenue and shared lanes on Oak Street and 4th Street (the latter in downtown only). Only Mountain Avenue provides protected facilities and there are no north-south bikeways west of Oak Street. ~~7 ~ 47 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions East-west bikeways include shared lanes along Nevada Street and A Street (downtown) and on-street bike lanes along Hersey Street. A Street may be an appropriate street, in-terms of directness and traffic environment, to provide an interim on-street alternative to the continuation of the multi-use pathway along the rail corridor. There are a number of gaps along the Nevada Street bikeway including an incomplete connection across the creek between Kestrel Parkway and Oak Street and the section west of Heiman Street. Apart from those already provided, there are few opportunities for additional east- west bikeway connections due to geographical and physical barriers. Continuing the multi-use pathway along the rail corridor would provide a comfortable "distributor" function for bicyclists in the north-west quadrant. A number of pathway "stubs" would provide connection to existing bikeways such as Nevada and Hersey Streets as well as development areas such as the lands south of Hersey Street between Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. Similar to the north-east quadrant, connections to OR 99 can be provided along low volume streets or alleyways in the form of bicycle boulevards or using buffered or separated on-street bike lanes where appropriate. These will supplement or upgrade the existing connections to OR 99 that include an on- street bike lane along Hersey Street and shared roadways along Oak Street, and 4th Street. Additional connections may include a central connection to downtown (perhaps a bicycle boulevard along 1st or 2nd Street) and a north-south connection between Heiman and Hersey Streets. A north-south connection reaching into the residential areas west of Oak Street and north of Hersey Street would also be appropriate. This could connect to the existing greenway trail north of Nevada Street. South of OR 99 The existing cycling network is sparse south of OR 99 with a few off-street pathways provided in the Southern Oregon University campus and in Lithia Park and a shared roadway route along Winburn Way. There appears to be fewer opportunities to create a continuous bicycle route parallel to OR 99 as is provided by the rail corridor trail on the north side of OR 99. However, there is an opportunity to provide a more circuitous bicycle boulevard network that winds through the local street and alleyway network. This will require additional signing and striping to highlight changes in direction, but would provide an alternative to OR 99 for "interested but concerned" cyclists that are generally less concerned with speed and direct routes. There are few north-south connections currently. It is recommended that north-south connections to OR 99 occur at a spacing of at least every mile initially to be filled in later to every 0.5 miles or less. At a minimum these should consist of on-street bike lanes, but preferably would consider separated or protected bike lanes along heavier traffic streets or utilize lower volume streets and alleyways to create bicycle boulevards. OR 99 OR 99 provides the quickest and most direct route through the City as well as between land use attractions which are generally concentrated along the highway. The existing policy of developing on- 48 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions street bike. lanes will continue to attract the "strong and fearless" and "enthused and confident" cycling groups. Therefore, continuing on-street bike lanes north of the E Main Street / Siskiyou Boulevard intersection is still appropriate. However, to attract the "interested but concerned" cycling group, a system of protected or buffered bike lanes along OR 99 or a parallel alternative route along lower volume streets or an off-street multi- use path is recommended. North of the highway, there are no continuous parallel streets and the multi- use path adjacent the rail corridor is approximately 0.5 miles north of OR 99. There is more potential for a parallel route south of OR 99, although this would be a circuitous combination of local streets. The potential for protected bike lanes along OR 99 should be investigated further. Some locations along OR 99 may warrant enhanced crossing treatments for less experienced cyclists. This could include median refuge crossings and pedestrian-activated signals with bicycle push buttons. Enhanced crossings should be considered where crossing opportunities are limited by traffic volumes or vehicle speeds or where there is a safety risk for crossing bicyclists. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Section 1 includes a detailed inventory of the City of Ashland's roadway facilities for those classified as neighborhood collectors and higher (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues, and boulevards). The inventory includes information on functional classification, jurisdictional responsibilities, posted speed limits, surface type, number of lanes and other similar roadway characteristics. The focus of this section is to document the existing traffic operations for the study intersections identified for the TSP update. Study Intersection Operations Assessment Existing conditions traffic operations analysis was conducted for 31 key intersections within the City of Ashland during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Technical Memorandum #3 contains detailed information on the traffic count data used in the analysis, the analysis methodology applied, the operational standards used to assess the results, and the development of peak hour traffic volumes for the analysis. The following documents the results of the analysis for the study intersections under existing traffic conditions. Intersection Delay and Capacity Analysis Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 illustrate the study intersection locations, lane configurations and traffic control devices, and the traffic operations results, respectively. 49 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. y et p blan7 it ansnuna\ on System Plan Uod,te O IOLr:r U)12 . 01 . S 121-= 14) X15 . ~E31 of ' ° 17. . 20 211 922 " F l- 3 _ Sources L'SGS cSRI TFNF FND ® ODOT Study Intersection is City Study Intersection Figure Existing Traffic Conditions 4-5 C;ty nr Ashland TmnspOrl,aunrp System Plan Update Ocronpr 7012 rJ kt- Street IOR99y OR94' N Mash Street iOR99i Wimer Sneer-Hersey N Alain S[refit IOR99'J E Main Street (OR99 $By $16k1you Blvd (OR99 SBy Siskhypu Blvd IOR991 Siskr~JU Fltvo IOR931 SlSkiv).~ cho IOR99: 0 Valley View Road ® Maple Street 6 Street 6 Reiman Street ® Oak Sleet O E Main Street O S Mounlaln Avenue O Gn~!eid Street O Ashland Street (OR66t 6 7 8 9 rk. ti k k 3 Nt Siskiyou Blvd (OR-91 Slskiyou BI ro (OR99! SRtryou Blvd (OR99y Nevada Street' Hersey Street Hersey Street LitNa Way (OR99 NBy Lllhia Way (OR99 NBy E Main Street tC Walker Street ® Tolman Creek Road ® Mistletoe Road Oak Street 14 Oak Street N Mountain Avenue ® Oak Street Q E Main Street Mountain Ave-, A. ~ -t/_4 T~ R 1 rF ~Y D F. Main Street/ Iowa Street IOW" Street' Ashland Street (DR661; Ashland Street (OR66V Ashland Street (ORWi, Ashland Street (OR65) Ashland Street (OR66V Ashland Street (OR66t' 15 walker Avenue ® S Mountain Avenue P1 Walker Street © Walker Street Tolman Creek Road ® W ashmgton Street ® 1-5 Southbound Ramp ® 65 Nodhbound Ramps ® Oak Knoll-E Main Street 1 l Ashland Street (01166y Dead Indian Mistletoe Road' Nutley Street Ashland Street ® Memorial Road Q Tolman Creek Road ® Grande Street 31 S Mountain Avenue v $ sL 4 sti $ ® - ODOT STUDY INTERSECTION I CITY OF Figure CITY STUDY INTERSECTION Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic -ASHLAND s -STOP SIGN Control Devices 4-6 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL Co7v .'i 4c',i3r.7 Trr;porrar- System Pian Update Ci tcr- M,2 N Main Street (OR99y OR99 N Man Street IOR991~ W-, Street-Hersey N Main Street (OR99), E Main Street (OR44 SH)I Sisklyou Rtvd (OR99 SB)+ Slskryou Blvd IOR99) Slskryou BNtl (OR9% Siskiyou 31vel (OR99)I e O Valley View Road ® Mapte Street © Street 0 Heiman Street © Oak Street © E Main Street O S Mountain Avenue ® Garfield Street O Ashland Street (OR66) J ~ ,oW r,~r .,o 1~,y ls ~ ` • ~ s,o, l terse j ~ ~1 arse 1 J~ ~s~ c.rsB LD5.9 " LDS.c l ace s oss l er,sg Derza.a t ~1 oe r.o 5 S A os.r Dean oss Las.' ' Da 2T • k, N629.~sa y~vco.sc ! a ~.so ! vcaas arso DerTe 1 vrc.e.w 1 arza a33t' ' PP'l j1"vC.08] `t r a82 vc-0.I] N- vKA.ll ~..r~ s%aso '~tf sTO.an '~S s,.,. s... STDam STD•E sTD.aw STD4 sr0-0 S!"iyou Blvd (OR99)% Sisktynu Blvd IOR99) 5i5iiyou Blvd (OR99y Nevada Street' Hersey Street' Hersey Street' Lfihia Way (OR99 NBy L1Mia Way (OR99 NBV E Main Street/ t Walker Street ® Tolman Creek Road ® Mistletoe Road 0 Oak Street 14 Oak Street © N Mountain Avenue ® Oak Street © E Main Street to Mountain Avenue r,Rlr k°p R= *-T o$,p q3 °s AR Jj1e Jib ✓4 Jul ~Iti Jt ✓j1" . ~ LOS.< cree ism case J cvR~- tq ~ ' L054. J low am+6 LOS-0 ppl LO"s.£ ttgy e D*41 l ao ose it, LOBS D5 9 w'Dss~ C ar.'ae ttLo a it, 9o~ Drt<e tM i lry~ nc.-as VC-0.e+ - Orrti.< ti ~ Da+•98 A 30 o,.- vILa31 r 1 V L As w vti s, n VC.C'9 r tio.,arH Cabs 1-5 1 ,r~~ l r rcrlsr s l !,y 1 ix Sr D 11 r 5ro w -w 1 t r srus } t sTO o t r s crD t sT0,n.us s ao t (y 1 t r R91 rRR Main Street/ Iowa Street/ lava Street Ashland Street (OR66V Ashland Street (OR66i' Ashland Street (OR66l, Ashland Street (OR661 Ashland Street (OR66Y Ashland Street (OR66V "Valker Avenue ® S Mountain Avenue Q Walker Street ® Walker Street ® Tolman Creek Road ® Washington Street ® 1-5 S-thoound Ramp ® I-5 Northbound Ramos ® Oak Kooll.E Main Shea? Sy o#1r $R~ 538 3~S j1" Jj1L Jj1. J~1L ✓jl 5 c"°r,',m zo_0 Low tb ypJ Lola try gc.J Loss tan L CWNS .-eoD o s s .-m J tow ~ _N.'r 2g Pyr Der,18 y 6- oms< .-6 9tSr Der1L«<eo M- Ds.n.2 x-175 •y~ ]eF,18 2➢ SO~ Der,&'J ,T Utl~ prr.50 ~2a0 ~y5,+ s o s s ss sB 1 1 r"a 7 vc-onc r 1 vc-o~. l~ 1 vc n..s r 1 vmea vo.o.r vac a.<s v'C- rvc.c.rs ~ sTOr e< l r srsE t r so E 1 t r smn 11 r D D 1 t r s o aas e1 r s aas rues P, Ashland Street (OR66y Dead Indian, Mistletoe Roadl Nutley Street, Ashland Street/ ® Memorial Road ® Tolman Creek Road ® Granite Be" 3t S Mountain Avenue OR R s y 5 J terse r9 l cvr[B r' J CM.EB r l s LOS.e d LOM y ?gy los.OS. per, J.g rs~ Oerl~i `ys UM.O< ;6 g 0d 1,3 yg vlC ill 5111.e.eg 1 V'P ,S T 1 Vc.B.O, / vlc-0 l` f ( 1 t r s- t r BRL-E 1 t r sTn-r (ud = CRITICAL MOVEMENT (UNSIGNAUZED) ° L:)S = INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZEDI'CRITICALMOVEMENT LEVEL OF Existing Traffic Conditions CITY O F Figure SERVICE (UNSIGNALIZED) -ASHLAN D Uri = INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (b--.4t )!NAILICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL Weekday PM Peak Hour 4r7 DELAY (UNSIGIZED) V C = CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO S-.D= OPERATIONAL STANDARD s Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions As shown, there is one study intersection under ODOT's jurisdiction that does not meet its applicable mobility standard. There is also one study intersection under the City of Ashland's jurisdiction that exceeds the LOS D threshold identified for traffic signal controlled intersections in the City of Ashland. The LOS D threshold is not a formal City of Ashland standard (the City does not currently have adopted mobility standards). The LOS D threshold was set for the purpose of this analysis to identify intersections under the City's jurisdiction that may experience existing operational issues. The intersection under ODOT's jurisdiction that does not meet its applicable mobility standard is OR 66/1-5 Exit 14 NB Ramps intersection. The OR 66/1-5 Exit 14 NB Ramps are located in the southeastern portion of the City. An Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP) has recently been prepared for the OR 66/1-5 interchange. The intersection improvements identified within the IAMP for the OR 66/1-5 Exit 14 NB Ramps intersection includes converting the existing two-way stop controlled intersection to a signalized intersection, which will help address existing operational issues. The findings and recommendations in the IAMP will be considered when future analysis scenarios are conducted within this TSP update project. The study intersection under the City of Ashland's jurisdiction identified as potentially experiencing operational issues is E Main Street/Mountain Avenue intersection. The intersection is currently signalized and has exclusive left-turn lanes on all four approaches. The intersection is currently operating with at LOS E with a V/C ratio of 0.59. The southbound left-turn movement in the weekday evening peak hour is the dominant north-south movement and is the likely the contributing factor to the intersections higher average control delay (i.e., LOS E) and relatively low V/C ratio. There are likely signal timing adjustments that could be made to reduce the average control delay at this location. Intersection Queuing Analysis Queuing analysis was performed at the study intersections in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 8.3 of the ODOT Analysis Procedures Manual. The 95th Percentile queue lengths reported are from those calculated using Synchro 7 software, which implements the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. As there were 31 intersections included in the analysis, Table 4-4 summarizes the queuing results for the study intersections where storage deficiencies were identified. The queue lengths reported in Table 4-4 were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. The available storage length is based on the striped storage lane at the intersection. If a striped storage lane is not provided for a movement, the distance between roadways is reported as the available storage. Appendix D of Technical Memorandum #4: Existing System Conditions in the Technical Appendix contains the results of the queuing analysis for all of the study intersections. 53 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions Table 4-4 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections with Storage Deficiencies Approach/ 95th Percentile Queue Striped Storage Location Movement IN Available (ftl Adequate Storage? OR99/ WBR 300 100 No Valley View Road Hersey St/ EBR 150 100 No N Mountain Avenue EBL 150 100 No OR66/ WBL 225 100 No Tolman Creek Road NBL 125 100 No 'The following abbreviations are used in this table: NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; EB: Eastbound; WB: Westbound; L: Left; LTR: Shared left/through/right lane; LT: Shared left/through lane. As shown in Table 4-4, seven study intersections were found to have 95th percentile queues on one or more approach that exceed the available storage capacity. The remaining study intersections were found to have adequate storage at each approach. COLLISION ANALYSIS Collision analysis was conducted for the Ashland TSP study intersections and key roadway segments within the City. The intersection analysis was performed using ten years of crash data obtained from ,ODOT; the data covers crashes reported from 2000 through 2009. The segment crash analysis was performed using a GIS data set from the City of Ashland. As part of the analysis, the Statewide Priority Index System (SPIS) was reviewed to determine if ODOT had identified any hazardous locations along OR 99 or OR 66 within the City of Ashland. Findings from the collision analysis indicated the following. • ODOT's 2009 SPIS analysis rates OR 99 and OR 66 through Ashland as Category 3 (of 5 categories) or lower indicating 3 to 5 fatal and/or serious injury crashes or fewer per five miles have occurred on OR 66 and OR 99 sometime from 2006 through 2008. • There are five study intersections with crash rates higher than expected based on crash rates at similar types of intersections within Ashland; these intersections are: o OR 99/Hersey Street/Wimer Street; o OR 99 SB/Oak Street; o OR 99/Tolman Creek Road; o OR 99 NB/E Main Street; o OR 66/Tolman Creek Road; and o OR 66/E Main Street/Oak Knoll Drive. • The majority of reported crashes on the selected roadway segments were property damage only crashes. 54 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum4 Existing System Conditions, dated November 23, 2010 presents additional details regarding the collision analysis. The following section summarizes information regarding the safety focus intersections identified based on the collision analysis. Six intersections were identified as safety focus intersections based on how their crash history compared to other intersections in Ashland with similar characteristics. The safety focus intersections a re: • OR 99/Hersey Street/Wimer Street; • OR 99 SB/Oak Street • OR 99/Tolman Creek Road; • OR 99 NB/Lithia Way/E Main Street; • OR 66/Tolman Creek Road; and • OR 66/E Main Street/Oak Knoll Drive. A more detailed review of the reported crashes at each of these six intersections was conducted to determine potential contributing factors as well as potential countermeasures for reducing crashes. The results of the more detailed review are summarized in Table 4-5. Technical Memorandum 4 Existing System Conditions describes each intersection and the potential improvements in more detail Table 4-5 Potential Countermeasures at Safety Focus Intersections • Add left-turn pockets and/or right-turn lanes on OR 99. • Consider installing a traffic signal or roundabout. OR 99/Hersey Street/Wimer Street • Convert access to Hersey Street and Wimer Street to right-in/right-out access only. • Consider realigning southern approach from off-street parking to occur at closer OR 99 SB/Oak Street to a 90-degree angle. • Prohibit parking on OR 99 in the vicinity of the intersection. OR 99/Tolman Creek Road • Conduct a speed study and investigate potential speed reduction treatments. OR 99 NB/Lithia Way/E Main Street • Consider automated enforcement such as installing red-light running cameras. OR 66/Tolman Creek Road • Consider automated enforcement such as installing red-light running cameras. • Conduct a sight distance evaluation at the intersection. • Add left-turn and right-turn pockets on OR 66. • Investigate prevailing vehicle speeds on OR 66 and consider treatments to reduce OR 66/E Main Street/Oak Knoll Drive vehicle speeds. • Increase intersection sight distance by realigning intersection approaches. 55 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions BRIDGE CONDITIONS Using the ODOT Bridge Management System, conditions for ten bridges were investigated based the inspection report database PONTIS. No inspection records were found for Hamilton Creek, Highway 21 Bridge (No. 03676A). There are many factors that go into the decision-making process for determining whether a bridge needs to be replaced or rehabilitated. The sufficiency rating (SR) can be a useful assessment tool and used as an indicator to the condition of the bridge. The following are not absolutes, but guidelines that some agencies have used: • An SR less than 50 is a sign that the bridge may need to be replaced. • SRs between 50 and 70 indicate that the bridge may need to be rehabilitated. • SRs above 70 may require some maintenance and repair. Table 4-6 summarizes the bridge conditions for the ten bridges investigated. Table 4-6 Bridge Condition Summary Bridge No. Bridge Name Location Sufficiency Rating Year Bu7ilt 08049 Ashland Creek, Hwy 63 NB (Lithia Way) 027 MI N ASHLAND 6.0 (Structurally Deficient) 1956 Ashland Creek, Hwy 63 SB (N Main 018 MI N ASHLAND SCL OM274 Street) 66.5 (Functionally Obsolete) 1911 29Cy3 Ashland Creek, Van Ness Ave 0.1 EAST OF HELMAN ST 67.1 (Not Deficient) 1974 Hwy 21 over Hwy 1 (Ashland Street 00.01 NTERSECT HWY 001 08745 over 1-5) 73.5 (Not Deficient) 1963 18911 Ashland Creek, Winburn Way WINBURN WY AT LITHIA PARK 79.4 (Not Deficient) 2000 087465 Hwy 1 SB (1-5 SB) over Crowson Rd 13.3 MI N CA STATE LINE 81.0 (Not Deficient) 1963 20785 Ashland Creek, Water St 0.3 NORTH OF B STREET 82.4 (Not Deficient) 2006 29CY4 Bear Creek, Mountain Ave MOUNTAIN AVE AT BEAR CR 83.3 (Not Deficient) 1967 03676A Hamilton Creek, Hwy 21 (OR 66) 002 MI W HWY I Note: *Inspection report not available. Figure 4-8 illustrates the location of each bridge noted in Table 4-6 and its corresponding sufficiency rating. Appendix H in Technical Memorandum M3: System Inventory in the Technical Appendix contains additional information for each bridge including bridge length, structural materials, and observations from inspection reports. 56 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Cry 9t Ashand 7ransputaoon System Plan Update rw..•,hs ?O i2 I I. a I E.ar Creek Bridge - Ashland Creek On e r dg- - Na_ 29CY4 No. 20785 lard Creek Bnoge ; it - - No. 29CY3 shtand Creek Bndge No. 08044 _ - _ _ Ashland Creek Bridge ' - - - No. OM274 Rshland Creek Bnd1e ; No. 1891+ 4 - - - - - - Hwy 21 Bndg. No. .8 745 ~ t - i - - . , , ; r'. F H-Oon Creek Bridge I-~;f~ j., - No. 03876A 4 w de Hw1 B S9urces. USGS ESRI TANA AND ® Not Deficient 0 Structurally Deficient Figure ® Functionally Obsolete Bridge Location and Sufficiency Rating 4-$ 0 Report Not Available Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Existing Conditions AIR, RAIL, PIPELINE, AND WATER In the course of inventorying the existing air, rail, pipeline, and water transportation facilities within the City of Ashland and those serving the City of Ashland deficiencies in these systems were not identified. Forthcoming future conditions analysis will consider the potential demand for expanding such services as passenger rail which is currently not provided to/from the City of Ashland. INTRA-MODAL AND INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS The City of Ashland does not currently contain hubs for intra-modal and inter-modal connections. The nearest transit center is located in Medford, Oregon, which is approximately 15 miles northwest of Ashland. While rail freight passes through Ashland on the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad there are no major transfer hubs for rail to truck freight movements nor are there such transfer or intra-modal connections between air and truck freight. However; the city has plans for future inter-modal connections in the Croman Mill District (CMD) Plan. The CMD identifies a location for a Freight Rail Spur Easement (pg. 90 of the Site Design and Use Standards). This area includes a reserve strip to be designated for loading and unloading (rail to truck). In addition, the commuter rail platform identified in the CMD would potentially create opportunities for coordination between transit and rail. 58 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 5 Future Demand, Land Use, and Funding Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding FUTURE DEMAND, LAND USE, FUNDING This section documents the results of the future "No-Build" traffic conditions analysis prepared for the TSP Update. This section includes an evaluation of how the study intersections are expected to operate in the year 2034 assuming growth and development occur without any modifications to the transportation system and an evaluation of existing and future multimodal levels-of-service (MMLOS) along six major roadways throughout the City. FUTURE "NO-BUILD" TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Technical Memorandum #4 provides a detailed description of the no-build traffic conditions analysis, including the future population and employment growth assumptions used in the intersection operations and multi-modal level-of-service (MMLOS) analyses and a description of the methodology used to develop forecast traffic volumes at the study intersections. The following presents the results of the analyses and identifies future funding forecasts and funding options for future transportation system improvements. FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ASSUMPTIONS The following documents the modeling assumptions for the 2034 future no-build traffic conditions analysis and evaluates the differences between the population and employment growth assumptions included in the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization's travel demand model (RVMP02) and existing City plans. As discussed in the following sections, the population and employment assumptions included in the RVMP02 model are inconsistent with population and employment projections included in the City's comprehensive plan and the City's Economic Opportunities Analysis. It should be noted that in 2011 the County adopted a revised population element (Ord. 2011-14), but the projections used in the Future Transportation Conditions operations analysis are based on the 2007 population figures included in the RVMP02 model in effect at the time of the TSP analysis. Population and Employment Growth Table 5-1 documents the 2009 certified population estimate for Ashland along with the year 2040 and interim year 2034 population forecasts based on the City's comprehensive plan. As shown, the comprehensive plan estimates an increase of 3,959 people between 2009 and 2034, or approximately 158 people per year. Table 5-1 City of Ashland Actual Population and Comprehensive Plan Growth Year Population Difference Annual Growth 2009- 21,505 nnnrrr~~~ 2034 25,464 3,959 (Year 2034-2009) 158 people/yr 0.7491./yr ly'~I 60 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding 'Certified 2009 population by PSU Table 5-2 provides the 2007 jobs and projected 2037 jobs from the City's Economic Opportunities Analysis along with 2009 and 2034 jobs interpolated for the purpose of this analysis. As shown in Table 5-2, the City's EOA estimates an increase of 2,212 jobs between 2009 and 2034, or approximately 88 jobs per year. Table 5-2 City Economic Opportunities Analysis Job Forecast Year Jobs Difference Annual Growth 2007 13,107 2037 15,761 2,654 (Year 2007-2037) 88 jobs/yr 0.68%/yr 2009' 13,284 - " - 2034' 15,496 2,212 (Year 2009-2034) 88 jobs/yr 0.67%/yr 'Interpolated year using straight-line growth between data provided Table 5-3 documents the 2009 and 2034 population and employment growth forecasts within the City's urban growth boundary included in the RVMP02 travel demand model. It should be noted that the extents of the RVMP02 model does not align directly with the city's urban growth boundary; therefore, it is the average annual growth rate that is most important and not the 2009 base data. Table 5-3 RVMP02 Model and Ashland Projected Population and Employment (within UGB) 2009 RVMPO 2 Model City Plans 2009-2034 Annual Base 2034 Base Difference Growth Annual Growth Source Households(HH) 10,935 11,604 669 27 HH/yr - " M7- Population (people) 23,941 25,528 1,587 63 people/yr 158 people/yr City Comp Plan Employment Jobs) 14,484 18,806 4,322 173 jobs/yr 88jobs/yr City EOA As shown in Table 5-3, the RVMP02 model population growth is significantly less than what is projected in the city's comprehensive plan and the employment growth is significantly higher than the City's EOA. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate the differences in the population and employment growth assumptions in the RVMP02 model and the City's comprehensive plan and EOA. As shown in Figure 5-1, the City's comprehensive plan anticipates significantly more growth in population throughout the city than the RVMP02, while Figure 5-2 shows that the RVMP02 model anticipates significantly more growth in employment throughout the city than the City's EOA. Further evaluation of the differences between the model and City plans is included in the following sections, including an evaluation of how the differences impact traffic operations at the study intersections. 61 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Crty of A~nlane iransportM~on System Plan U1Aau Ocueer 2012 - RVMPOQ Model City Plans h V. C ta 47: z= s g r~~ ~i i t r o si L CT -13 30 14 -7 n 1 I~ + ,z at xa j - f "'l Y /1 15 ~ ]a +1 l_ 1 '4 7 '20 5P Y 'L ~ 41 E. i5 a' ?I5 3 .24 t ---50 _---10-0 125-50 J 0-10 ~ 50-100 Figure 49--25 Population Growth Assumptions by TAZ -z5--,s ,0-,5 - ,oa-250 5-1 -15 - -10 15 - 25 - 250+ City of Ashland lrxns¢enalinn System, Plan Updzte Gcwpr+'tU 12 - , RVMPO2 Model _ City Plans . -a .fi't' -.-r1-}; f ~ I 0 -T._, D y , 7 - 1 k ITS i r\ f~. s -0 15-25 150-250 i I 0-5 - 25-50 - 250-500 Figure 5-10 50.100 500-1000 Employment Growth Assumptions by TAZ 5-2 L f 10 - 15 - 100 - 150 - 1000+ Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS The following describes the weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and the projected weekday p.m. peak hour traffic operations under year 2034 no-build traffic conditions. Traffic Operations Analysis Results Level-of-service (LOS), volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios, and 95t" percentile queue lengths were calculated for each of the study intersections. The following present the results of these analyses and discusses which intersections do not meet the applicable standards under future no-build traffic conditions. While the results of the analyses are based on the assumptions in the RVMP02 model, an evaluation of how a model based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and EOA is also provided for informational purposes. Intersection Delay and Capacity Analysis Figures 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 illustrate the study intersection locations, lane configurations and traffic control devices, and the traffic operations results, respectively. As shown in Figure 5-3, there are three study intersections under ODOT's jurisdiction that are forecast to exceed the applicable OHP mobility standard under future no-build traffic conditions. Improvements at these intersections as well as those potentially impacted by other future "build" improvements will need to satisfy the mobility standards identified previously. Alternatively, the City and ODOT may seek alternative mobility standards for these intersections. Further evaluation of operations at the study intersections based on link volumes derived from the City's Comprehensive Plan and EOA is provided below. OR 66 (Ashland Street)11-5 Northbound/Southbound Ramp Terminals -Operations at the Ashland Street (OR66)/1-5 Northbound/Southbound Ramp terminals reflect intersection improvements currently underway, including the conversion of the existing two-way stop controlled intersections to signalized intersections. As indicated in the existing conditions analysis, an Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP) has recently been prepared for the OR 66/1-5 interchange, which includes additional access management measures near the interchange. The findings and recommendations of the IAMP will be considered when future "build" analysis scenarios are conducted within this TSP update project. 1 L~'"d I 64 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Cri of Ashland Tmnspw oon System Plan update ~i!otr~f 2012 (arm i31-? I ~ t' 1 s' f - So 17r, .19 20 - 7 - a 311; •g 22 -`(29 Sources USGS eSRI TANA. AND m ODOT Study Intersection _ City Study Intersection Year 2034 Future No-Build Figure Study Intersections 5-3 City of Ashland Traosµdeem Syrian Pldn Update Oclaea-Mtt N Main Street (CRO OR98/ N Mein Street IOR99y Wlmin Smat-Hyme, N Mein Street (OR99y E Main Street (OR99 SBy Steady. Blvd (OR99 SBy Shklyou &v0 (OR99y Shklyou BIM 10R59y S6ktyou BNO (OR99y 0 Valley View Road © Malone Stuart © Stuart 0 Heiman Street 0 Oak Street O E Mein Street O S Mountain Avenue O Garfield Street O Ashland Street (ORM) 6 i 6 9 O Alm Al- )E)S( ~ r Av - ,t Slsklyou Siva (OR99y Smklyou Blvd (OR9By Slokiyou BMd (OR99y Nevada Street/ Hersey Street/ Hersey Street/ Lthla Way (ORO NBy LItMa Way (OR99 NBy E Main StmaV 10 Wream Street Tolman Creek Rwtl ® mind. ce Road © Oak Shell fA Oak Sheet © N Mountain Avenue ® Oak Street © E Mein Stuart ® Mountain Avenue .r -h T~h T~ ~~i Tat Tll Ta d~ E ~i Z ~ l T a ~ ~ s f $ ~ ~S l s s ~ Wr Wl FW 1h~r F~Y1 YiA tY \Y E Main Strettu Inwe Street/ Iowa SVary AM:WN Street (OR%y ASMaM Street IORP6y Ashland SVaet IOR66y As1:bN Street IORBSy ASMOM Street (ORE6y AeMend Street IOR68y tg Walker Avenue ZB SMounti in Avenue Q Walker Steel ® Walker Street ® Tolman Can&Read ® WuM1lr,mo Street ® 1.5 SoutkOound Ram, ® 1-5 NOMeound RVnpe ® Oak Kno6E Main Street 4 9 h i T-I. ~ yh d~ / h 7k' y R Ashland Street (01166)I S Bead Indian Warned RaaN NWby Sheet/ AeNand Street/ S' Memorial Road ® Tolman Creek RNtl O Granite S. 51 S Mountain Avenue 0 f $ f ~ f $ g: ~I r ® - ODOT STUDY INTERSECTION ' CITY Of r -CITY STUDY INTERSECTION Year 2034 Future No-Build Lane Configurations {ASHLAND Figure 5 t -STOP SIGN ' -TRAFFIC SIGNAL and Traffic Control Devices i•~, 5~ ~ v GN of AsM1IeM TranspMaOOi SY&sn Plan Wdo, Ocloper2011 N Main Street (OR93y O OR99r N Main Street (ORYBy Wlmm Street-Hersey N Main Street (ORSSy E Man Street (OR995By Sbklyw BNU (OR99 50y S6khpu Blvd JENNY SbMyou Sera (ORWy Skkyou BNd (ORSSy 0 Valley V env Road 0 Maple Sham © St. 0 Holman Smad 0 Oak Sheet O E Main SUNG O S Wardeln Avenue O G.M.w Street O ASMaM Slraet (ORE6) 6 T B 9 gs 'I, .m pp e _ ) re~ r ~ 6~ ! ti E« 6 xn, N6wnaa ~ ,d6.e ml vm°B1waee ~m t J µi ~.b J Lca.r \R w.a~ wl oW~a ~°3 urvlune orna I ~,yvic.o. 1 ~ ry,~,v¢.. a ( lvicelo v arir a"\ yr am ~r'~e coxomowkxuvsa t 6tP m ~ (mG096 a ~61nNK b 6Te. 6TPE ~JQ BTaq.m Sr0.a Sleklyou Blvd (ORNY Sisklyou Blvd (ORWY Sisklyou Blvd (ORBBy Nevada Street/ Hersey Street/ Hersey Street/ Ulhl. Way (ORYB NBy UIGIa Way (OR%NBy E Mein Share ILA Welker Street 0 Tolman Creek Road ® Mistletoe Road I6 Oak Street li OM S.eet ® N Mountain Avenue 0 Oak Street © EMain Street 19 Mountain Av.nu6 YY= Y:4 'rc4n 4'p_'q ^_y RR e}q t Y!~ l J~~ /Jl a®4 Jul Jj 1r J{~ %J s \a Iml t6$l ml sos-e to ` aJ wsa ` ma ~arv ml las t1y6 ssl vFaw !m w\ V 1 !d vRym `Ib m\ V ] !6 , 9f01 vc.m v.GerA~~f Vgnet vsanr /`TS 11~( sma 1~1 / maam srowae ?x^/ sm.6 smw ~ slam ~kJ are,aee ~ 1 f~/ slap s- "p_ amt I E Main StradY I.. StrwV 1. Street/ Ashland Street (ORMY Ashland Street (GR66y Ashland Street (OR66y AsNMM Street (OR68y AtllMnd Street (OR66y AsNeM Street (ORMY 19 Walker Avenue ® SMountam Avenue © Walker StttN ® Walker Street ® Tolman Creak RWd ® Washimeon Street ® 1-5 SONaMund Ramp ® bS NadkbouM flam[a ® Oak Nno16E Man SbeM a J~ Jj1, Jl~ /j~ /l~ 9 _ c~ 1 imp qua NJ ot.H~e \a ml s~ tm . 1 sosn ~ ci~sce ~ imo-. o~r.- ,wJ tosq \asu ~o% lae\ v°eLSr~.n /u v°`coem.e ia2 ion ~ ra e~1 ve.o.eo l'° e3~ vro. ! Iro\ :pops !ro 1s\ mrnwe, !zi° am vmd8°'wee ~xo ~iv~mn 1 ( I' s1o.o 11 `t Ir em.d sms.m 1 I sr etv.6.m J 1 j sro.sa'~ ,~\6roAa: 89 YN wRq s~ °Y& wA~ Sol SqR R Ashland Street (OR66y R Dead Mon Wake. Htad' Nutley Street/ AanbM StreeV ® Memorial Road ® Tolman Creek Road ® G,a ilo Street 11 S Mounlaln Avenue R Rep B. Bhlw ( rsl sm~c «m l Asa «a al sos.. ri s g vtnvAr 6~ffi 6l v~1ii !i~ 1 ~ !s e\ v.4oa /a x ~y C~/r sro-c l~ smf ~~n sto-e a C CM . CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNAUZEO) LOS. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZEDVCRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF CITY OF FI ure SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) _A Year 2034 Future No-Build Traffic Conditions ASHLAND g Del . INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY (SIGNALIZEDVCRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL Weekday PM Peak Hour t 5-5 OEIAV (UNSIGNALIZED) V/C. CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO STD. OPERATIONAL STANDARD Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding N Main Street (OR99)/Wimer Street The N Main Street (OR99)/Wimer Street intersection is a four-leg, stop-controlled intersection with two north-southbound travel lanes and one east-westbound shared left-through-right lane (however under present conditions a temporary road diet is in place that reduces the north-southbound travel lanes to one in each direction but with the addition of a northbound/ southbound center left-turn lane). Both the east and westbound approaches to the intersection are forecast to operate at LOS F and above capacity during the weekday p.m. peak hour under future no-build traffic conditions with relatively few minor street left-turns or through movements. Signal Warrants at the N Main Street (OR99)/Wimer Street intersection are presented in the next section. It should be noted that the N Main Street (OR99)/Wimer Street intersection has recently been re- aligned to improve east-west connectivity through the intersection which may increase the amount of side street traffic at this intersection. The future traffic conditions described above do not consider this re-alignment. E Main Street (OR99 SB)/Oak Street The E Main Street (OR99 SB)/Oak Street intersection is a four-leg intersection with two eastbound travel lanes, one stop-controlled southbound left-turn lane, one stop-controlled northbound through lane, and a free-flow northbound right-turn lane. The northbound approach to the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F and below capacity during the weekday p.m. peak hour with .108 northbound through movements and 153 northbound rights while the southbound approach is forecast to operate at LOS F and above capacity with 182 southbound rights. Signal warrants at the E Main Street (OR99 SB)/Oak Street intersection are presented in the next section. Lithia Way (OR99 NB)/Oak Street The Lithia Way (OR99 NB)/Oak Street intersection is a four-leg intersection with two westbound travel lanes, one northbound shared left-through travel lane, and one southbound shared through-right travel lave. The north and southbound approaches are currently stop controlled. The northbound approach to the intersection is forecast to operate a LOS F and above capacity during the weekday p.m. peak hour with 77 northbound lefts and 70 northbound throughs, while the southbound approach is forecast to operate at LOS E and below capacity with 42 southbound throughs and S4 southbound rights. Signal Warrants at the Lithia Way (OR99 NB) /Oak Street intersection are presented in the next section. Traffic Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the unsignalized intersections identified above in accordance with the methodology described in Section 7.4.1 of the ODOT Analysis Procedures Monual. For a long- term future conditions analysis signal warrants 1, Case A and Case B, which deal primarily with high volumes on the intersecting minor street and high volumes on the major-street must be met. Meeting preliminary signal warrants does not guarantee that a signal shall be installed. Before a signal can be r~installed a field warrant analysis is conducted by the Region. If warrants are met, the State Traffic I L'.Y 1 68 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan _ October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Engineer will make the final decision on the installation of a signal. Table 5-4 summarizes the signal warrant analysis for the study intersections under future no-build traffic conditions. Table 5-4 Signal Warrant Analysis - 2034 Future Traffic Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Preliminary Signal Warrants Case A - Minimum Vehicular Case B - Interruption of Intersection EB WB NB SB Volumes Continuous Traffic N Main Street (OR99)/ Wimer 181 191 1,021 1,019 No No Street E Main Street (01199 SB)/ 1,094 0 108 182 No No Oak Street Lithia Way(OR99 N8)/ 0 1,312 147 96 No No Oak Street All of the eastbound rights and a majority of the westbound rights were excluded from the signal warrant analysis at the N Main Street/Wimer Street intersection based on the methodology described in Section 7.4.1 of the APM. As shown in Table 5-4, preliminary signal warrants were not met at any of the intersections identified as deficient under future no-build traffic conditions. Additional signal warrants, including the Four Hour and Peak Hour warrants were also evaluated at the intersections under future no-build traffic conditions. However, these warrants were also not met. While traffic signal warrants are not met under future conditions based on the existing lane configurations, traffic signal warrants are likely to be met at each of these study intersections if the number of through lanes were to be reduced. For example, a signal is likely to be warranted at the N. Main Street/Hersey-Wimer Street intersection if the road diet were to be made permanent. Intersection Queuing Analysis A queuing analysis was performed at the study intersections under future traffic conditions in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 8.3 of the APM. The,APM recommends the use of SimTraffic for estimating queues at intersections belonging to a coordinated signal systems. SimTraffic performs microsimulation and animation' of vehicle traffic, modeling travel through signalized and unsignalized intersections and arterial networks, with cars, trucks, pedestrians and buses. SimTraffic includes the vehicle and driver performance characteristics developed by the Federal Highway Administration for use in traffic modeling. SimTraffic is primarily used by ODOT for the analysis of signal systems and vehicle queue estimation, especially in congested areas and locations where queue spillback may be a problem. The results of the queuing analysis represent an average of 5 consecutive, random runs of the SimTraffic model as recommended by the APM. As there were 30 intersections included in the analysis, Table 5-5 summarizes only the queuing results for the study intersections where storage deficiencies are anticipated. The queue lengths reported in Table 5-5 were rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. The available storage length is based on the striped left and right-turn storage lanes at the intersection. 69 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan - October 2011 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Table 5-5 95th Percentile Queues at Study Intersections with Storage Deficiencies Approach/ 95th Percentile Striped Storage Addition Location Movement Queue (ft) Available (ft) Adequate Storage? Requi 50 OR99/ EBL 200 150 MMMMMTO~ Valley View Road WBR 150 100 No 50 S Mountain Avenue/ WBL 175 125 No 50 Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) SBL 150 100 No 50 Mountain Avenue/ EBL 125 100 No 25 E Main Street SBTR1 250 200 No so Ashland Streat(OR66)/ EBL 150 100 No 50 Walker Avenue WBL 125 100 No 25 EBL 150 100 No 50 Ashland Street(OR66)/ WBL 150 100 No 50 Tolman Creek Road NBL 175 100 No 75 SBL 150 100 No 50 Ashland Street(OR66)/ NBL 225 150 No 75 Washington Street The 951° percentile queue for the southbound through-right (SBTR) turn movement extends beyond the 200-feet of available storage into the southbound left turn lane, which is the dominant movement at the intersection. 'The following abbreviations are used in this table: NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; EB: Eastbound; WB: Westbound; L: Left; LTR: Shared left/through/right lane; LT: Shared left/through lane. As shown in Table 5-5, there are six study intersections that were found to have 95th percentile queues on one or more approach that exceed the available storage capacity under future no-build traffic conditions. The remaining study intersections were found to have adequate storage at each approach. Intersection Queuing Analysis - Synchro The 95th percentile queues shown in the Synchro analysis results were further reviewed to identify the study intersections where 95th percentile traffic volumes are expected to either exceed the capacity of the intersection or be metered by an upstream intersection. The reported queues at these locations are expected to be longer than what is shown in Synchro. Table 5-6 summarizes the study intersections and the individual turning movements where 95th percentile traffic volumes either exceed capacity or are being metered. Per direction from ODOT's Transportation Planning Analysis Unit, the information shown in Table 5-6 is for informational purposes and is not be used as a basis for TSP project decisions. I ~~*'q 70 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Table 5-6 95th Percentile Volumes that Exceed Capacity or are Metered 95th Percentile Volumes Intersection Movement Exceeds Capacity? Metered? EBL Yes No OR99/S Valley View Road WBR Yes No SBL Yes No EBT Yes No. S Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) WBT Yes No SBA No Yes WET Yes No NBL No Yes Mountain Avenue/E Main Street NBT No Yes SBL Yes No EBT Yes No Tolman Creek Road/Ashland Street(OR66) WBL Yes No NET Yes No Ashland Street(OR66)/1-5 SB Ramp WET No Yes EBL Yes No Ashland Street (01166)/1-5 NB Ramp EBT Yes No WET Yes No 'The following abbreviations are used in this table: NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; EB: Eastbound; WB: Westbound; L: Left; LTR: Shared left/through/right lane; LT: Shared left/through lane. RVMP02 vs Comprehensive Plan and EOA As indicated previously, operations at the study intersections were further evaluated based on link volumes derived from the City s Comprehensive Plan and EOA. A preliminary review of the City's link volumes indicates that there are relatively minor differences along many of the major roadways throughout the City. The differences that are shown include link volumes that are both higher in some areas and lower in others. In areas where the City's link volumes were found to be higher, the impacts on operations at the intersections were evaluated following the same methodology described above. Table 5-6 summarizes the study intersections with link volumes on one or more approaches that were significantly higher than the link volumes from the RVMP02 model. Table 5-7 also summarized the operations at the study intersections given both sets of volumes. 71 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Table 5-7 RVM02 Model vs. City Plans S Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Blvd (01199) 0.90 .76 28 9 ` ' C Tolman Creek Road/Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) 0.90 .17 18.3 C .27 25.7 D Mistletoe Road/Siskiyou Blvd (OR99) 0.90 .07 10.0 A .31 12.4 8 Oak Street/Nevada Street LOSE .13 11.8 B .14 12.1 B Oak Street/Hersey Street LOSD .46 11.6 B .47 11.9 B N Mountain Avenue/Hersey Street LOS D .63 13.0 B .60 12.5 B Tolman Creek Road/Ashland Street(OR66) 085 .82 43.9'" D .78 39'4i D ' Oak Knoll Drive/Ashland Street (01166) 0.85 .22 21.0 C N .40 19.3 C ' Tolman Creek Road/Mistletoe Road LOS E .07 15.6 C .10 20.9 C As shown in Table 5-7, the overall impact of the City's higher link volumes on one or more approach to the study intersections was not sufficient to cause any of the intersections to fail to meet their applicable mobility standards. In addition, lower link volumes on one or more approaches to the intersections often off-set the higher link volumes, and in some cases, improved operations at the intersections (operations at the intersections shown in grey improved with the application of the City's link volumes, despite higher link volumes at one or more approach). r In areas where the City's link volumes were found to be lower on one or more approach, the impact on operations at the intersections found to be failing under the RVMP02 model were evaluated following the same methodology described above. Table 5-8 summarizes the intersections that were anticipated to fail under the RVMP02 model and the resulting operations given the application of the City's link volumes. Table 5-8 RVM02 vs. City Plans RTP Model City Plans Mobility Intersection Standard V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS N Main Street(OR99)/Wimer Street 0.95 1.06 226.1 F 1.08 158.1 F E Main Street (OR99 SB)/Oak Street 0.95 3.55 Errl F 2.40 718.1 F Lithia Way (OR99 NB)/Oak Street' 0.95 1.10 169.5 F 048 46.5 E When the volume/capacity of an intersection exceeds 3.0, Synchro presents an error in place of the Delay. As shown in Table 5-8, the Lithia Way (OR99 NB)/Oak Street intersection would meet its applicable mobility standard with a v/c of 0.48, while the remaining intersection would improve slightly either in terms of v/c, delay, or LOS, but continue to fail to meet their individual applicable mobility standards. It should be noted that the results shown in Tables 5-7 and 5-8 are for informational purposes only and should not be used as a basis for making TSP project decisions. 7 72 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding MULTI-MODAL LEVEL-OF-SERVICE A multi-modal level-of-service (MMLOS) analysis was conducted along six major corridors throughout the City of Ashland; the corridors evaluated were: N Main Street/E Main Street/Siskiyou Boulevard (01199), Ashland Street (01166), E Main Street, Mountain Avenue, Walker Avenue, and Tolman Creek Road. Each corridor was divided into several segments based on the location of major study intersections and changes in the roadway characteristics. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology described in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3-70, which has been included in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. It should be noted that the MMLOS methodology was originally developed for smaller scale analyses within a detailed corridor study or evaluation. It was applied here at a larger scale and indicates the general trends in performance for each mode; however, it is not intended to precisely represent users' experiences as a bicyclist, pedestrian, and/or transit user. NCHRP 3-70 provides a set of recommended procedures for predicting traveler perceptions of quality of service and performance measures along urban streets. A level-of-service for each mode is derived based on several inputs related to conditions along the roadway. The types of inputs considered by this analysis for bicyclists and pedestrians include peak hour traffic volumes, presence and width of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, crossing delay, and driveway and unsignalized intersection density; for transit users, access to transit facilities, headways, and travel experiences play an important role. Figure 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9 summarize the results of the MMLOS analyses conducted under existing and future no-build traffic conditions for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, respectively. As shown there is little difference in the level-of-service between the two travel directions shown along each corridor. Where there are differences, it is typically due to the presence of a sidewalk, bike lane, or unsignalized intersections and/or driveways with high traffic volumes on one side, but not the other. There is also little difference between existing and future no-build traffic conditions. The differences that are present reflect the influence of traffic volumes on the level-of-service for each mode. Auto Auto level of service is primarily measured by the average speed over the length of the corridor and the average of number of stops per mile. Traffic volumes, heavy vehicle percentages, turning percentages, and peak hour factors are all inputs to the auto level of service along with signal timing at signalized intersections and saturation flow rates. Additional information related to Auto level-of-service at the study intersections is provided in Figure 5-5 above. 73 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. City of AsM-d Transportation 5ymem P%n Update October 2012 Existing Traffic Conditions Future No-Build Traffic Conditions =z, i r r I a • - i _ i . e LOS A-B City UGB LOS C-D City Limits Multimodal Level-of-Serivice -Auto Figure = LOS E-F Weekday PM Peak Hour 5-6 City W Ashland Transportation System Plan Update Octohet 2012 Existing Traffic Conditions - Future No-Build Traffic Conditions e ia, 7 f T„ 7\ . Y I r i 4 i I 1 ♦ - i . V - ♦ c . { - I1 1 f = LOS A-B City UGB Multimodal Level-of-Serivice - Transit Figure LOS C-D City Limits - LOS FF Weekday PM Peak Hour 5-7 " v Cdy of Ashland iramponanon System Plan Update October 2012 Existing Traffic Conditions Future No-Build Traffic Conditions - a. \ a - LOS A-B City UGB LOS C-D ` - City Limits Multimodal Level-of-Serivice - Bicycle Figure LOS E-F Weekday PM Peak Hour 5-8 y C1ry of Ashland Transportauun System Plan Update ombh 2012 Existing Traffic Conditions Future No-Build Traffic Conditions -AT - I LOS A-B City UGB LOS C-D City Limits Multimodal Level-of-Serivice - Pedestrian Figure LOS E-F Weekday PM Peak Hour 5-9 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Transit The three primary performance measures that influence the transit LOS results include access, wait time, and ride experience. Access is represented by the pedestrian level of service score and pedestrian access to bus stops along the corridor. Wait time and ride experience are affected by headways and passenger per seat ratings. For the corridors in Ashland, the MMLOS results for transit facilities are generally well-rated; transit service is provided along each of the roadways included in the analysis except for Mountain Avenue and Walker Avenue. However, both of those roadways cross Siskiyou Boulevard (OR99) and/or Ashland Street (OR66), each of which have transit service, therefore, transit service is provided within a quarter mile of at least a portion of both Mountain Avenue and Walker Avenue. It should be noted that the transit LOS result is biased towards the weekday p.m. peak hour when service is available. It does not take into account that service is not proved after 6:30 p.m. and that no service is provided on Saturdays or Sundays. Opportunities to improve transit service include the provision.of bus shelters or seating at key stop locations, shorter headways, longer service hours, and more extensive coverage. Bicyclists Similar to the pedestrian LOS, there are two basic performance measures that influence the bicycle LOS results within the MMLOS analysis. One is the feeling of security and quality of experience.a bicyclist has riding on a roadway facility (e.g., presence and width of bicycle lanes). The second is the frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic (e.g., frequency of driveways or unsignalized intersections). For the corridors studied in Ashland, the MMLOS results for bicycle facilities indicate bicycling along these roadways may be uncomfortable for many individuals. This is primarily due to the lack of bicycle facilities on some roadways or roadway segments, relatively high traffic volumes, and the frequency of unsignalized intersections and driveways. Opportunities to improve LOS for bicyclists along the major roadways include adding additional bicycle lanes, implementing buffered bicycle lanes, and consolidating driveways. Pedestrians There are two basic performance measures that influence the pedestrian LOS results within the MMLOS methodology. One is the feeling of security and quality of experience a pedestrian has walking alongside a roadway facility (e.g., presence and width of sidewalks). The second is the ability pedestrians have to safely and efficiently cross the major roadway. For the corridors studied in Ashland, the MMLOS results for pedestrian facilities indicate pedestrians generally feel safe walking along the major roadways. However, curb-tight sidewalks, high traffic volumes, and the absence of crosswalks at several major intersections degrade the pedestrian experience resulting in a pedestrian LOS that may not be expected on facilities that provide continuous sidewalks. Opportunities to improve the pedestrian LOS include providing landscape strips between the roadway and the sidewalk, increasing E 78 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding the width of sidewalks, and providing additional opportunities for pedestrians to safely and efficiently cross major roadways. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING The historical funding mechanism for transportation improvements in Ashland is the Street Fund. The Street Fund includes revenue generated through gas taxes, franchise fees, system development charges (SDCs), transportation user/utility fees, specific project funds generated through local improvement districts, and a variety of state and federal grants. Once obtained, these fees are generally dedicated to improvements, and do not require voter approval. Historically, communities around the state have included funding sources that have leveraged improvements through advance financing by developers, assessed special property tax levies, or used revenue bonds for specific capital improvements which are backed by specific dedicated future revenue sources. With the exception of advance financing by developers, the majority of these funds are dependent on voter approval, which may temper their reliability as a funding source. These funding sources are almost always dependent upon current market and economic conditions, being less robust revenue streams in a 'down economy. Future Funding Forecast The Street Funds three primary sources of revenue for the 2011 fiscal year are intergovernmental revenues (gas tax, state and federal grants), fees, and bond proceeds. The intergovernmental revenues are expected to account for approximately 50 percent of the Street Fund in the 2011 fiscal year. This indicates the importance of the gas tax, and state and federal grants, to the overall streets program for the City of Ashland. Intergovernmental revenues, fees, and bond proceeds will likely continue to be the primary sources of revenue for the Street Fund in future budget cycles. Bond proceeds and fee increases will continue to be dependent on the state of the economy and voter willingness for passage. The state gas tax, for example, increased from 24 cents to 30 cents on January 1, 2011. This represents a 25 percent increase over the previous tax, and constitutes the first rise in the Oregon gas tax since 1993. However, the tax increase should not be considered a long-term funding source given the improved fuel efficiency of newer vehicles, the rise in ownership of hybrid and electric vehicles, and the increased use of alternative fuels. Additionally, Ashland will not be able to increase its proportional share of that tax increase without legislative action at the state level. It is reasonable to assume the overall total revenue will temporarily increase with the legislative action. However, if the average fuel efficiency of vehicles increases or there is precipitous drop in vehicle miles, a decline in gasoline consumption may lead to a decline in revenue. L~ 79 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Alternative Funding Sources There is a community desire to enjoy a transportation system that includes enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities, reduces vehicle travel, and increases transit service and amenities. Those improved transit choices lend themselves to integration with compact, transit-supportive development. Those objectives can be better achieved through considering alternative ways to fund and promote these initiatives. Alternative funding sources to consider include any combination of those summarized in Table 5-9. Table 5-9 Alternative Funding Sources Funding Sao rce Description Benefits Fees tacked onto a monthly utility bill or tied to the annual registration of a vehicle to pay for improvements, expansion, and maintenance to the street system. This may be a more equitable assessment given the varying fuel efficiency of User Fee vehicles. Regardless of fuel efficiency, passenger vehicles do Primarily Street Improvements equal damage to the street system. The cost of implementing such a system could be prohibitive given the need to track the number of vehicle miles traveled in every vehicle. Additionally, a user fee specific to a single jurisdiction does not account for the street use from vehicles registered in other jurisdictions. System-wide transportation facilities The fee is based on the number of trips a particular land use including: generates and is usually collected through a regular utility bill. Street Utility Fees/Road For the communities in Oregon that have adopted this Streets Maintenance Fee approach, it provides a stable source of revenue to pay for • Sidewalks street maintenance allowing for safe and efficient movement Bike lanes of people, goods, and services. • Trails A local tax assessed on fuel purchased within thejurisdiction that has assessed the tax. Some would argue that this tax is unfair given the increased fuel efficiency of today's vehicles. Local Fuel Taz Primarily Street Improvements On the other hand, the tax could potentially generate revenue while encouraging fuel efficiency and lessening impacts to the environment. Sometimes referred to as a transportation impact fee, SDCs are fees assessed on development for impacts created to public infrastructure. For example, Washington County ` implemented a transportation development tax in 2008 to replace their transportation impact fee. A transportation development tax is based on the estimated traffic generated. All revenue is dedicated to transportation capital improvements designed to accommodate growth. System-wide transportation facilities SDCs do generate revenue when the economy is doing well, including: and development is occurring. SDCS should not be considered Systems Development Charges a reliable source of income given the volatility of today's . Streets (SDCS) markets. Even when stable, some would argue that SDCs are . Sidewalks notequitable because they are sometimes assessed in Bike lanes locations where services are already available. Nevertheless, they are an accepted source of revenue for many cities in • Trails Oregon, and help to offset the cost of new construction on public infrastructure. SDCs should be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that they are proportional to the impacts created by new development. SDC credits can encourage private development to provide small-scale public improvements that can be constructed by the private sector at a smaller cost. For example, an SDC credit ff[''.. oI might be given for roviding end-of-trip bike facilities within 1 I 80 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding Fu naling Sou rce r the new development. Eligible projects are on major roads, including sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as transit capital projects. Systems Development Charges, Grants, and Loans obtained for the purposes of making improvements to stormwater Stormwater SDCS, Grants, and management facilities. Some jurisdictions in Oregon have used Loans these tools to finance the construction and maintenance of Primarily street improvements Green Streets, and should be considered as an alternate funding source for an Streets in Ashland. System-wide transportation facilities including: A tax assessed on the purchase of goods and services within a Local Sales Tax specific location. A sales tax could be assessed only on auto- • Streets related goods and services to generate revenue for • Sidewalks transportation-related improvements. • Bike lanes • Trails • Transit System-wide transportation facilities A tax that is paid at the option of the taxpayer to fund including: improvements. Usually not a legislative requirement to pay Optional Tax the tax and paid at the time other taxes are collected, optional • Streets taxes are usually less controversial and easily collected since • Sidewalks they require thetaxpayer to decidewhether or notto paythe .Bike lanes additional tax. • Trails • Transit System-wide transportation facilities including: Parking In-lieu Fees Fees that are assessed to developers that cannot or do not • Streets wantto provide the parking for development. .Sidewalks • Bike lanes • Trails • Transit Financial backing of a public-interest program or project by a firm, as a means of enhancing its corporate image. This has Sponsorship been used by local transit providers to help offset the cost of Transit Facilities providing transit services and maintaining transit related improvements. System-wide transportation facilities including: An enticement such as bonus densities and flexibility in design Incentives in exchange for a public benefit. Examples might include a • Streets Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, ortransit facilities in • Sidewalks exchange for bonus densities. • Bike lanes • Trails • Transit Competitive pricing of public facilities to discourage non- essential trips during peak travel times and encouraging alternative forms of transportation. Congestion pricing is also a tool that can be used for parking management. Congestion pricing is basically a toll applied to drivers who drive or park Congestion Pricing within a designated area or on a designated facility during Primarily street improvements periods of heavy congestion. In some cases, such as parking, higher fees are imposed in certain areas to discourage long term use. Similar variable charges have been successfully utilized in other industries-for example, airline tickets, cell phone rates, and electricity rates. Rarely used for transportation facilities,public/private System-wide transportation facilities partnerships are agreements between public and private including: Public/Private Partnerships partners that can benefit from the same improvements. They have been used in several places around the country to • Streets C 81 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Future Demand, Land Use, Funding FunclingSource Description provide public transportation amenities within the publicright- .Sidewalks of-way in exchange for operational revenue from the facilities. • Bike lanes These partnerships could be used to provide services such as • Trails charging stations, public parking lots, bicycle lockers, or carshare facilities. .Transit A tool cities use to create special districts (tax increment areas) and to make public improvements within those districts that System-wide transportation facilities will generate private-sector development. During a defined including: period, the tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. -Property taxes for that period can be waived or continue to be paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the • Streets Tax Increment Financing (T1F) tax increment resulting from new development either go into Sidewalks a special fund created to retire bonds issued to originate the • Bike lanes development or leverage future improvements. A number of .Trails small-to-medium sized communities in Oregon have implemented, orare considering implementing, urban renewal .Transit districts that will result in a TIF revenue stream. Table 5-9 is not an all-inclusive list of alternative funding. Each of these financing tools requires focused research to ensure that it is the right fit for the community, and can be closely matched with achieving the objectives of the TSP update. Transportation System Development Charge Updates The City should evaluate the existing TSDC rates. Typically, in other jurisdictions in Oregon, Systems Development Charges account for approximately 10 to 12 percent of revenues that are applied towards the improvement and maintenance of streets. This has not been the case in Ashland since 2007. Prior to 2007, the Systems Development Charges that have been collected by the City accounted for a higher percentage of revenue within the street fund. In the next fiscal year, they will account for less than 1 percent of the revenue in the Street Fund. Street Fund revenues for the 2011 fiscal year are 63 percent higher than in 2005 when SDCs accounted for approximately 12 percent of the revenues. Since 2008, it would make sense that the revenue generated from SDCs would be lower given the decline in the economy, and the overall lull in construction activity, but revenues generated from SDCs began decreasing well before the 2008 market declines. This trend would suggest that it may be time for the City to evaluate its SDC program to ensure that new construction helps to pay for the impacts that it creates. Several cities in Oregon increase their SDCs annually to keep current with the cost of inflation. Ashland should consider doing the same to ensure that the SDC program continues to pay for the true costs of maintaining and improving its transportation system. SDC's should be considered not only for the street system and location specific capacity improvements. This can be revenue stream to meet community-wide multimodal transportation system goals. From that perspective, funding could emphasize providing city wide pedestrian connectivity through continuous and standard sidewalks (e.g. fill in the gaps where needed), public trails development, enhanced bicycle facilities, enhanced pedestrian facilities on collector and arterial streets, and transit stop amenities beyond those provide by RVTD. The possibility of using SDC credits to encourage private development to meet some of these objectives was previously noted. C 82 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 6 General Policies and Studies r ~ r. iersonaf~nce . (M ov, Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies GENERAL POLICIES AND STUDIES The general policies and studies presented below influence multiple transportation modes and/or transportation system elements. An overview of the policies and studies in this section follows. • Policy #1 (Ll)'Street Functional Classifications - Presents the updated street functional classifications for the City of Ashland including a new Shared Streets functional classification. • Policy #2 (11.2) Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process - Presents the multimodal/safety based (alternative) development review process, which outlines a new process for reviewing and approving development applications. The process provides a means for the City of Ashland to collect funds for multimodal and safety oriented programs and projects, while streamlining the development review process and providing more certainty for applicants regarding potential needed transportation investments. • Policy #3 - #9 (11.3 through 11.9) Downtown Enhancement Policies - Presents policies aimed at enhancing the downtown environment for multiple transportation modes. • Policy #10 (11-30) Green Street Treatments - Contains the policy supporting the incorporation of green street treatments into transportation, sewer, water, and stormwater projects. • Study #1 (Sl) Funding Sources Feasibility Study -Discusses the need for and scope of a study to identify future feasible funding sources to support improvements to the transportation system. • Study rig (S2) Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Study -The City of Ashland will conduct a downtown parking management and multi-modal circulation study.to evaluate the effectiveness of existing downtown parking management and truck loading zones and potential changes in parking management and travel demand management (TDM) strategies to increase overall accessibility to downtown for tourists, customers, and employees. The multi-modal circulation study will review pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, and vehicle circulation for vehicles and trucks downtown. The study will evaluate the alternatives generated for providing bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks on E Main Street through downtown that were generated during the TSP alternatives analysis phase. The alternatives evaluation will consider impacts to vehicle and truck parking and circulation. Policies and studies specific to transportation modes are presented within the applicable modal plan. 84 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012. General Policies and Studies Policy #1 (Ll) Street Functional Classifications The street functional classifications for the City of Ashland are below. The functional classifications are consistent with City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan and Street Standards Guidebook with the exception of the Shared Street classification. The Shared Street classification is a new functional classification that. needs to be added to the Comprehensive Plan and Street Standards Guidebook. It is being applied primarily to formerly designated Neighborhood Streets that currently do not have sidewalks or bicycle lanes and where sidewalks and bicycle lanes are either infeasible due to right-of- way or other constraints and where construction of small segments by development would likely remain disconnected from other pedestrian and bicycle facilities into the foreseeable future. It could also be applied to streets in new development areas. The vision for new Shared Street roadways is included in the Shared Streets'and Alleyways White Paper dated February 2, 2011. • Boulevard - Provide access to major urban activity centers for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit' and motor vehicle users, and provide connections to regional traffic ways such as Interstate 5. • Avenue - Provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle access from boulevards to neighborhoods and to neighborhood activity centers. • Neighborhood Collector - Distribute traffic from boulevards or avenues to, neighborhood streets. • Neighborhood Street - Provide access to residential and neighborhood commercial areas. • Shared Street _ Provides access to residential or commercial uses in areas in which right-of-way is constrained by topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicle users. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the.space is shared across modes. ILI 85 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies Exhibit 6-1- Shared Street Example a i a~ I "w • Alley - A semi-public neighborhood space that provides access to the rear of property; the alley eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a more positive front yard streetscape. Alleys also provide an alternative location for utility placement. • Multiuse Path - Off-street facilities used primarily for walking and bicycling; these paths can be relatively short connections between neighborhoods or longer paths adjacent to rivers, creeks, railroad tracks, and open space. Figure 6-1 presents the updated street functional classifications for the City of Ashland. Policy #2 (1-2) Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process The Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process is a means to help support the City's TSP goals by providing funding for multimodal and safety programs and projects. It is inherently multimodal helping to create a green template (Goal 1), improvements are safety and multimodal driven making safety a priority for all modes (Goal 2), it supports economic growth by streamlining the development review process for developers (Goal 3), and facilitates system wide balance by placing all modes, safety, and access at the some level as mobility (Goal 4). See the Alternative to Traditional Development Review and Transportation Funding White Paper (dated March 7, 2011) for more details. The City of Ashland should amend Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code to establish a Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process for reviewing and approving development applications. The development review process is outlined below. 86 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies 1) Applicants that generate 10 or more peak hour trips are required to prepare a transportation assessment that focuses on: A. On-site vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, truck delivery, and emergency service circulation and safety; B. Safety, using principles and information from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), of the proposed site access(es) to the transportation system; C. Multimodal LOS, per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), along the adjacent collector and/or arterial corridors; and D. Person trips generated by the development, including those person trips expected to travel through any of the City's previously identified safety focus intersections. Per the City's 2011 TSP update, these intersections are: • N Main Street (OR 99)/Hersey Street - Wimer Street • Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive - E Main Street • Siskiyou Boulevard (OR.99)-Lithia Way (OR 99)/E Main Street • E Main Street (OR 99 Southbound)/Oak Street • Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Tolman Creek Road • Ashland Street (OR 66)/Tolman Creek Road 2) The Applicant mitigates safety issues on-site and at their access point(s) to the transportation system. 3) The Applicant contributes financially to the safety and multimodal improvements identified for the City's safety focus intersections identified in Step 1. 4) The City assesses a Multimodal SDC, whereby.an applicant is assessed a fee based on the number of person trips the proposed development is estimated to generate. This allows the system revenues to be used to fund capacity related improvements to the vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems. 67 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ~ cD LL f y `r\ d . a . c~ c - t V Q to ji ter-- ~ • U i LL un N C j M. u c 1 , Q i E l , a m° a' z z` A N Q U _ Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies Policy #3-#9 (L3 through L9) Downtown Enhancement Policies The following policies are aimed at enhancing the downtown environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users while also facilitating economic prosperity for downtown. Policy #3 (1-3) Incorporate Wider Sidewalks - As feasible, incorporate wider sidewalks into the downtown core area on E Main Street, Lithia Way, and the supporting cross streets (e.g., Oak Street). The purpose of wider sidewalks is to provide additional capacity for pedestrians and pedestrian activities (Goals 3 and 4). Policy #5 (l5) Incorporate Preferred Pedestrian Treatments - As feasible, incorporate preferred pedestrian treatments into downtown area projects, including pedestrian countdown signals, landscape buffers, pedestrian refuge islands, and benches. These treatments will help enhance the environment for pedestrians (Goals 2 and 4). Exhibits 6-2 and 6-3 illustrate two of these treatments. Exhibit 6-2 - Pedestrian Countdown Signal Exhibit 6-3 - Pedestrian Refuge Island Policy #6 (L6) Encourage Alley Enhancements - Work with the Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owners, to encourage property owners along downtown alleys to enhance the environment through improved landscaping, orienting businesses towards the alley, and other similar characteristics (Goals 3 and 4). Policy #7 (L7) Incorporate Bicycle Parking - As feasible, incorporate bicycle parking into downtown projects to encourage and facilitate bicycle travel (Goal 4). Locally affected business owners will be included in the process of determining where bicycle parking is located. Policy #8 (L8) Develop Incentives for Truck Loading/Unloading - Work with the Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owners to reduce delivery and pick-up of goods during peak or, 89 Kittelson & Associntv , Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan' October 2012 General Policies and Studies times through strategies such as incentives or time restrictions. The purpose of this policy is to limit potential truck loading/unloading impacts on other downtown activities (Goals 3 and 4). • Policy k9 (1-9) Update Downtown Parking Management - Work with the Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owners to update parking management strategies such that the strategies encourage the use of existing parking garages, increase the turn-over of on-street parking, and work towards paid parking to manage parking within and to reduce auto trips to downtown (Goals 3 and 4). Policy # 10 (1-10) Green Street Treatments The City of Ashland will incorporate green street treatments into transportation, sewer, water, and stormwater capital, maintenance, and operations projects, as feasible. The type and design of the green street treatments will be determined using the information contained in the City of Ashland's Stormwater Master Plan. Green street treatments are a new opportunity to promote a vision of sustainable urbanism for the City of Ashland and help create a green template (Goal 1). By more closely mimicking the natural hydrology of a particular site, Green Streets help reduce the impact of urban' development. Green street stormwater facilities have been shown to improve water quality of runoff through effective treatment, minimize erosion through the reduction of peak flow rates and discharge velocities, and decrease stormwater volumes discharged to local streams by infiltrating all or a portion of local rainfall events. Study #1 (S1) Funding Sources Feasibility Study The City of Ashland will conduct a funding sources feasibility study to identify and evaluate the feasibility of additional funding sources to support transportation programs, studies and projects. The study will establish priorities for pursuing additional funding sources based on such factors as the probability of successfully securing the funding source, stability of the funds, and amount of funds. The cost estimate for the study is $30,000; the priority is medium indicating a timeline of 5 to 15 years (i.e., the study is to be conducted 5 to 15 years into the future). The purpose of allocating funds to such a study is to enable the City to identify additional long-term funding sources to increase the City's ability to fund transportation system improvements. Currently there is limited consensus on what to pursue. A study focused on the topic will provide the City with clear direction for the future. Study #2 (S2) Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Study The City of Ashland will conduct a downtown parking management and multi-modal circulation study to ftevaluate the effectiveness of existing downtown parking management and truck loading zones and 90 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies potential changes in parking management and travel demand management (TDM) strategies to increase overall accessibility to downtown for tourists, customers, and employees. The multi-modal circulation study will review pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, and vehicle circulation for vehicles and trucks downtown. The study will evaluate the alternatives generated for providing bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks on E Main Street through downtown that were generated during the TSP alternatives analysis phase. The alternatives evaluation will consider impacts to vehicle and truck parking and circulation. The cost estimate for the study is $100,000; the priority is high indicating a timeline of 0 to 5 years (i.e., the study is to be conducted 0 to 5 years into the future). The purpose of allocating funds to a parking and multi-modal circulation study is to enable the City to fully investigate the inter-related nature of parking management and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access and circulation downtown. The intent is to improve safety and access to downtown for all modes of travel and identify preferred approaches for parking management and providing enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities without adversely impacting downtown business' access for truck deliveries and parking for customers. SUMMARY OF GENERAL POLICIES AND STUDIES Table 6-1 summarizes the Preferred Plan general policies and studies. Table 6-1 Summary of Preferred Plan General Policies and Studies Priority (I D#) Policy (L) or Study (S) Na me Description (Timeline) Cost Update to City of Ashland's street functional classifications (LI) Street Functional Classifications including a new functional classification called Shared Streets. N/A N/A (1-2)Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Multimodal and safety based approach for reviewing and N/A N/A Development Review Process approving development applications. One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. As feasible, (1-3) Incorporate Wider Sidewalks incorporate wider sidewalks into downtown projects to N/A N/A provide more space for pedestrians. (LS) Incorporate Preferred Pedestrian One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. Incorporate preferred pedestrian treatments into downtown projects, as N/A N/A Treatments feasible. One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. Encourages ILE) Encourage Alley Enhancements property owners along alleys to enhance the environment N/A N/A through improved landscaping, businesses oriented towards the alley and other similar characteristics. One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. As feasible, (L7j Incorporate Bicycle Parking incorporate bicycle parking into downtown projects. N/A N/A ILE) Develop Incentives for Truck One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. Work with Load!ng/Unloading Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owners to N/A N/A reduce delivery and pick-up of goods in peak hours. One of seven policies to enhance the downtown. Work with (1-9) Update Downtown Parking Management Chamber of Commerce and downtown business to update N/A N/A parking management strategies. ( Incorporate green street treatments into transportation, L10) Green Street Treatments sewer, water, and stormwater projects. N/A N/A Develop a fee in lieu policy for sidewalk construction projects (L27) Fee In Lieu that apply to streets designated as Shared Streets (See Policy N/A N/A r~Ilr-77-7 Ll) 91 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 General Policies and Studies Priority I ([D#) Policy (L) or Study (S) Name DDescription (Timeline) Cost Study to identify future feasible funding sources to support Medium (SS) Funding Sources Feasibility Study $30,000 improvements to the transportation system. (5-15 years) (S2) Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal See study description on pages 88-89. High $100,000 Circulation Study (0.5 years) Notes: N/A Indicates category is not applicable to the policy or study. For examples, policies do not have costs or priorities associated with them, because they do not require funding to implement. I IN°/ 92 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 7 Pedestrian Plan .a A mKJx \r Y Ae i,.., i A i}n, .1. 1 _f y d \ If I Ashland Transportation System Pion October 2011 Pedestrian Plan PEDESTRIAN PLAN The pedestrian network in Ashland is made up of sidewalks, multi-use paths, and trails as well as marked and unmarked, signalized and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. In general, high activity areas such as downtown and along N Main Street/Siskiyou Boulevard are well-served by sidewalks and designated crosswalks that are either marked or signalized. Newer developments also have good sidewalk coverage, with sidewalks constructed on both sides of nearly all streets. Section 3 provides more information on the existing pedestrian network. Technical memorandums 3.1 and 4.1 in the Technical Appendix also contain more detailed and extensive information on the existing pedestrian network.) The following sections present the City of Ashland's pedestrian related policies, programs, and projects. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR IMPROVING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT The policies below focus on providing a more comfortable pedestrian environment consistent with Goals 1, 2, 3 and 4 outlined in Section 2. Policy #13 (L13) Incorporate Preferred Pedestrian Treatments - As feasible, integrate preferred pedestrian treatments into city-wide projects that arise through CIP investments or development. Preferred pedestrian treatments include pedestrian countdown signals, audible pushbuttons, landscape buffers, pedestrian refuge islands, benches, curb extensions, enhanced crosswalks, signalized crossings, and ADA compliant curb ramps (see A B for Bike and Pedestrian Design Treatment Toolbox). These treatments will help enhance the environment for pedestrians and facilitate travel as a pedestrian (Goals 2 and 4). Policy #27 (L27) Fee In Lieu - The City of Ashland should develop a fee in lieu policy for . sidewalk construction projects that apply to streets designated as Shared Streets (See Project Ll) as well as any other streets the Public Works Director requests or approves in order to help complete higher priority sidewalks first. The fee in lieu applies to development applications that would otherwise be required to construct sidewalks along their site frontage. Rather than having the applicant construct the sidewalks along their site frontage, the fee in lieu policy would have them pay a fee into a sidewalk construction fund equivalent to the cost of constructing sidewalks along their site frontage. The sidewalk construction fund would be used to construct high priority sidewalk projects. Program #1 (01) Create Travelsmart Educational Program - Invest in individualized, . targeted marketing materials to be distributed to interested individuals for the purpose of informing and encouraging travel as a pedestrian or by bicycle. The approximate cost of the program (including maps, materials, incentives, outreach staff and mail costs) is $30 per household. Program Funding: The first three years of this program will be funded at $15,000 per year fff111II'R77777 enabling the City to distribute material to approximately 500 households per year. Funding I IY/ 94 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Plan for subsequent years will be determined based on the outcomes of the first three years. (This program is also presented in Section 6 Bicycle Plan.) PEDESTRIAN FACILITY TYPES The Ashland Street Standards guidebook provides information related to pedestrian facility types within Ashland, including minimum requirements for sidewalks and multi-use paths. All existing and planned pedestrian facilities should be consistent with these requirements. The following designations are used throughout the TSP to describe the City's pedestrian facilities. These designations and definitions are consistent with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (OBPP). • Sidewalks - Sidewalks are located along roadways, are separated from the roadway with a curb and/or planting strip, and have a hard, smooth surface, such as concrete. The City standard for sidewalk width is 6 to 10 feet on arterial and collector streets, with wider sidewalks required in areas of high pedestrian activity, and 5 feet on local streets. The unobstructed travelway for pedestrians should be clear of utility poles, sign posts, fire hydrants, vegetation and other site furnishings. • Multi-Use Paths - Multi-use paths are used by a variety of non-motorized users, including pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, and runners. Multi-use paths may be paved or unpaved, and are often wider than an average sidewalk. In circumstances where peak traffic is expected to be low, pedestrian traffic is not expected to be more than occasional, good passing opportunities can be provided, and maintenance vehicle loads are not expected to damage pavement, the width may be reduced. The City multi-use path standard is 6 to 10 feet in width, depending on type of path (e.g. short neighborhood connector, unpaved trail, longer greenway type path) and the volume of non-motorized traffic. • Roadway Shoulders - Roadway shoulders often serve as pedestrian routes in many rural Oregon communities. On roadways with low traffic, volumes (i.e., less than 3,000 vehicles per day), roadway shoulders are often adequate for pedestrian travel. These roadways should have shoulders wide enough so that both pedestrians and bicyclists can use them, usually 6 feet or greater. PLANNED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK The planned pedestrian network for the City of Ashland is shown in Figure 7-1. This network improves the connection between residential neighborhoods and commercial, social and educational locations around the City-areas that require a high level of connectivity to meet resident's daily needs. nI?07 95 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. O Q ~ d r~ LL {f 3 r M~ V~ ~ u u E17 11 ( a~ ~114 a` if I (y~ - ! d / fJl O N y / a 3 t 2 r m o c c S ~ N 2 `2 J N W y -1 -n. .X. 'O I I O:a4idS1 w+eM~'N 9iu~011 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Plan The planned network reflects projects identified based on the crash analysis summarized in Section 3 and technical memorandums 3.1 and 4.1. The planned network also prioritizes projects that are located on designated Safe Routes to School, streets with higher street functional classifications (indicating higher traffic volumes and speed), and adjacent to land use destinations. Detailed information regarding project extent, priority designation and planning level cost estimates for each pedestrian project is provided in Table 7-1 below. Note the multi-use path projects are documented in Section 6 Bicycle Plan. AppendixA contains the project prospectus sheets for the pedestrian related projects. Table 7-1 Pedestrian Projects Safe Routes Reasons for the Priority (Project#) Name Description to School?' Project (Timeline) Cost' Create Travelsmart Education Encourage and High (01) Program facilitate pedestrian (0-5 Years) $45,000 and bicycle travel (Pl) N Main From N Main Street to Schofield _ Fill gap in existing High $50,000 Street/Highway 99 Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P4) Laurel Street From Nevada Street to Orange Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $500,000 Avenue sidewalk network (5-15 Years) (P5) Glenn Street/ From N Main Street to 175' east of Yes Fill gap in existing High $200,000 Orange Avenue Willow Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) 175' west of Drager Street to Heiman Yes Fill gap in existing High (P6) Orange Avenue Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) $250,000 (P7) Hersey Street From N Main Street to Oak Street Yes Fill gap in existing High $750,000 sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P8) Wimer Street From Thornton Way toN Main Street Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $800,000 (P9) Maple Street From Chestnut Street to 150' east of Yes Fill gap in existing High $100,000 Rock Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) From Maple Street to Winner Street Yes Fill gap in existing High $250,000 sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P10) Scenic Drive From Wimer Street to Grandview Yes Fill gap in existing Low Drive sidewalk network (15-25 Years) $300,000 (P17) Beaver Slide From Water Street to Lithia Way Fill gap in existing High - sidewalk network (0-5 Years) $50,000 From Oak Street to 300'west of 6th Fill gap in existing High (Pl8) A Street Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) $250,000 (P22) N Mountain From 100'south of Village Green Way _ Fill gap in existing - High $450,000 Avenue to Iowa Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P23) Wightman Street From 200' north of E Main Street to Yes Fill gap in existing High $400,000 625' south of E Main Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) 950' north of Iowa Street to Ashland Fill gap in existing High (P25)Walker Avenue Street Yes sidewalk network (0-5 Years) 750,000 From Oregon Street to Woodland Yes Fill gap in existing High $200,000 Drive sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P27) Walker Avenue From Woodland Drive to Peachey Yes Fill gap in existing Low $150,000 Road sidewalk network (15-25 Years) From S Mountain Avenue to Morton Yes Fill gap in existing High $450,000 Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P28) Ashland Street From Morton Street to Guthrie Street Yes Fill gap in existing Low $500,000 sidewalk network (15-25 Years) (P37) Clay Street From Faith Avenue to Siskiyou Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $1,000,000 Boulevard sidewalk network (5-15 Years) (P38) Clay Street From Siskiyou Boulevard to Mohawk Yes Fill gap in existing High $300,000 97 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Plan Safe Routes Reasonsforthe Priority (Project It) Name Description to School?' Project (Timeline) Cost' Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) From Mohawk Street to southern Yes Fill gap in existing Low terminus sidewalk network (15-25 Years) $300,000 (P40) Hillview Drive From Siskiyou Boulevard to Peachey Fill gap in existing Low $250,000 Road sidewalk network (15-25 Years) (P42) S Mountain From Ashland Street to Prospect _ Fill gap in existing Low $400,000 Avenue Street sidewalk network (15-25 Years) (P54) Iowa Street From Terrace Street to Auburn Street Yes Fill gap in existing Low sidewalk network (15-25 Years) $350,000 From Siskiyou Boulevard to City Limits _ Fill gap in existing High $425,000 (P57) Tolman Creek (west side) sidewalk network (0-5 Years) Road From Siskiyou Boulevard to City Limits Fill gap in existing Low (east side) sidewalk network (15-25 Years) $425'000 From Hersey Street to Van Ness Yes Fill gap in existing High $100000 - Avenue sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P58) Heiman Street From 1500' north of Orange Avenue Yes Fill gap in existing Low $200,000 - to Orange Avenue sidewalk network (15-25 Years) (P59) Garfield Street From E Main Street to Siskiyou Yes Fill gap in existing High 750,000 Boulevard sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P60) Lincoln Street From E Main Street to Iowa Street Yes Fill gap in existing High sidewalk network (0-5 Years) $450,000 (P61) California Street From E Main Street to Iowa Street Yes Fill gap in existing High $500 000 sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P62) Quincy Street From Garfield Street to Wightman Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $150,000 Street sidewalk network (5-15 Years) (P63) Liberty Street From Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Yes Fill gap in existing High $650,000 Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P64) Water Street From Van Ness Avenue to BStreet Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $250,000 From Ashland Street to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing High (P65) Faith Avenue Boulevard Yes sidewalk network (0-5 Years) $350,000 (P66) Diane Street From Clay Street to Tolman Creek Yes Fill gap in existing High $20,000 Road sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P67) Frances Lane From Siskiyou Boulevard to Oregon Yes Fill gap in existing High $101000 Street sidewalk network (0-5 Years) From Patterson Street to Hersey Fill gap in existing High (P68) Carol Street Street Yes sidewalk network $150,000 (0-5 Years) (P70) Park Street From Ashland Street to Siskiyou Yes Fill gap in existing High $650,000 Boulevard sidewalk network (0-5 Years) (P71) Orchard Street From Sunnyview Drive to Westwood Yes Fill gap in existing Low $100,000 Street sidewalk network (15-15 Years) (P72) C Street From Fourth Street to Fifth Street Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $700,000 (P73) Barbara Street From Jaquelyn Street to Tolman Creek Fill gap in existing Medium Road Yes sidewalk network (5-15 Years) 100,000 (P74) Roca Street From Ashland Street to Prospect Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $250,000 Street sidewalk network (5-15 Years) (P75) Blaine Street From Morton Street to Morse Avenue Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $100,000 (P78) Patterson Street From Crispin Street to Carol Street Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $1,000 (P79) Harrison Street From Iowa Street to Holly Street Yes Fill gap in existing Medium sidewalk network (5-15 Years) $100,000 fff111III(P80) Spring Creek Drive From Oak Knoll Drive to road end Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $350,000 I IY/ 98 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. u > Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Plan Safe Routes Reasons for the Priority (Project ff) Name Description to School?' Project (Timeline) Cost' sidewalk network (5-15 Years) From Greenmeadows Way to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing Medium (P81) Rellview Avenue Yes $250,000 Boulevard sidewalk network (5-15 Years) High Priority (0-5 Years) $8,550,000 Medium Priority (5-15 Years) $4,050,000 Low Priority (15-25 Years) $2,975,000 Total $15,575,000 Notes: -Some sidewalk projects in the table above may not be feasible due to right-of-way and/or topographic constraints. `A "Yes" indicates the project contributes to a Safe Routes to School Plan by helping to fill a sidewalk or bicycle network gap on a safe route to a local school. The safe routes are those identified in the City's Safe Routes to School Plan maps. A indicates the project does not overlap with a designated safe route to school. 2Planning level cost estimates are for construction and engineering; does not include right-of-way costs. I IY/ - 99 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 8 Bicycle Plan i r - - ; SHARE THE W. ` `>2J t Ashland Transportation System Plan - October 2012 Bicycle Plan BICYCLE PLAN The existing bikeway network reflects the same structure as the major road network (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues, and boulevards). There are limited continuous alternative routes for bicyclists to use instead of the boulevard network, particularly routes that connect riders to the major land use attractions. The land use and road network pattern in Ashland consists of one or two continuous east-west streets (OR 99 and OR 66) that are supported by a north-south collector system. The east-west corridors provide a regional traffic mobility function as well as hosting the majority of the City's attraction-based land uses including its retail, commercial, service, and educational hubs. These locations are also attractive to bicycle riders. Overall, the bicycle network consists of a variety of facility types and covers approximately 48-percent of the major road network with a little over half (54-percent) being on-street bike lanes. The remainder includes shared roadways (37-percent) and shoulder bikeways (9-percent). In some cases local streets may provide more comfortable alternatives to the major road network and these streets serve as the basis for a potential well-connected bicycle boulevard system. In addition to on-street facilities, there is also an existing 6.8 miles of off-street multi-use path. Section 3 provides more information on the existing bicycle network. Technical Memorandums #3 and #4 in the Technical Appendix also contain more detailed and extensive information on the existing bicycle network. Bicyclist Types Increasingly, it is more recognized that there are various types of cycling populations. For example, many cities have found that its current ridership is represented by a small percentage of people that are "strong and fearless" and will generally ride regardless of the roadway conditions. They have also identified an "enthused and confident" group that is comfortable with the current policy of providing on-street bicycle lanes and similar facilities. This group represents the majority of recent growth in bicycle ridership. There is also a larger segment of the population that is "interested but concerned" in cycling. These people would like to cycle but currently have some sort of concern about using the existing cycling system - often this is a concern about safety riding amongst traffic. There is an opportunity to attract more travel by bicycle by providing a multi-level cycling system that caters to different types of cyclists. The existing cyclists, made up of the "strong and fearless" and "enthused and confident" groups, prefer direct, unimpeded, quick routes that tend to be along the major road network (i.e., neighborhood collectors, avenues and boulevards), whereas the "interested but concerned" group is less interested in speed and tend to seek greater comfort and an enhanced sense of safety. Generally, the "interested but concerned" group can be catered for in two ways: 1. By providing more protection along busy traffic streets (e.g., using buffered, protected, or separated bike lanes); or 101 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Bicycle Plan 2. By providing comfortable alternatives to the boulevard network, such as bicycle boulevards along low volume streets or alleyways. The following sections present the City of Ashland's bicycle related policies, programs, and projects that are designed to increase bicycle ridership for each of the cycling populations. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO BICYCLING AND BICYCLISTS The policies and programs below focus on making bicycling more appealing to a wider range of ages and ability consistent with Goals 1, 2, 3 and 4 outlined in Section 2. • Policy #11 (Lll) Integrate Bicycle Parking - Work with the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce to establish on-street bicycle parking requirements (in areas where on-street vehicle parking is also provided) to complement existing off-street bicycle parking requirements in the development review process. Also, establish a tier system for the on- and off-street parking requirements that recognizes some parts of the City of Ashland are likely to attract more bicycle trips than others parts (Goal 1, 3 and 4). • Policy # L12 (1.32) Establish Incentives for Bicycle Friendly Businesses - Work with the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce to establish incentives for bicycle friendly businesses. The incentives should encourage businesses to facilitate and promote bicycling for employees and customers. The League of American Bicyclists has benchmarks for businesses to use to qualify for Bicycle Friendly status. City staff will work with the Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce to pair the League of American Bicyclists benchmarks (or similar benchmarks customized to Ashland) with incentives attractive to local Ashland businesses. Establishing these incentives and benchmarks will encourage travel by bicycle helping creating a green template, assisting the City in moving towards Platinum status as a bicycle community, while also supporting economic prosperity (Goals 1 and 3). • Program #1 (01) Create Travel5mart Educational Program - Invest in individualized, targeted marketing materials to be distributed to interested individuals for the purpose of informing and encouraging travel as a pedestrian or by bicycle. The approximate cost of the program (including maps, materials, incentives, outreach staff and mail costs) is $30 per household. Program Funding: The first three years of this program will be funded at $15,000 per year enabling the City to distribute material to approximately 500 households per year. Funding for subsequent years will be determined based on the outcomes of the first three years. (This program is also contained in Section 5 Pedestrian Plan.) • Program # (04) Retrofit Bicycle Parking Program - Establish a retrofit bicycle parking program allowing interested property owners to apply for bicycle racks or bicycle corrals to be installed in front of their establishment. The City will coordinate with local business 102 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Bicycle Plan owners as to where bicycle racks are installed to be sensitive to the potential impacts on pedestrian space and vehicle parking. Program Funding: The program will be,allocated $10,000 annually for a five year period and the funds will be administered on a first-come first-serve basis and only after minimum bicycle parking requirements have been satisfied. The City will purchase racks, mange the request process, install racks, and keep records of where bicycle racks have been placed. This level of funding is estimated to provide approximately 40 inverted-U style bicycle racks per year (including hardware and staff costs). BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES The Ashland Street Standards guidebook provides information related to bicycle facility types within Ashland, including the minimum requirements for bicycle lanes and multi-use paths. All existing and planned bicycle facilities should be consistent with these requirements. The following designations are used throughout the TSP to describe the City's bicycle facilities. These designations and definitions are consistent with AASHTO and OBPP. The purpose of having multiple bicycle facility types is to provide a multi-level cycling system that caters to different types of cyclists ranging from novice to experienced riders. In general, bicycles are allowed on roadways in the City of Ashland regardless of the presence or type of bicycle facility on the roadway. • Shared Roadway / Signed Shared Roadway - Shared roadways include roadways on which bicyclists and motorists share the same travel lane. This is the most common type of bikeway. The most suitable roadways for shared bicycle use are those with low speeds (25 mph or less) or low traffic volumes (3,000 vehicles per day or fewer). Signed shared roadways are shared roadways that are designated and signed as bicycle routes and serve to provide continuity to other bicycle facilities (i.e., bicycle lanes) or designate a preferred route through the community. Common practice is to sign the route with standard Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) green bicycle route signs with directional arrows. The OBPP recommends against the use of bike route signs if they do not have directional arrows and/or information accompanying them. Signed shared roadways can also be signed to highlight special touring routes or to provide directional information in bicycling minutes or distance (e.g., "Library, 3 minutes, 1/2 mile"). • Shoulder Bikeway - These are paved roadways that have striped shoulders wide enough for bicycle travel. ODOT recommends a 6-foot paved shoulder to adequately provide for bicyclists, and a 4-foot minimum in constrained areas. Roadways with shoulders less than 4- feet are considered shared roadways. Sometimes shoulder bikeways are signed to alert motorists to expect cyclists. • Bicycle Lane - Bike lanes are portions of the roadway designated specifically for bicycle travel via a striped lane and pavement stencils. Bike lanes are most appropriate on arterials I lY/ 103 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. u ~ i Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Bicycle Plan and major collectors, where high traffic volumes and speeds warrant greater separation. The City standard width for a bicycle lane is 6 feet. • Multi-Use Path - Multi-use paths are used by a variety of non-motorized users, including pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, and runners. Multi-use paths may be paved or unpaved, and are often wider than an average sidewalk. In circumstances where peak traffic is expected to be low, pedestrian traffic is not expected to be more than occasional, good passing opportunities can be provided, and maintenance vehicle loads are not expected to damage pavement, the width may be reduced. The City multi-use path standard is 6 to 10 feet in width, depending on type of path (e.g. short neighborhood connector, unpaved trail, longer greenway type path) and the volume of non-motorized traffic. • Bicycle Boulevard - Bicycle boulevards are an adaptation of shared roadways that modify local streets to allow the through movement of bicycles whilst maintaining local access for automobiles. Bicycle boulevards typically include bicycle route signage and pavement markings and often feature traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds and provide a more comfortable environment for cyclists. PLANNED BICYCLING NETWORK The planned bicycle network is shown in Figure 8-1. It creates increased route options and connectivity to serve bicyclists with a wide range of skill sets and comfort (i.e.; to serve novice to experienced riders). The planned network reflects projects identified based on the crash analysis summarized in Section 3 and technical memorandums 3.1 and 4.1. The planned network also prioritizes projects that are located on designated Safe Routes to School, streets with higher street functional classifications (indicating higher traffic volumes and speed), and adjacent to land use destinations. For detailed bicycle project information, including project extent, designated priority and planning level cost estimates, see Table 8-1. Appendix B is a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Toolkit the City can use to in designing the specific attributes of the various planned bicycle facilities. Appendix A contains the project prospectus sheets for the bicycle related projects. r, 104 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. _ i. E FQ ~ r LL pl lb~ oz U w tiff L'. . C rq. d W W O n n ff r i, n w l l !mom L~ c m~ a mm s( w g ego o' a o - - 9 ax:vssi cwnnv 9so m n Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Bicycle Plan Table 8-1 Bicycle Projects Safe Routes Reasons for the Priority (Project Name Description to School?' Project (Timeline) Cost' Establish funds and process for (O4) Retrofit Bicycle Facilitate bicycle High Program installing off-street bicycle racks at - travel (0-5 Years) $50,000 existing business/establishments Upgrade of existing Bicycle Boulevard - From Scenic Drive bikeway to High (B2) Wimer street toN Main Street. Coordinate with - encourage greater (0-5 Years) $20,000 Project R31. use Bike Lane- From Vansant Street to N Fill gap in existing Medium (B3) Nevada Street Mountain Avenue. Coordinate with - $230,000 Project R17. bicycle network (5-15 Years) (84) Glendower Street Bicycle Boulevard - From the Bear Fill gap in existing Low $20,000 Creek Greenwa to Nevada Street bicycle network y cy(15-25 Years) (B5) Maple/Scenic Bicycle Boulevard - From N Main Yes Fill gap in existing High $110,000 Drive/Nutley Street Street to Winburn Way bicycle network (0-5 Years) Upgrade of bikeway, Bicycle Boulevard - From Calle _ slow travel speeds, Low (66) Winburn Way Guanjuato to Nutley Street encourage $10,000 (15-25 Years) commercial activity Bike Lane - From Terrace Street to (87) Iowa Street road terminus and from S Mountain Yes Fill gap in existing High bicycle network (0-5 Years) $240'000 Avenue to Walker Avenue (B8) Morton Street Bicycle Boulevard - From E Main Fill gap in existing Low $60,000 Street to Ashland Street bicycle network (15-25 Years) Bicycle Boulevard - From Morton Fill gap in existing Medium (139) Ashland Street Street to University Way Yes bicycle network (5-15 Years) $30,000 (1310) S Mountain Bike Lane - From Ashland Street to E Fill gap in existing High Avenue Main Street Vey bicycle network (0-5 Years) $120,000 Bicycle Boulevard - E Main Street to Fill gap in existing High (811) Wightman Street Siskiyou Boulevard Yes bicycle network (0-5 Years) $60,000 Bicycle Boulevard - From road end to Fill gap in existing Low (B32) Wightman Street E Main Street bicycle network (15-25 Years) $20,000 (B13)BStreet Bicycle Boulevard - From Oak Street Yes Fill gap in existing High $g0,000 to N Mountain Avenue bicycle network (0-5 Years) Upgrade of bikeway, Bicycle Boulevard - From Oak Street _ slow travel speeds, Low (B34)AStreet to 6th Street encourage (15-25 Years) $50,000 commercial activity Bicycle Boulevard - From Oak Street Fill gap in existing High (816) Lithia Way to Heiman Street Yes $110,000 bicycle network (0-5 Years) Bicycle Boulevard - From Heiman Fill gap in existing High (817)Main Street Street to Siskiyou Boulevard. Yes bicycle network (0-5 Years) $50,000 Bike Lane - From Jackson Road to (B18) N Main Street Heiman Street Fill gap in existing Medium $260,000 Included as part of Projects R35 and bicycle network (5-15 Years) • R36. See Table 10-2 for more details. (819) Heiman Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Nevada Yes Fill gap in existing High $80,000 Street to N Main Street bicycle network (0-5 Years) (B20) Water Street Bicycle Boulevard- From Hersey Yes Fill gap in existing Medium $30,000 Street to N Main Street bicycle network (5-15 Years) (621) Oak Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Nevada Fill gap in existing Low $100,000 Street to E Main Street bicycle network (15-25 Years) (B22) Clay Street' Bicycle Boulevard - From E Main Fill gap in existing Low $60,000 Street to Ashland Street bicycle network (15-25 Years) (B24) Clover Lane Bike Lane- From Ashland Street to - Fill gap in existing Low $40,000 n 106 Kittelson & Associotes, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Bicycle Pion Safe Routes- Reasonsforthe Priority (Project#) Name r proposed bike path bicycle network (15-25 Vears) ' (B25) Tolman Creek Bike Lane- From Siskiyou Boulevard _ Fill gap in existing Medium $100,000 Road to Green Meadows Way bicycle network (5-15 Years) Bike Lane - From E Main Street to Fill gap in existing High (B26) Normal Avenue Siskiyou Boulevard. Coordinatewith Yes bicycle network (0-5 Years) $190,000 Project R39. (B28) Clay Street' Bicycle Boulevard - From the rail line Fill gap in existing Low $50,000 to Siskiyou Boulevard bicycle network (15-25 Years) Bicycle Boulevard - From Siskiyou Fill gap in existing High (1329) Walker Avenue Boulevard to Peachey Road bicycle network (0-5 Years) $40'000 (830) Ashland Street Bike Lane - From 1-5 Exit 14 SB to Hwy Yes Fill gap in existing Low $100,000 66 bicycle network (15-25 Years) Bicycle Boulevard -Siskiyou Boulevard Fill gap in existing High (1331) Indiana Street to Oregon Street bicycle network (0-5 years) $20,000 Bicycle Boulevard - A Street to E Main Fill gap in existing High (833) 8th Street Street Yes bicycle network (0-5 Years) $20'000 Bicycle Boulevard - A Street to E Main _ Fill gap in existing Low (834) 1st Street Street bicycle network (15-25 Years) $20,000 (1335) Railroad Property Bike Lane - From Proposed Bike Path Fill gap in existing Low $40,000 to N Mountain Avenue bicycle network (15-25 Years) (1337) Clay Street' Bicycle Boulevard - From Siskiyou Fill gap in existing Medium $20,000 Boulevard to Mohawk Street bicycle network (5-15 Years) (1338) Oregon/Clark Bicycle Boulevard - Indiana Street to Fill gap in existing High $40,000 Street Harmony Lane bicycle network (0-5 Years) (B39) Glenn Bicycle Boulevard - From N Main _ Fill gap in existing Medium $40,000 Street/Orange Avenue Street to Proposed Trail bicycle network (5-15 Years) (B40) Laurel Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Orange Fill gap in existing Medium $40,000 Street to Nevada Street bicycle network (5-15 Years) (TRI) Northside Trail Multi-use Path- From Orchid Avenue Expand existing High $2,000,000 to Tolman Creek Road bicycle network (0-5 Years) (TR2) New Trail Multi-Use Path- From Clay Street to Expand existing Medium $400000 Tolman Creek Road bicycle network (5-15 Years) Multi-use Path - From new trail to _ Expand existing Development (TR3)New Trail Hersey street bicycle network Driven $220'000 TR4 New Trail Multi-use Path - From A Street to Expand existing Development $110,000 Clear Creek Drive Extension bicycle network Driven High Priority (0-S Years) $3,230,000 Medium Priority (5-15 Years) $1,150,000 Low Priority (15-25 Years) $570,000 Development Driven $330,000 Total $5,280,000 Notes: 'A "Yes" indicates the project contributes to a Safe Routes to School Plan by helping to fill a sidewalk or bicycle network gap on a safe route to a local school. The safe routes are those identified in the City's Safe Routes to School Plan maps. A indicates the project does not overlap with a designated safe route to school. 'Planning level cost estimates are for construction and engineering; does not include right-of-way costs. Cost estimates assume striping and signing changes occur within the existing pavement width (i.e., no additional construction or road expansion is required). 'Jackson County currently does not have standards for Bicycle Boulevard and may not permit the use of sharrows. 107 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 9 Transit Plan i I BUS STOP i _ - 1 tvtv'' 779-BUSS r IN' J ~ t x" - i r~ i ~!C~TI~I~f e 1~ k Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan TRANSIT PLAN The transit plan presents policies and programs focused on improving transit service within and to/from Ashland. Figure 9-1 illustrates the existing and planned transit routes in the City of Ashland based on the City's transit priorities. The planned routes and service improvements are discussed below in the subsection: Program #5 (05) Transit Service Program. Policy #14-19 (L14 through L19) Transit Enhancement Policies The following transit enhancement policies improve access to transit, land uses surrounding transit, and/or physical elements or attributes which the City has the direct ability to influence. a Policy #14 (L14) Encourage Greater Concentrations of Housing - Establish policies and/or incentives to encourage a greater concentration of housing along transit corridors and within urban renewal districts as a means to increase transit ridership and establish transit attractive destinations (Goal3 and 4). a Policy #15 (11-15) Upgrade Sidewalk Facilities - As project opportunities arise through Capital Improvement Program (CIP) investments or development, upgrade sidewalk facilities to ADA compliance on streets where transit service is provided and/or planned (Goals 2 and 4). a Policy #16 (11-16) Provide Street Lighting - As project opportunities arise through CIP investments or development, install and/or improve street lighting at transit stops and along streets leading to transit stops (Goals 2 and 4). Policy #17 (L17) Provide Bicycle Storage - As project opportunities arise through CIP investments or development, incorporate bicycle storage at major transit stops, including the downtown core, Southern Oregon University (SOU), and the Ashland Street (OR 66)/Tolman Creek Road intersection (Goals 3 and 4). a Policy #18 (L18) Increase and Improve Pedestrian Crossing Opportunities - As project opportunities arise through CIP investments or development, improve pedestrian crossing opportunities across major roadways to facilitate access to transit stops (Goals 2 and 4). n4°/ 109 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. G Z z °u © a O 1; N w ~ r TviNOW31V IMIONI tiV~lrl ~J )ITltl:i NvW tql M2Nd F •C tlMnN -M31 t,lllli LL ! ' r N A 1 1101,51 tl11V1'JNI , I - - yJ^ ~NIVlh !u14 r W . =31JIIll~ • 1 O - -4yJ I is "~nI~J; 1 - KF~ IfINISJIij Moll aVLAn_IS3nA.~ C a ~ rc w" ' m E E E v u v C _ P' w a a E »mnmm~` 6 U 5owayb ysa l.vh,ateGdn l„I walus~; to G➢:1 LC9011~!Ylo~h!:H Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan Policy #19 (L19) Work with RVTD to Monitor and Improve Transit Stop Amenities - As opportunities arise, upgrade transit stop amenities based on ridership thresholds (Goals 2 and 4). Ridership thresholds and amenities include: o Level 1 (stops with 0 to 19 riders/day) - Bus stop sign with route information and attached bench o Level 2 (stops with 20 to 49 riders/day) - Level 1 amenities plus separate bench and ADA landing pad o Level 3 (stops with 50 or more riders/day) - Level 2 amenities plus covered, lit shelter and secure bicycle parking (e.g., bicycle lockers) Policies related to other critical transit service elements such as hours of service, service frequency, fare, and service coverage are included below under "Programs"; these require coordination with the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), the regional transit provider. Program #5 (05) Transit Service Program The Transit Service Program provides funds and guidance on how to allocate funds to improve transit service (and increase transit ridership) in Ashland in collaboration with RVTD. Improving transit service to, from, and within the City of Ashland is an important element to help the City move toward its goals of creating a green template (Goal 1), supporting economic prosperity (Goal 3), and creating system- wide balance (Goal 4). Brief History of Transit Service in Ashland The City of Ashland has a history of subsidizing transit in the form of reducing fares for trips within Ashland and paying for an'additional transit route in Ashland. These investments were made with the goal of increasing transit ridership. In approximately January of 2003, the City of Ashland began subsidizing fares for transit trips within Ashland such that transit use was free to riders. Completely subsidized fare continued until approximately June 2006 at which time the City reduced the amount of the subsidy such that trips within Ashland were $0.50 for riders. From 2009-2011, the City of Ashland has continued to subsidize fares for transit trips within Ashland (although at a rate less than in 2006) and paid for additional service within Ashland (Route 15) to increase the frequency of bus service to approximately 15-minute headways on weekdays. The addition of Route 15 did not have the level of impact on ridership desired by the City and in 2011, RVTD decided to increase service frequency on Route 10 to 20-minute headways. Route 10 provides service within Ashland and to Medford. As a result, the City of Ashland has ended its subsidy to fund Route 15 and is not currently subsidizing fares. E . 111 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Pion Subsidies to RVTD for reduced fares and 15-minute service in Ashland were approximately $200,000 per year after the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) credit. Any future subsidized program should have the outcome of increased ridership. Transit Service Priorities Transit service priorities for RVTD and the City are discussed below. The priorities identified by RVTD in their long range plan are relevant to the City, because RVTD is currently the City's public transportation provider. The City's priorities discussed below are the specific transit service enhancements the Transit Service Program will use to fund. RVTD's Transit Service Priorities RVTD's Long-Range Plan for transit service expansions includes three tiers of transit service expansion priorities based on three potential funding scenarios. Tier 1 includes the highest priorities for service expansion and primarily includes extended hours on existing transit service with some minor service expansion. Tier 2, which is based on a higher funding scenario, includes Tier 1 service expansions in addition to a second level service expansion priorities which include additional routes, express routes, and peak service. Tier 3 expansions, although still a priority, are lower in priority than the Tier 1 and Tier 2 expansions and include additional routes and the formation of a transit grid system. The Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects identified in RVTD's long-range plan that would enhance transit service to, from and in Ashland are described in Table 9-1. Table 9-1 RVTD's Transit Service Enhancement Tiers Transit Service Enhancement Tiers Transit Service Expansions Tier 1 Expanded service hours on weekdays (4 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and provide Saturday service (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) Provide Circulator Service in Ashland on the east side of OR 99, Four Hour.Peak Service, and Tier 2 Express Route (15 minute service) from Medford to Ashland Plaza. Tier 3 Provide additional transit routes in South Ashland. The City of Ashland's Transit Service Priorities The City, of Ashland's priorities for expanded transit service are compatible with RVTD's priorities although slightly different and are described in more detail below. 1) Establish a Customized Bus Pass Program - Establish a customized community bus pass program that will target groups such as high school students, seniors, public employees, and those in financial need. The program should be crafted to provide passes to groups that are likely to have the most impact on ridership as well as.those in financial need of assistance. 112 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan 2) Extend Service Hours - Extend service hours for Route 10 into the weekday evenings (e.g., 10:00 p.m.) and provide service on Saturday and Sunday. Encourage RVDT to implement extended service hours on other key routes. 2012 RVTD extended service hours on Route 10 to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and provides Saturday service. The benefit of extended service hours is somewhat limited to local trips as not all routes that connect to Route 10 in Medford have extended service hours. However, the extended service hours on Route 10 serve a need between SOU and SOU's Medford campus, however, this need may also potentially be served by a shuttle service operated by SOU. 3) Provide Express Bus Service to Medford and the Rogue Valley International Airport - Continue to explore opportunities with RVTD to establish express bus service to and from Medford and the Rogue Valley International Airport during the morning and evening commute hours and timed with flight arrivals and departures. Express bus service could be provided via additional service on Route 10 with limited to no stops between downtown Ashland, downtown Medford, and the Rogue Valley International Airport. Figure 9-1 illustrates the potential express bus service route including two long- term park-and- ride locations within the City of Ashland. The two long-term locations are: 1) Railroad District adjacent to Hersey Street and 2) the Croman Mill Site. The Railroad District location preserves the opportunity establish a transit hub near downtown that would be well served by future commuter or passenger rail service. The Croman Mill Site provides the opportunity to operate a two-hub system, if the site and surrounding area develops to such a density to warrant a second hub. 4) Expand Service Area - Work with RVTD to expand the transit service area as additional areas within the City become capable of supporting transit services. Areas capable of supporting transit service that are not currently being provided transit service are shown in red in Figure 9- 2. 113 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. O J 4 Ci F m N LL II `1 l1. • -~1 . V - 71 f/1 ~ c ~ (Q V y Q Cl) a - > aj E ' w _ N I - l I / I t I1 8 ~ o c a t N zz • O 4 Y ~ y y g w ui n a m r ~ A in U Q Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan As documented in the Supplemental Transit Information Memorandum (dated May 16, 2011), certain areas of Ashland not currently served by transit ore forecasted to be capable of supporting transit by the year 2034 based on their population and/or employment densities. Areas within X mile walk of a transit stop are considered to be served by transit as indicated by the green and yellow areas on Figure 9-2. The areas shown in red are based on the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the regional travel demand model and do not necessarily warrant transit service within a mile. Rather, the areas in red help identify key corridors where future densities will be supportive of transit service (such as Hersey, Mountain,. East Main, and Mistletoe). The City should work with RVTD to identify and fund new routes and/or modify existing routes to best serve these corridors when they develop to a point that transit service becomes feasible. Figure 9-1 illustrates the additional transit route, Route 8, identified to serve the unserved transit supportive area along Mountain Avenue. Route 8 is shown circulating via Nevada Street after the Nevada Street extension is complete (see project R17). The estimatedreost to operate Route 8 is approximately $580,000 per year. This assumes two buses operating on 30-minute headways for 10 hours per weekday. The need, for an additional route in the south end of Ashland is likely longer-term than the proposed Route 8. The route to serve south Ashland would be dependent upon the development pattern but it could potentially travel within the Croman Mill development (as opposed to only along Tolman Creek Road) and serve the portion of E Main Street that is served less frequently by Route 10. 5) Central Hub - Identify a location for a future transit hub to serve as a multi-modal transfer center for bus routes and Express Service operating in and to Ashland. Potential locations could include the long term park-and-ride locations shown on Figure 9-1. A typical early step for a city where transfers need to occur between routes is to have them occur on-street, perhaps at an enhanced stop (e.g., one with a larger, decorative shelter). Once the system grows to a size where multiple routes are meeting to transfer passengers, then an off-street center begins to make sense. As discussed as part of the Priority 3, two potential long- term transit hubs are: 1) Railroad District adjacent to Hersey Street, and 2) Croman Mill Site. The timing and extent to which these are developed will depend on the development occurring adjacent to the sites. The potential long-term Croman Mill Site could either be served by extending the express route or tied into the Railroad District hub via Route #10. Another instance where on off-street center makes sense is when it serves intermodal transfers multiple times a day (e.g., intercity bus to local bus, commuter rail to local bus). A commuter express route to Medford could still pass through downtown to capture transfers from other routes while still serving the long-term park-and-ride site. Diverting existing routes should be avoided or minimized, because it increases travel time for the majority of passengers and risks increasing the costs of operating the route. The development of a central hub is estimated to 115 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan cost approximately $1,300,000. The preferred plan includes $300,000 as local match for potential grant funds. 6) Increase Service Frequency - Use the thresholds documented in Table 9-2 to coordinate and program with RVTD increased transit service frequency in the future.The current 10-minute headwoys on Route 10 are sufficient for Ashland given the existing and forecasted future residential densities. Table 9-2 Transit Service Frequency and Residential Housing Densities Transit Service Frequency Residential Density Threshold Local bus service (1 bus per hour) 4-5 dwelling units/net acre' Intermediate bus service (1 bus every 30 minutes) 7-9 dwelling units/net acre' Frequent Bus Service (1 bus every 30 minutes) 12-15 dwelling units/net acre' High Capacity Transit Systems (e.g., Streetcar, Light Rail) 25-50 dwelling units/net acre"' 'Net acres are developed land not including streets, parks, etc. 'This density applies to station areas. Figure 9-3 illustrates the 2034 forecasted household densities (densities shown in Figure 9-3 are based on gross acres) and the corresponding transit service frequency. 7) Support Private Transit Circulator - Work with Chamber of Commerce and existing businesses and hotels to provide a privately run circulator service (trolley or other type) to operate on a fixed route or on demand to help shuttle tourists from hotels to destinations throughout Ashland and potentially to the Rogue Valley International Airport. Some hotels already provide some limited shuttle service and there could be benefit to consolidating these efforts to provide more robust service to all tourists. This service could be operated seasonally. 8) Support SOU Transit - Work with Southern Oregon University (SOU) to provide a privately run circulator that targets SOU students' needs including service to the Medford campus. Exhibit 9-1 illustrates the cities in which SOU students are living with approximately 45% living outside of Ashland some of whom it may be feasible to serve to via a circulator between SOU's campuses in Ashland and Medford. Exhibit 9-2 illustrates of the 55% of students living Ashland, the percentage of those students living within a 112 mile, mile and 2 miles of campus. This information illustrates a well routed local circulator may be able to efficiently serve most of the students within Ashland. 116 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. O _ U Z 9 Q1 LL l-' 75 . 42) C cr _ ' 'tea ~ I~ cl) LL i r- _a E m - U ~ (T ~ 6 C Z fn C_ fn x` d d o m m e m 76 ¢ a C = = S = m m - Pl Q M ,O m m Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Transit Plan Exhibit 9-1 Percent of Students in Nearby Cities White City, 1.0% Out of Area, Talent, 3.9% 4.2% Roseburg, 0.8%~ Phoenix, 1.7% Medford, 18.9% yy~IlIrr. Ashland, 54.9%% Klamath Falls, l 1.3% lacksonvil?e, 1.0% Grants Pass, 6.4% Eagle Pt, 1.5% Central Pt, 4.4% Exhibit 9-2 Percent of Ashland Students Distance from Campus 2.0 ? miles, 9.2% 1.0<_ miles < 2.0, 18.1% 1 miles < 0.5, 0.5 5 miles < 1.0, 55.8% 16.9% Support Fare Free Transit in Ashland - Work with RVTD to continue to explore the feasibility of fare free transit within Ashland. As documented in the Supplemental Transit Information Memorandum (dated May 16, 2011), a 2002 synthesis of fareless transit service policies concluded fareless policies may be appropriate for smaller transit systems in communities where some of the primary disadvantages of fareless service (e.g., overcrowding, security, and problem riders) may not be significant concerns. See the Supplemental Transit Information Memorandum (dated May 16, 2011) for more details, L 118 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Transit Plan 10) Establish Rubber Tire Trolley Circulator - The City should explore opportunities to establish a rubber tire trolley circulator within Ashland as a means to facilitate non-auto travel by visitors, students, and residents making shorter trips. Figure 9-4 illustrates a potential circulator route and stop locations. The conceptual level cost of establishing a circulator is estimated to be $2,800,000 to $4,500,000. This estimate assumes 15 stops along the circulator route (stops on Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street would be located on the outbound and inbound direction of travel) and five trolley vehicles to provide 15 to 20 minute headways. The stops are estimated to cost $20,000%ach to $50,000%ach (depending on the amenities provided) and the vehicles are estimated to cost $500,0001each to $750,000%ach (depending on quality and type The City may choose to implement lower priority transit service improvements before higher priority transit service improvements based on the opportunities that arise in discussions with RVTD (e.g., in the near-term, it may be more feasible to implement Priority 3 than Priority 1). Transit Service Program Funds The Transit Service Program funding approach is outlined below. The City will use the funds to support policies L14 through L19 and priorities 1 through 9 discussed above. This includes establishing transit hubs, supporting circulator service to serve visitors, and supporting service to SOU students. • Years 0 to 5 - $200,000/year • Years 5 to 10 - $250,000/year • Years 10 to 15 -$300,000/year • Years 15 to 25 - $350,000/year To the extent the City uses these funds to support service provided by RVTD, the City will work with RVTD to establish a common set of performance measures to help guide decisions on whether changes to transit service have been cost effective investments for the City. The performance measures will help the City decide if incremental increased investment in transit service changes is financially sound. The performance measures may also indicate benefits to RVTD as well as the City, which may.provide the basis to establishing a matching funds agreement, where RVTD invests a certain amount of money for every dollar invested by the City. At some point in the future, the City may choose to alter the funding allocated to the Transit Service Program based on the effectiveness of their investments with RVTD. The City may also choose to use their Transit Service Program funds to hire a private transportation company to provide some or all of their public transit service. 119 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. r G Y ~ - L 3 1 N LL - o 0 L I FIT I r I / ~ r U - Section 10 Intersection and Roadway Plan Q 2 al-i.^ti ~ Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Foodwoy Plan INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY PLAN The intersection and roadway plan presents policies, studies and projects related to access management, alternative mobility standards, intersection improvements, modifying existing roadway cross-sections or streetscapes, extending existing roadways, and constructing new roadways. Projects within the intersection and roadway plan influence travel by auto and freight and many also facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel. For example, the intersection and roadway plan includes the N Main Street Temporary Road Diet which reallocates existing right-of-way by removing one auto-lane in each direction and replacing them with bicycle lanes in each direction. The intersection and roadway plan also. includes streetscape projects identified to support the Pedestrian Places planning activities. The street map for the City of Ashland is shown in Figure 10-1; it illustrates the existing and planned street network for the City of Ashland. Policy #21-26 (1-21 through L26) Intersection and Roadway Plan Policies The subsections below contain the policies pertaining to intersections and roadways, which consist of access management, alternative mobility standards, transportation system management (TSM), traffic calming, and Eagle Mill Road. Policy #21 (L21) Access Management Access management is the systematic implementation and control of the locations, spacing, design, and operations of driveways, median openings, interchanges, roundabouts, and street connections to a roadway, according to the Access Management Manual (AMM) (1). It involves roadway design applications, such as median treatments and auxiliary lanes, and the appropriate spacing and design of signalized intersections. Access management standards vary depending on the functional classification and purpose of a given roadway. Roadways on the higher end of the functional classification system (i.e., Boulevards and Avenues) tend to have higher spacing standards to facilitate movement of through traffic, while facilities such as Neighborhood Collectors and Neighborhood Streets allow more closely spaced access points to facilitate access to land uses. ODOT has legal authority to regulate access points along state highways within the city's urban growth boundary. However, per an agreement with the City of Ashland, the segments of OR 66 and OR 99 that are under ODOT's jurisdiction are subject to minimum spacing standards different than those typically applied to District Highways. These segments are held to a public roadway spacing standard ofX mile and a minimum driveway spacing standard of 300 feet. The segments of OR 99 and OR 66 that are under Ashland's jurisdiction (Siskiyou Boulevard between Walker Avenue and E Main Street; and Ashland Street between Siskiyou Boulevard and 300 feet east of Faith Avenue) are subject to Ashland's access spacing standards for Boulevards. I K0 122 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ~ Q 0 IM w I - - - - - - - • v w,.........._.......3 I r~ V! .'.i m a z ~ e E E E ~ - a S ~ 8 a `m 8 ~ £ V- z z, 4, Q `a U ~ Ashland im sportotion System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan The City of Ashlahd and Jackson County also jointly manage several roadways (E Main Street, Tolman Creek Road, and Clay Street) within the City limits to manage the efficient movement of traffic and enhance safety. While the Jackson County access spacing standards documented in Table 5-2 of the Jackson Country Transportation System Plan apply to each of these roadways, the City independently manages access on all other Boulevards, Avenues, Neighborhood Collectors, and Neighborhood Streets within its jurisdiction which are not owned by ODOT orJackson County. Table 10-1 identifies the minimum public street intersection and private access spacing standards for the City of Ashland roadway network as they relate to new development and redevelopment. Existing accesses are allowed to remain as long as the land use does not change or safety issues do not arise. As a result, access management is a long-term process in which the desired access spacing to a street slowly evolves over time as redevelopment occurs. County facilities within the city's UGB are planned and constructed in accordance with these street design standards. As discussed above, ODOT and the City of Ashland have an agreement that OR 66 and OR 99 within the City limits are not subject to ODOT's typical minimum spacing standards for District Highways. OR 66 and OR 99 within the City of Ashland are subject to a minimum access spacing standard of a X mile for public streets and 300 feet for driveways. The access spacing standards described above are illustrated in Figure 10-2. Table 10-1 Access Spacing Standards on City Streets Access Spacing Standard - Distance Access Spacing Standard - Distance Functional Classification from Streets (feet)l between Driveways (feet)' Neighborhood Collectors 35 feet 75 feet Avenues 50 feet 75 feet Boulevards 300 feet 100 feet OR 66 and OR 99 in Ashland (ODOT Jurisdiction ' 1,320 feet 300 feet Segments Only) 'Measurement of the approach road spacing is from the centerline of the subject street or driveway on both sides of the roadway. 'Although ODOT has not applied these standards in the past, they are applicable to the segments of OR 66 and OR 99 that are under ODOT jurisdiction and consistent with the City's agreement with ODOT. All property has a right to access to a public roadway and ODOT will grant access that does not meet their spacing standards where no alternative access is feasible. Boulevard spacing standards apply to the segments of OR 66 and OR 99 under City jurisdiction. Several corridors warrant more attention to access management than programmatic improvement of access spacing over time as part of land use actions. Sound access management principals should be emphasized at these locations to improve access management more rapidly through capital improvement projects and/or as development and redevelopment occur. Access management refinement studies have been identified for the corridors warranting more attention. These corridors and corresponding studies are: Study #3 - (S3) N Main Street (OR 99) from Helman Street to Sheridan Street; Study #5 - (S5) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) from Ashland Street to Tolman Creek Road; Study #6 - (S6) Ashland Street (OR 66) from Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) to Tolman Creek Road;and 124 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadwoy Pion • Study #7 - (S7) E Main Street from Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) to Wightman Street. The cost estimates and associated priorities for the studies above are summarized below in the subsection Intersection and Roadway Plan Studies. The scope of the studies above include assessing the degree to which the corridors above deviate from the access spacing standards, the likelihood of redevelopment along those corridors, the potential safety and operational benefits from improving the access spacing, and phased engineering and access improvements to improve the spacing in'the near- and long-term. Access management strategies beyond programmatic consolidation through the development process could include treatments such as center raised medians that restrict access to right-in/right-out only, or right-in/right-out/left-in in some cases. Medians with openings for left-turn lanes off of a facility resulting in right-in/right-out/left-in access points provide significant improvement in safety while still providing a high level of property access. Consolidating driveways from multiple parcels to mid-block locations is critical to being able to provide effective right-in/right-out/left-in access in locations where medians are warranted due to safety concerns. According to Action 36.3 of the Oregon Highway Plan, non-traversable medians should be considered on state highways when any of the following criteria are met. Similar consideration should be given on Ashland Boulevards and Avenues where: • Forecasted average daily traffic is anticipated to be 28,000 vehicles per day during the 20-year planning period; • The annual crash rate is greater than the statewide annual average crash rate for similar roadways; • Pedestrians are unable to safely cross the highway, as demonstrated by a crash rate that is greater than the statewide annual average crash rate for similar roadways; and/or • Topography and horizontal or vertical roadway alignment result in inadequate left-turn intersection sight distance and it is impractical to relocate or reconstruct the connecting approach road or impractical to reconstruct the highway to provide adequate sight distance. 125 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. C lei a m N N ` • W = ~ O LL e ~ I I I I I i lr I I ~ t' ~ V ~ I ~l I N V ' i fL C a ~ z r L = m O y C 3 O 01 7 _C 2 V y N o y c ~ v a+ ui j n o N O 9 E N a Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Policy #12 (L22) Alternative Mobility Standards on State Highways Alternative mobility standards are not needed within the horizon year (2035) of the current TSP update. However, there are two locations within Ashland where alternative mobility standards will be useful to the City to provide additional flexibility as development occurs. It should be noted that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) must approve the alternative mobility standards for them to take effect. The City will pursue alternative mobility standards (resulting in a higher volume-to-capacity ratio operations standard) for: • N Main Street (OR 99) from Heiman Street to the northern Urban Growth Boundary - The City will pursue alternative mobility standards for intersections along this roadway segment as a means to protect their potential investment in a road diet. Alternative mobility standards for the Maple Street/N Main Street (OR 99) intersection of a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.0 and unsignalized intersections along this roadway segment would allow for higher volume-to- capacity ratios making it easier to sustain the road diet cross-section and smaller intersection footprints. The Laurel Street/N Main Street (OR 99) and Hersey Street - Wimer Street/N Main Street (OR 99) intersections are forecasted to meet the current mobility standards assuming a signal is installed at the Hersey Street - Winter Street/N Main Street (OR 99) intersection in the future. • Ashland Street (OR 66)/Tolman Creek Road Intersection - The City will pursue an alternative mobility standard of a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90. This intersection is currently forecasted to meet mobility standards in 2034. However, if development in the surrounding areas were to occur at a rate faster than anticipated, an alternative mobility standard of volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 would help mitigate the need to increase the size of the intersection. Keeping the intersection footprint at its current size supports the Pedestrian Places planning activities. Establishing alternative mobility standards for intersections along these roadway segments will provide the City more flexibility in the future with regards to how funds are allocated for intersection and roadway improvements (Goal 4) by allowing funds to be focused on higher priority multi-modal improvements rather than auto focused improvements at locations that are operating below capacity but over the ODOT standard. Policy # 23 (L23) Transportation System Management (TSM) As feasible, the City of Ashland will integrate the Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies below (see the subsections below) into transportation corridor studies and projects in cooperation with ODOT (ODOT manages many of traffic signals on the primary corridors in Ashland, which are OR 66 and OR 99). a 127 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan TSM strategies include a wide variety of measures aimed. at improving operations of existing transportation facilities. TSM measures can be focused on improving transportation "supply" through enhancing capacity and efficiency, typically with advanced technologies to improve traffic operations. Or they may be focused on reducing transportation demand, through promoting travel options and ongoing programs intended to reduce demand for drive alone trips, especially during peak travel periods. Signal Retiming/Optimization Signal retiming and optimization refers to updating timing plans to better match prevailing traffic conditions and coordinating signals. Timing optimization can be applied to existing systems or may include upgrading signal technology, including signal communication infrastructure or signal controllers or cabinets. Signal retiming can reduce travel times and be especially beneficial to improving travel time reliability. Signal retiming could also be implemented to improve or facilitate pedestrian movements through intersections by increasing minimum green times to accommodate pedestrian crossing movements during each cycle in high pedestrian or desired pedestrian traffic areas, eliminating the need to push pedestrian crossing buttons. Bicycle movements could be facilitated by installing bicycle detection along existing or proposed bicycle routes. Signal upgrades often come at a higher cost and usually require further coordination between jurisdictions. Advanced Signal Systems Advanced signal systems incorporate various strategies in signal operations to improve the efficiency of a transportation network. Strategies may include coordinated signal operations across jurisdictions as well as centralized control of traffic signals. Advanced signal systems can reduce delay, travel time and the number of stops for vehicles, while potentially increasing average vehicle speed. In addition, these systems may help reduce vehicle emissions and have a high impact on improving travel time reliability. OR 66 and OR 99 are the primary corridors in the City of Ashland where advanced signal system strategies may be applicable. Advanced signal systems may be applied to several innovative control strategies. The costs of these systems vary as a function of the types of controllers, programming needs and detection needs. Implementing any of these systems would require coordination with ODOT. Alternative signal systems include: • Adaptive or active signal control systems improve the efficiency of signal operations by actively changing the allotment of green time for vehicle movements and reducing the average delay for vehicles. Adaptive or active signal control systems require several vehicle detectors at intersections in order to detect traffic flows adequately, in addition to hardware and software upgrades. 128 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan • Traffic responsive control uses data collected from traffic detectors to change signal timing plans for intersections. The data collected from the detectors is used by the system to automatically select a timing plan best suited to current traffic conditions. This system is able to determine times when peak-hour timing plans begin or end; potentially reducing vehicle delays. • Transit signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching transit vehicles and alter signal timings to improve transit performance. This improves travel times for transit, reliability of transit travel time, and overall attractiveness of transit. • Truck signal priority systems use sensors to detect approaching heavy vehicles and alter signal timings to improve truck freight travel. While truck signal priority may improve travel times for trucks, its primary purpose is to improve the overall performance of intersection operations by clearing any trucks that would otherwise be stopped at the intersection and subsequently have to spend a longer time getting back up to speed. Implementing truck signal priority requires additional advanced detector loops, usually placed in pairs back from the approach to the intersection. Policy #24 (U4) Traffic Calming Traffic calming elements will be integrated as appropriate into transportation improvement projects particularly those taking place on designated Safe Routes to School routes, within a quarter-mile walking distance from a school, and within a quarter-mile walking distance of a transit stop. The following traffic calming elements are the City's preferred traffic calming tools to be considered. The measures below can be modified as needed on a case-by-case installation such that they will not prohibit or degrade the City's ability to conduct winter maintenance activities such as snow removal. Curb Extensions Curb extensions create additional space for pedestrians and allow pedestrians and vehicles to•better see each other at crosswalks. Curb extensions are typically installed at intersections along roadways with on-street parking and help reduce crossing distances and the amount of exposure pedestrians have to vehicle traffic. Curb extension also narrow the vehicle path, slow down traffic, and prohibit fast turns. Advantages to curb extensions include: • Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians; • Reduces the speed of turning vehicles; E 129 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan • Increases visibility between pedestrians and motorists; • Enables permanent on-street parking; and • Enables landscaping and green street treatments. Challenges regarding curb extensions include: • Physical barrier exposed to traffic and therefore requires distinctive visible attributes such as landscaping; • Reduced turning radii may impact truck circulation in some areas; • Increased cost and time to install relative to traditional curb returns; and • Retrofit installments may require changes to roadway drainage system. Raised Median Islands Raised median islands provide a protected area in the middle of a crosswalk for pedestrians to stop while crossing the street. The raised median island allows pedestrians to complete a two-stage crossing if needed. The ODOT Traffic Manual states that for state highways a raised median, in combination with a marked crosswalk is desired when average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are greater than 10,000. Advantages of raised medians include: • Improves visibility of crossing to approaching motorists; • Helps slow vehicle speeds by providing a sense of a narrower roadway to motorists; • Provides a protected place for pedestrians to wait for a gap in traffic; • Requires shorter gap in traffic for pedestrians to cross the street; and • Effective for creating a gateway or entry type treatment into an area of high pedestrian activity. Challenges to implementing raised medians include: • Raised median must be able to provide at least six-feet of space to accommodate wheel chairs and not streets have sufficient right-of-way; and • Places a physical barrier in the street and therefore requires distinctive visible attributes such as landscaping and signs. r 130 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Raised Crosswalk A raised crosswalk is raised higher than the surface of the street to give motorists and pedestrians a better view of the crossing area. A raised crosswalk is similar to a speed table marked and signed for pedestrian crossing. Advantages of a raised crosswalk include: • Provides better view of pedestrians for motorists; • Slows vehicle travel speeds; and • Applicable on arterial and collector streets (i.e., Avenues, Neighborhood Collectors and potentially Boulevards in Ashland). Challenges to implementing raised crosswalks include: • Can be difficult for large trucks, snow plows, and buses to navigate; and • Requires adequate signing on the approach to inform motorists of raised roadway. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, or RRFBs, are user-actuated amber lights that have an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. These supplemental warning lights are used at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks to improve safety for pedestrians using a crosswalk. Advantages of using rectangular rapid flashing beacons include: • Typically increases yielding behavior of motorists; • May be used at unsignalized intersections and mid-block crossing locations; • May be installed on two-lane or multilane roadways; Low cost alternatives to traffic signals and hybrid signals. Challenges to implementing rectangular rapid flashing beacons include: • Flashing beacons do not force motorists to yield; • Pedestrians may not activate flashing lights. 131 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Pedestrian Hybrid Signal The pedestrian hybrid signal is a pedestrian-actuated hybrid signal that stops traffic on the mainline to provide a protected crossing for pedestrians at an unsignalized location. Warrants for the installation of pedestrian-actuated hybrid signal are based on the number of pedestrian crossings per hour (PPH), vehicles per hour on the roadway, and the length of the crosswalk. Thresholds are available for two types of roadways: locations where prevailing speeds are above 35 mph and locations where prevailing speeds are below 35 mph. Advantages of implementing pedestrian hybrid signals include: • Produce a high rate of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and • Drivers experience less delay at hybrid signals compared to other signalized intersections. Challenges to implementing pedestrian hybrid signals include: • Expensive compared to other crossing treatments; and • Requires pedestrian activation. Mini-Roundabouts Mini-roundabouts are round islands positioned in the center of intersections. Drivers must turn around them to continue along a street. This turning maneuver encourages slow speeds without requiring drivers to come to a complete stop at the intersection. The intersection approaches are YIELD - controlled. Advantages to implementing mini-roundabouts include: • Effective at slowing vehicle speeds through intersections; • Eliminate severe conflict points that can lead to sever crashes (e.g., turning crashes, opposite direction crashes, and angle crashes); • If located at the highest point in the street's cross section, constructing mini-roundabouts can be relatively inexpensive because the high cost of adjusting stormwater drains can be avoided; and • Relatively simple design and are also simple to construct; thus a basic set of standard drawings and construction specifications could be developed to keep design and construction costs to a minimum. rrt777Challenges to implementing mini-roundabouts include: 132 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roodway Pion • Intersection needs to be designed to accommodate large vehicles and emergency vehicles; • Design also needs to consider winter maintenance activities such as snow removal and movement of snow plows; • Crosswalks at the intersection may need to be moved away from the intersection to make sure pedestrian crossing areas and vehicle maneuvering areas do not overlap; and • On-street parking must be prohibited in the vicinity of the mini-roundabout to create vehicle maneuvering space. Planting Strips Planting strips narrow the width of streets by moving curbs away from sidewalks to create space for native street trees and ground cover and/or decorative rock. Advantages for planting strips include: • Narrows the roadway and provides a place for adding planting strips • Creates a buffer between roadways and sidewalks while still retaining enough roadway width for traffic and all existing on-street parking; • Moves traffic farther from adjacent businesses, schools, homes and front yards; • Reduces motor vehicle speeds, and provides shade to reduce heat absorption from streets; and • Stormwater can be readily integrated into the design and construction of planting strips through green street treatments. Challenges associated with implementing planting strips include: • Construction costs particularly for retrofits can be relatively high, because it may require modifications to the existing drainage system. • Maintenance responsibility is typically turned over to the adjacent property owner(s). In residential areas, the choice of landscaping and the quality of its maintenance varies in quality from home owner to home owner. • Opportunities to implement this treatment are constrained by the location, design of existing storm drains, and location of low elevations where stormwater can collect. 133 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan - October 2011 Intersection and Roadway Plan Policy #26 (L26) Eagle Mill Road The City of Ashland supports the following route as an alternative route around the downtown area to areas south and east of downtown from the 1-5/Valley View Road interchange: Eagle Mill Road from Valley View Road to Oak Street, Oak Street from Valley View Road to Nevada Street, East Nevada Street from Oak Street to North Mountain Avenue, and North Mountain Avenue from East Nevada Street to East Main Street. The City of Ashland encourages Jackson County to make improvements to Eagle Mill Road on a similar timeframe to the City's Nevada Street Extension project. Intersection and Roadway Plan Studies Table 10-2 summarizes the preferred plan intersection and roadway related studies. Additional explanation regarding why the Study #7 (S7) was identified follows Table 10-2. Table 10-2 Refinement Plan Studies Description Priority (Study H) Study Name (Timeline) Cost (53) N Main Street (OR 99) Conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Medium from Heiman Street to Ion term recommendations for im rovement. $75,000 Sheridan Street g p (5-15 years) n iyou Boulevard from Ashland d Street to Conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Medium A Tolman long-term recommendations for improvement, $75,000 Creek Road g (5-15 years) (S6) Ashland Street (OR 66) from Siskiyou Boulevard to Conduct access management spacing study and provide near- and Medium $75,000 Tolman Creek Road long-term recommendations for improvement. (5-15 years) (S7) E Main Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to long-term study and provide near-and Low $75,000 Wightman Street longg--term term recommendations for improvement. (15-25 Years) Conduct a transportation safety assessment in five years along (S9) Ashland Street (OR 66) Ashland Street (OR 66) between Clay Street and Washington Street to Medium $20,000 Safety Study identify crash trends and/or patterns (if they exist) as well as (5-15 years) mitigations to reduce crashes. Evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand, and safety along Siskiyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. The study should evaluate the adequacy of the planned pedestrian improvements (S30) Siskiyou Boulevard along Siskiyou Boulevard (the rectangular rapid-flash beacons at Pedestrian Crossing crosswalks and diagonal crossing at the Indiana-Wightman High $35,000 Evaluation and feasibility intersection) once the new dormitory and dining hall are operational (0-5 years) Study for existing and future forecast pedestrian demand. The need, ideal location, feasibility and cost of a grade-separated crossing should be evaluated. This project is a joint project with the city and SOU; not subject to development. High (0-5 years) $35,000 Medium (5-15 years) $245,000 Low (15-25 years) $75,000 Development Driven 0 Total $355,000 134 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2011 Intersection and Roadway Plan Intersection Projects, New Roadways, and Roadway Extensions Table 10-3 summarizes the preferred plan intersection projects, new roadways, and roadway extension projects. Figure 10-3 illustrates the location of these projects. Appendix A contains the prospectus sheets for all preferred plan projects, the prospectus sheets provide more detail regarding the project location, description, and images illustrating the vision for the completed project. 135 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. IM Z rc y M I y O I I I ; U) a a~ o - r4 ec -0 a = . I ca 1' 4'• u . 4T U 2 L' L U 1 6 K 1) - _ e m u d ~ S ~ a t 1. - 4 4 Z S U 7 m a n $ C N l Q U b_ R, O d C 6 - m Z N K g a n a a of vil I:,a*,m;n*+,,,,•„u,_. ;-.,r l,~av sc iuc,.~le.,~t r. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Table 10-3 Preferred Plan Intersection and Roadway Projects Reasonsforthe Priority (Project Name Description Project (Timeline) Cost' (R2) N Main Street (OR Install a traffic signal at the intersection 99)/Wimer Street-Hersey once MUTED [rafftvolume or MUTED Improve Safety, Law $300,000 Street Intersection Improve Operations (15-25 Years) Improvements crash warrants are met (RS) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB)/E Improve visibility ofsignal heads. Identify High Main Street Intersection and install treatments to slow vehicles on Improve Safety $50,000 Improvements northbound approach (0-5 Years) (136) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Conduct a speed study. Identify and install 99)/Tolman Creek Road speed reduction treatments on improve Safety High $61,000 Intersection Improvements northbound approach (0-5 Years) (118) Ashland Street (OR Realign E Main Street approach to 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main eliminate offset and install speed Improve Safety High $706,000 Street Intersection reduction treatments (0-5 Years) Improvements (R9) Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main Improve Safety, Low Area Urban $3,150,000 Street l ntersection Install aroundabout' Gateway Area (15-255 Years) Improvements (R31) Lithia Way (OR 99 NB)/Oak Street Intersection Install a traffic signal Improve Operations (15-25 Low Years) $200'000 Improvements (R12) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Realign Sherman Street approach to Improve Street Development 99)/Sherman Street $391,000 Intersection Improvements eliminate offset Continuity Driven (R13) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Realign -Park Street Reduce Conflicts, 99)/Park Street Intersection approach to eliminate Improve Street Development $296,000 Improvements offset Continuity Driven (R14) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Realign Terra Avenue approach to Reduce Conflicts, Development 99)/Terra Avenue-Faith Avenue Improve Street $216,000 Intersection Improvements eliminate offset Continuity Driven (1137) East Nevada Street Extend Nevada Street from Bear Creek to Balance Mobility High Extension Kestrel Parkway and Access (0-5 Years) $2.261,000 Extend Normal Avenue to E Main Street (R39) Normal Avenue Extension consistent with the IAMP Exit 14 Access Balance Mobility Medium $2,705,000 Management on Ashland Street (OR 66); and Access (5-15 Years) Coordinate with Project X3. Extend Creek Drive from Meadow Drive to Development Normal Avenue consistent with the IAMP Balance Mobility & Access Developer (R20) Creek Drive Extension Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland and Access Management Responsibility Street (OR 66) Driven Construct a New Roadway from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road consistent with the IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street (OR 66) if Facilitate Economic Development (R22) New Roadway (B) and when Tolman Creek Manufactured Growth Balance & Access Developer Park is redeveloped. The location of the Mobility and Access Management Responsibility connection shall be determined at the Driven time of redevelopment of the manufactured home park. Facilitate Economic Development (R23) New Roadway (C) Construct a New Roadway from McCall Growth Balance & Access Developer Drive to Engle Street Mrowt Ba Access Management Responsibility Driven Construct a New Roadway to connect the Development Facilitate Economic (R24) Clear Creek Drive two existing segments of Clear Creek & Access Extension Drive providing a continuous east-west Growth Balance Management $2.505,000 roadway between Oak Street and N Mobility and Access Driven 137 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October2011 Intersection and Roadway Plan Reasons for the Priority (Project 4) Name Description Mountain Avenue Extend Washington Street to Tolman (R25) Washington Street Creek Road consistent with the TAMP Exit Facilitate Economic High Extension to Tolman Creek 14 Access Management on Ashland Street Growth Balance $1,055,000 Road (OR 66). This is a City funded project; not Mobility and Access (0-5 Years) developer driven. Construct a new roadway from E Main Development Street to Ashland Street (OR 66) Facilitate Economic & Access (R26) New Roadway (D) consistent with the IAMP Exit 14 Access Growth Balance Management $2.422,000 Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). Mobility and Access Driven (R27) Grizzly Drive Extension Extend Grizzly Drive from Jacquelyn Street Balance Mobility Development Developer to Clay Street and Access Driven Responsibility (R28) Mountain View Drive Extend Mountain View Drive from Balance Mobility Development Developer Extension Parkside Drive to Heiman Street and Access Driven Responsibility Facilitate Economic (R29) Washington Street Extend Washington Street to Benson Way Growth Balance Development $1,301,000 Mobility and Access Driven (R30) Kirk Lane Extension Extend Kirk Lane to N Mountain Avenue Balance Mobility Development Developer and Access Driven Responsibility Extend Winner Street to Ashland Mine R31) Winner Street Extension Road. The exact location of the street will Balance Mobility Development $3,125,000 ( be refined at the time of annexation. and Access Driven (R32) Kestrel Parkway Extend Kestrel Parkway to N Mountain Balance Mobility Development Developer Extension Avenue at Nepenthe Road and Access Driven Responsibility Extend Existing Adjacent Streets to Facilitate Economic Development Railroad Property Provide Connectivity within, to and from Growth Balance Development Developer Development the property Mobility and Access Driven Responsibility Implement a temporary road diet on N N Main Street Temporary Main Street. Temporary road diet includes Improve Safety, High Road Road Diet converting N Main Street to a two-lane Balance Mobility (0-5 Years) $160,000 roadway with atwo-way center turn lane and Access and bicycle lanes in both directions Convert temporary road diet to permanent installation, which includes, at Improve Safety, (R36) N Main Street Implement a minimum, signal modifications to the N Balance Mobility Medium $200000 Permanent Road Diet (5-15 Years) Main Street/Maple Street and the N Main and Access Street/Laurel Street intersections Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with (1138) Ashland Street street trees, stormwater planters and bus Streetscape Enhancements shelters. Ashland Street/Walker Avenue Improve Safety, Medium (Siskiyou Boulevard to Walker intersection enhancements to include ' and Balance Access Mobility (5-15 years) $1,100,000 Avenue) concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. (R39) Ashland Street Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with Improve Safety, Streetscape Enhancements Development (Walker Avenue to Normal street trees, stormwater planters and bus Balance Mobility Driven $1,300,000 Avenue) shelters. and Access Street reconstruction with flush curbs and (R40) Walker Avenue Festival' scored concrete roadway surface. Street (Siskiyou Boulevard to Sidewalk treatments to include decorative Support Pedestrian High $780,000 Ashland Street) bollards to delineated pedestrian space, Places Planning (0-5 Years) street trees, LID stormwater facilities and ornamental lights. Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with (R41) Ashland Street/Tolman street trees, stormwater planters and bus Creek Road Streetscape shelters. Ashland Street/Tolman Creek Support Pedestrian Development $1,500,000 Enhancements Road intersection enhancements to Places Planning Driven include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. C 138 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1 Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Reasons for the Priority (Project I) Name Description Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with (R42) E Main Street/N street trees, stormwater planters and bus shelters. E Main Street/N Mountain Support Pedestrian Development Mountain Avenue Streetscape Avenue intersection enhancement with Places Planning Driven $1,500,000 Enhancements concrete crosswalks and paving, and ornamental lights. Construct a new roadway from Mistletoe Facilitate Economic (R43) New Roadway (E) Road to Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) Growth Balance Development $4,322,000 consistent with the Croman Mill District Mobility and Access Driven Plan Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with Road Tolman Creek-Mistletoe Facilitate Economic street trees, stormwater planters and bus Development Road etscape shelters consistent with the Croman Mill Growth Balance Driven $3,478,000 Enhancce ements District standards. Mobility and Access Construct a new roadway from Facilitate Economic Washington Street to New Roadway (E) Development (1145) New Roadway (F) consistent with the Croman Mill District Growth Balance Driven $1,199,000 Mobility and Access Plan; Coordinate with Project X2. (R46) Ivy Lane Extension Extend Ivy Lane west to Waterline Road Balance Mobility Development Developer and Access Driven Responsibility (1147) Mary Jane Avenue Extend Mary Jane Avenue south to the Balance Mobility Development Developer Extension UGB then east to Clay Street and Access Driven Responsibility (R48) Forest Street Extension Construct a new roadway that connects Balance Mobility Development Developer the two existing segments of Forest Street and Access Driven Responsibility Construct new streets to provide Facilitate Economic S Streets Croman Mill District connectivity within, to and from the Growth Balance Development Developer Stree Croman Mill District Mobility and Access Driven Responsibility High Priority (0-5 Years) $5,073,000 Medium Priority (5-15 Years) $4,005,000 Low Priority (15-25 Years) $3,650,000 Development Driven $23,555,000 Total $38,047,000 Notes: 'Initial roundabout operations analysis and high-level feasibility assessment were performed to confirm a roundabout appears physically and operationally feasible. Amore detailed preliminary roundabout design and study should be conducted before activities such as right-of-way acquisition and/or developing detailed design plans. It should also be noted that in November 2008, the State Traffic Engineer issued a directive to ODOT staff to consider a roundabout as an alternative whenever a traffic signal was being considered on the state highway system. However, in March 2011, ODOT issued updated guidance to staff that no roundabouts should be approved or designed by staff on the state highway system due to concerns raised by the trucking industry. Subsequently, the requirement previously issued to evaluate roundabouts as an alternative to traffic signals was temporarily lifted. Currently, ODOT is awaiting the results of a study being led by the Kansas Department of Transportation evaluating the effects of roundabouts on oversized loads. Upon completion of that study, the agency has indicated that the current prohibition of roundabouts on the state system will be reconsidered. ' 'Cost estimates are for engineering and construction costs. They do not include right-of-way. They are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. The projects in Table 10-3 and Figure 10-3 were identified based on input received from the PMT, TAC, PC, and The intersection projects were also developed based on the 2034 future conditions analysis results, safety analysis results, and planning-level feasibility assessments (e.g., is a roundabout physically possible, could the street actually be realigned given adjacent historic structures). The new roadway and roadway extension projects were identified from previous and/or related plans such as the 1998 TSP, the unadopted 2007 TSP update, and the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Exit 14. The projects identified to support pedestrian places were documented as part of the Pedestrian Places planning activities. The Pedestrian Places planning is discussed further in the following section. 139 Kittelson & Associates. Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Railroad Crossing Projects Table 10-4 summarizes the preferred plan railroad crossing projects. They include one existing crossing upgrade and two new railroad crossing locations. Figure 10-3 illustrates the location of these railroad crossings. Appendix A contains the prospectus sheets for all preferred plan projects; the prospectus sheets provide more detail regarding the project location, description, and images illustrating the vision for the completed project. Currently under Federal and MOT rail policy, the City would need to close an existing at-grade crossing or go through a potentially timely and costly rail order process to obtain an additional new public crossing within Ashland. The City will pursue all possible alternatives to closing existing at-grade crossings including exceptions to the policies based on the low projected train volumes (currently none) and will consider grade separation of future crossings. Table 10-4 Railroad Crossing Projects Priority (Project P) Name Description Reasons for the Project Turneline) Cost' Pursuea New At-Grade Ped/Bike Improve North-South (X 1) 4thStreetg Grade Railroad Crossing at 4th Street. Connectivity, Balance Development Railroad $275,000 Crossing Coordinate with Project TR4.' Mobility and Access Driven Pursue a New At-Grade Railroad (X2) Washington Street At- Crossing at Washington Street as part Facilitate Economic Growth, Development $1,000,000 Grade Railroad Crossing of the Croman Mill Site Development. Balance Mobility and Access Driven Coordinate with project R45.' (X3) Normal Avenue At- Upgrade the existing at-grade Railroad crossing at Normal Avenue to public Improve North-South Development Grade Railroad Crossing crossing standards. Coordinate with Connectivity, Balance Driven $750,000 Upgrade Project R19.' Mobility and Access High Priority (0-5 Years) - Medium Priority (5-15 Years) - Low Priority (15- 25 Years) - Development Driven or Driven by Need based on Rail Order Outcomes $2,025,000 Total $2,025,000 Notes: 'Currently under Federal and 0DOT rail policy, the City would need to close an existing at-grade crossing or go through a potentially timely and costly rail order process to obtain an additional new public crossing within Ashland. The City will pursue all possible alternatives to closing existing at-grade crossings including exceptions to the policies based on the low projected train volumes (currently none) and will consider grade separation of future crossings. 'Planning level cost estimates are for construction and engineering of at-grade crossings and do not include right-of-way costs. 140 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 11 Pedestrian Places ~f _dc ti t ti 1 rq• - Y ~r 1 1 ;7~ :fir' t R x , Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places PEDESTRIAN PLACES Pedestrian Places are small walkable nodes that provide a concentration of gathering places, housing, businesses, and pedestrian amenities grouped in away to encourage more walking, bicycling, and transit use. The land uses and buildings in and around Pedestrian Places are typically a mix of housing and services to provide a variety of places within easy walking distance. Amenities may include plazas, bus shelters, shade and seating, drinking fountains, public art, landscaping, information displays, and bicycle parking. Pedestrian Places can help create vibrant, livable places where people congregate and can function as neighborhood centers. Incorporating projects into the preferred plan to support the Pedestrian Places planning is a unique opportunity to satisfy complementary objectives: • Reduce travel trips by car; • Create momentum for enhanced transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities; • Establish. an implementation strategy for coordinating public and private actions that includes updates to zoning and ordinances; • Identify changes in transportation funding that directly affect private development; and • Encourage more affordable housing choices. The following subsections provide an overview of the concept plans for the pedestrian places, discuss key elements for successful pedestrian places and present implementation considerations. Concept Plans The selected locations for the conceptual planning studies are at the intersections of N Mountain Avenue/E Main Street, Ashland Street/Tolman Creek Road, and Ashland Street/Walker Avenue. Great Streets, gathering places, new shops/offices, transit improvements, and new and public art opportunities were set out as the building blocks for these places. The study areas included an approximate 5-minute walk area surrounding the intersections. A vision statement was developed and neighborhood development and connectivity opportunities were identified. A conceptual development plan for an individual parcel was developed for each location. The intent of the plans was threefold. First, they illustrate one possible expression of the building blocks of pedestrian-oriented design that were established at the first community workshop. A number of other design concepts could also be built from those blocks. Second, they explored whether or not transit- supportive densities could be achieved and with assumptions about parking, building height, and size of residential uses. Lastly, the concepts helped shed light on any changes to current zoning and ordinances that might support or hinder any of the opportunity sites identified within the selected areas. The plans should not be taken as specific or imminent development proposals or as architectural design recommendations subject to current planning approval. The concept plans for each of the three ~~~^^^pedestrian places include opportunity sites for redevelopment. I L : 142 Kittelsan & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places A brief concept overview is provided below for each Pedestrian Place. Mountain/Main Create a neighborhood center that encourages the growth of an arts community to complement the civic uses, school uses and the historic neighborhood that surround the center. Land use strategies that will support that vision might include adaptive reuse of the existing Art Academy and of an historic home. Reuse could provide small gallery and workshop spaces, and provide community educational opportunities for the arts. Another supportive strategy would be affordable in-fill housing as apartments and live/work spaces. Both of these housing choices appeal to artists, younger educators and other new residents that will contribute this kind of neighborhood community. Exhibits 11-1 through 10-4 illustrate some of the concepts developed for Mountain/Main Pedestrian Place. Exhibit 11-1 Mountain/Main Pedestrian Place Concepts II A'i 143 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Exhibit 11-2 Mountain/Main Pedestrian Circulation 00 O - t_ E w, a 0 A r O i 1 O 000000{., yy ~ O M1 coo ( w oocooo0yg °°°oee0oo00d -..l3 all 000 '',+,L_i.f• ~ i r i Y I I- o r- r '40000,co0 00 ' v t _ r o g4°o a pr,: y' 1 000000 0000000 UOO DOOODOt~ * h k, ~ OO VOV OOp ~I ~ co y ` 11 k Exhibit 11-3 N Mountain Avenue Cross Section 0 Ua y 5 ,h Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain Pit I I i Sidewalk Parkrow Travel Lanes Parkrow Sidewalk 9' 7• p g (Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone S' 15' Future Right-of-Way Approximately 70' N. Mountain Avenue Future Imp n er _ Section A L c)okirwn Neil H i 144 k'rttelson Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Exhibit 11-4 E Main Street Cross Section SSro I g ~Y ~l I I I Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain v 1 l~ I f{i~i a ~ I II i Sidewalk Parkrow, ';Bike Facility Travel Lanes Bike Facility Parkrow Sidewalk 8' 7' 6' 6' 7' B' Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone Pedestrian Place Buffer Zone 21' 1 21' Future Right-of-Way Approximately 70' F Kiin Street Future Improvernct l . The neighborhood center also needs a more complete and continuous grid of walking routes connecting people to the Pedestrian Place. Those routes are not necessarily new local streets. They could be multiuse pathways for pedestrians and bikes or alleys that are part of new in-fill housing plans. Walker/Ashland Create a complete and compact university district 'hub' that complements the SOU Master Plan for additional student housing. From a development perspective, this is a long-term vision requiring time and a favorable set of market and financing conditions, along with some stimulus from implementation of the SOU Master Plan. Elements of the hub could be greatly enhanced streetscape for both Walker Avenue and Ashland Street, and redevelopment that ultimately results a well-designed cluster of retail and entertainment uses with affordable housing choices. Exhibits 11-5 through 11-8 illustrate some of the concepts developed for Ashland/Walker Pedestrian Place. 145 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Exhibit 11-5 Walker/Ashland Pedestrian Place Concepts ~~s* r r.7, a , 40- Exhibit 11-6 Walker/Ashland Pedestrian Circulation 7 Y - rv lit r r, Jpp I sorb O oooy6 ?'`r. E o ~ ro I S S'4ooop~ o od ~t n o o . S o A _ k~lr./ 146 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Exhibit 11-7 Walker/Ashland Pedestrian Circulation (cont.) r WWI" Tr -VI ^ - Exhibit 11-8 Ashland Street Cross Section Dr; 2 I,~s I ( Ems" Rnadwy usd Curb Co di- m Itm-, , y JS{t I P ~ ~ d Sd---& Famish Zane)&w Facdiry T-4 Lams Mw Fauhry. Fumssh Zone Sdk- k R' T b' - - 6' T - e P.d.--- Place &Mer Znna P.,k t n Plata BWTor Zane I!' 71' f,nire Ryhs.of.War App-matelF 100' "Future Imprr„.t 147 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Tolmon/Ashland Creating a Pedestrian Place here will require strategies for overcoming the context of a major arterial street leading directly to the freeway, fast moving traffic and large surface parking lots - each of which is unfriendly to pedestrians. That unfriendliness is reflected in relatively low levels of pedestrian activity today. Improvements to the street edges, in the form of sidewalk corridors with more a complete and attractive palette of streetscape elements will be an important starting point. Exhibits 11-9 through 11- 11 illustrate some of the concepts developed for Ashland/Tolman Pedestrian Place. Exhibit 11-9 Tolman/Ashland Pedestrian Place Concepts TJ, '117 , At 148 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Exhibit 10-10 Tolman/Ashland Pedestrian Circulation QO OOOOOOOpU rx~ p ys o B t 4 s '4~ ,'~'QoOalrJD O'OIRSppOO'pp °~~1P-~'' ~C l,c- ~c t t ~ o - ~ c ~ 11~f i . X, .9 Suatrca o-0 go ` ►v o I w.,~r - - r..' • ire a 't=~,. V, dOYJ X71 tt L..74. ry b 0 !rhr r 3 00 F' 777777` „yDyp C Q Exhibit 11-11 Tolman Road Cross Section IA I~ ml; X13 or k ~ ~S in I 1 Existing Roadway and Curb Conditions to Remain I. I I I 'Sidewalk Parkrow (Bike Facility Travel Lanes Bike Facility ) Parkrow Sidewalk a' 7' 6' 6' 7• B• Pedestrian Race Buffer Zone Pedestrian Platt Buffer Zone 21 21, Future Right-al-Way L Approximately 74' Tolman Creek Road Future Improvement Section A - Looking; r Jr i 149 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places As redevelopment occurs over time, a good strategy would be to encourage a better balance between the viable commercial uses there today and housing located very near to the intersection. Development of mixed use projects, combining residential choices such as apartments or condominiums, with smaller scale retail or office uses will significantly alter the pedestrian environment. People living there will increase the observed walking activity and provide the presence of other people around you during both daytime and nighttime hours. Key Characteristics for Success The following discuss some of the key pedestrian places characteristics that will help contribute to their success as centers of activity facilitating economic growth in a sustainable and multimodal manner. Transit-Supportive Characteristics For the individual parcels studied, achieving densities supportive of frequent bus service was an important criterion. The results were encouraging with regard to potentially increasing ridership and creating a more comfortable environment for transit riders to wait for and board the bus. Increased Ridership The threshold density for frequent bus service would be met and exceeded with two-story residential and mixed-use buildings. The achievable densities would range from approximately 22 dwelling units/acre to 30 dwelling units/acre. Those densities are consistent with current zoning for the parcels studied. Enhanced Transit Environment High-quality bus stop environments would be created through the generous passenger waiting areas, shelters and other passenger amenities, zero set-back for buildings, front doors and display windows, and the potential for small shops that may occasionally meet other needs of transit riders. Increased walking connectivity will also encourage transit use. Transit-Supportive Corridors Redevelopment of a single parcel will not achieve the overall ridership potential to change the level of transit service. Housing density supportive of transit would need to be present throughout a 5- to 10- minute walking area of the stop. With closely spaced bus stops, these areas overlap, suggesting that increasing average density throughout the corridor may be the metric to address. However, a full analysis of transit ridership potential needs to also consider demographic and income factors. ' 150 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Pedestrian Places Designing the Public Realm The concept of a Pedestrian Places integrates land use and transportation planning through emphasizing the importance of the 'public realm'. The public realm is more than what lies within the strict confines of the street right-of-way. It is all the exterior places, linkages, and built elements that can be physically and visually accessed from the street and from the building entries fronting the street. These places, linkages, and elements are all subject to design. They will affect how comfortable, safe, and appealing the street is for its intended users. Implementation From a transportation perspective, implementation of the Pedestrian Places includes the projects in the public right-of-way listed below. These implement the cross sections and circulation plans identified above. • (1140) Walker Avenue Festival Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street • (1141) Ashland Street/Tolman Creek Road Streetscape Enhancements • (1142) E Main Street/N Mountain Avenue Streetscape Enhancements Projects R40, R41, and R42 are incorporated into the Intersection and Roadway Plan preferred project list shown previously in Table 10-3. 151 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 12 Other Modes Plan (Air, Rail, Water, Pipeline) Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Other Modes Plan (Air, Rail, Water, Pipeline) OTHER MODES PLAN (AIR, RAIL, WATER, PIPELINE) This section addresses the air, rail, pipeline, and surface water for the City of Ashland. Each subsection below describes each respective network and how it operates within the City. Future projects were not identified for these service areas, because service is provided by private entities. A policy related to rail and railroad crossing projects are identified below. AIR The Ashland Municipal Airport is located 3 miles northeast of downtown at the eastern boundary of the city limits. (S03) Ashland Municipal Airport, as designated by.the Federal Aviation Administration, has a single runway designated 12/30 which is 3,600 feet long x 75 feet wide. The surface area of the airport is approximately 95 acres. The airport is a Category 3 General Aviation Airport defined by the Oregon Department of Aviation. The land within the Ashland city boundary and within the Airport Overlay Zone is zoned as E-1, RR-1, R-1-10 and C-1. This TSP includes pedestrian and bicycle projects to enhance access to the airport with the intent of providing more travel options for employees at the airport and surrounding supporting land uses. The Ashland Municipal Airport does not offer commercial flights. The nearest commercial flights are out of the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. Medford offers both passenger and freight service to cities throughout the Northwest with connections to larger airports and markets. The Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport is 989 acres in size and is located 3 miles north of the Medford central business district near 1-5. RAIL The heavy rail plan consists of a Freight by Rail Policy and set of railroad crossing projects. The railroad crossing projects are included in Section 5 Intersection and Roadway Plan. Policy #20 (1-20) Freight by Rail Policy The City of Ashland supports increasing rail freight service to local businesses. The Freight by Rail Policy seeks to improve freight movement into and through the City (see Freight White Paper and Technical Memorandum #7 Alternatives Analysis for more details). Increasing local freight service to Ashland supports the City's goals for facilitating economic prosperity (Goal 3) and creating system-wide balance (Goal 4). 153 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Other Modes Plan (Air, Fail, Water, Pipeline) WATER The Rogue River is the largest body of water in the area but is not large enough to use as a form of transportation, only recreation. The nearest port is located in Coos Bay and is an international/national shipping facility. PIPELINE Within the Rogue Valley there is a natural gas pipeline owned and operated by Avista Corporation. Originally the pipeline extended from Portland to Medford but a subsequent project connected this pipeline to a line that crosses central Oregon. The distribution lines for this pipeline are located along I- 5 between Grant's Pass and Ashland and the main pipeline is located within the 1-5 corridor. Recently a new pipeline was installed from Ashland to Klamath Falls to increase the natural gas capacity of the local lines and meet increasing demand. There are no intermodal terminals located in or near Ashland. Natural gas can only be transported by pipeline. L154 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 13 S,ustainability Plan Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainability Plan SUSTAINABILITY PLAN This section presents the Sustainability Plan for the City of Ashland. The key elements of the Sustainability plan discussed below are transportation demand management (TDM), reduction of Ashland's carbon footprint, climate change, environmental impact to transportation benefit matrix, private sector Sustainability solutions, and other relevant policies, goals, and objectives. These elements contribute to the City's goal of creating a green template for other communities to follow. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM measures include methods aimed at shifting travel demand from single occupant vehicles to non- auto modes or carpooling, travel at less congested times of the day, or to locations with more available vehicle capacity. Some common examples of TDM strategies include programs such as carpool matching assistance or flexible work shifts; parking management strategies; direct financial incentives such as transit subsidies; or facility or service improvements, such as bicycle lockers or increased bus service. Some of the most effective TDM strategies are best implemented by employers and are aimed at encouraging non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) commuting. Strategies include preferential carpool parking, subsidized transit passes, and flexible work schedules. Cities and other public agencies can play a critical role in support of TDM through provision of facilities and services, as well as development policies that encourage TDM. While many TDM strategies are most effectively implemented by employers, there are strategies cities can implement or support with other agencies. These include access management and connectivity strategies that are more often associated with roadway elements of planning. Other strategies include providing non-auto facilities (sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit amenities) and managing existing resources (parking). Another critical role that cities play is in the policies related to development activities. Through support, incentive, and mandate, cities can monitor new development such that it supports a balanced transportation system. The City of Ashland's Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process (see Policy rig (1-2)) is one example of enabling and supporting a balanced system. Several broad TDM strategies are summarized in Table 13-1. The table also identifies typical implementation roles. Table 13-1 TDM Strategies and Typical Implementing Roles Transportation Management Developer Transit TDM Strategy City/County Associationl s Provider Employers State TDM-1 Public parking management P 5 S S Flemble parking ttr~~~rrr~TTDDDM-2 requirements P S S E 156 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustamobility Pion TDM-3 Access management P P TOM-4 Connectivity standards P 5 P TOWS Pedestrian facilities P 5 5 5 TDM-6 Bicycle facilities P S 5 TDM-7 Transit stop amenities S 5 P TDM-8 Parking management P S S Limited parking TDM-9 requirements P S TOM-10 Carpool match services S P S TDM-11 Parking cash out S 5 P TDM-12 Subsidized transit passes 5 or P 5 P TDM-13 Carsharing program support P 5 5 5 5 'A Transportation Management Association does not currently exist in the City of Ashland P: Primary role S: Secondary/Support role - Primary implementation depends on roadway jurisdiction As noted above, the City of Ashland's Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans, Transit Plan, and Intersection and Roadway Plan already address a number of the TDM strategies above. These include: • Pedestrian Facilities-See the Pedestrian Transportation Plan • Bicycle Facilities - See the Bicycle Transportation Plan • Subsidized Transit Passes and Transit Stop Amenities - See the Transit Plan • Access Management - See the Intersection and Roadway Plan and Plan Implementation Section • Parking Management - Seethe proposed Policy #9 and Study #2 • Updated Development Review Process - See the Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process (Policy #2) Incentives can also be used to encourage development to incorporate facilities, strategies and programs that promote TDM. For example, a tiered system of SDC credits could be provided to developers that implement two or more TDM strategies such as paid parking, special carpool parking, free transit passes, shower facilities, and/or electric vehicle charging stations. CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION Transportation measures to reduce the carbon footprint should ultimately be considered as part of a more comprehensive Climate Action Plan for Ashland. The goal of a local Climate Action Plan is a sizable, reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) to help mitigate the global effects of climate change. Carbon dioxide is responsible for approximately half of the global GHG, and fossil fuel transportation has been this country's fastest growing source of GHG emissions for decades. It is clear that critical areas for change are: shifting travel away from single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and toward alternative forms of transportation; reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that exceed population growth; and reducing tail pipe emissions associated with traffic congestion. r~.~ 157 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ' Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainability Plan The TSP update began with a commitment to "'greener" transportation that could build on City policies, practices, and programs already in place, and having a favorable impact on climate change. The Preferred and Financially Constrained Plan recommends additional beneficial policies, actions, and programs. As part of a larger context, there are even stronger federal and state requirements, resources, and funding for local actions to slow climate change. It adds up to an opportunity for the City to embrace a comprehensive and integrated planning perspective with an explicit and quantifiable emphasis on 'low carb' planning. That perspective can present a new approach for evaluating transportation plans, projects, and how they might be integrated with other climate change factors such as land use development patterns, energy efficiency in buildings, recycling, solid waste management, and preservation of urban forest and open spaces that sequester carbon. Setting that comprehensive planning in motion should take the following steps: Complete a GHG Inventory This inventory enables you to set a baseline for emissions. It can be limited to transportation, for now, if the City is not ready to undertake a full Climate Action Plan. Assess the relative quantities of emissions from different sources, and create informed policies and strategies based on this information. Use the baseline to monitor progress. Ashland may decide to join with other communities to create a regional inventory and baseline. Set a Target and a Time Frame Examples of potential targets are 30% carbon reduction from the baseline year, and limiting increases in VMT to be equal to or less than the annual population growth. Targets help prioritize actions and policies that will be the most effective or the most cost-effective by a certain year. This will allow you to better assess funding investments and opportunities, short-term versus long-term strategies, integration with complementary policies, and the focus for community outreach and education. Create a Comprehensive Plan Integrate comprehensive planning, City operations, and community interests in a plan that integrates transportation with community design and development, buildings and energy efficiency, buildings and- wastewater, solid waste, renewable energy, government operations, and public health. It should become a community vision for a climate-wise future. Establish New Evaluation Criteria Rethink traditional criteria for policies and projects where individual problems and objectives are considered by groups with narrowly defined responsibilities, who are accustomed to evaluating relatively similar options. In transportation planning, this has tended to underprice SOV travel, undervalue alternative transportation benefits, and will not be well-suited to the comprehensive analysis required to address climate change. 156 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustoinability Plan Implement While You Plan Identify measures that can be implemented while comprehensive climate protection planning takes place. There may be measures with low implementation costs, quick results with regard to quantifiable GHG reductions, or other benefits like better public health, improvements in transit service or economic development. For instance, you can lead by example through short-term actions that reduce trips by city vehicles, and long-term commitments such as converting to more fuel-efficient vehicles or to alternative fuels. Change Your Planning Perspective for Now Local climate action plans are being completed in some of the larger cities and MPOs of Oregon. Until a state-wide initiative if fully implemented in all. regions, Ashland may wish to take a new look at transportation planning as an outcome of the TSP update. Public agencies often evaluate options and develop projects from the confines of their mandate and current budget. Consider adapting your transportation planning to include the following perspectives: Sustoinability Planning Consider direct, indirect, and long-term economic, social, and environmental impacts. This will address both the local community and the larger global impacts. Give special consideration to long-term, non- market, and difficult to measure impacts, such as social and economic impacts. Equity Planning Transportation equity should be part of a broad community commitment to sustainability. It requires a roughly even distribution of transportation investment costs and benefits; this can be difficult to evaluate. However, as guiding principles for policy, it could be based on a full cost profile for transportation. That profile is not equitable when it shifts much of the cost burden of GHG impacts to external groups (external to the users and infrastructure generating the emissions). It is also inequitable if it provides greater transportation benefits to higher income groups. As an example of investment equity, the City might compare public expenditures by mode based on an assumption that per capita spending to facilitate non-motorized travel should be approximately equal to spending for alternative modes of transportation. In order to arrive at a new perspective, transportation planning to more fully address climate change might benefit from consideration of the following: Understand Full Transportation Costs Prioritize Non-Motorized Transportation Pursue Strategies to Integrate Transportation and Land Use Planning I IY// I 159 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainability Plan Understanding Full Transportation Costs There are a number of well-developed databases and tools to help assess quantities of GHG emissions for various transportation modes, activities, and decisions. Such an assessment will be critical to eventually completing your local Climate Action Plan. What is less understood are external monetary costs (costs internal to the actual infrastructure and users) that could be assigned to GHG emissions as the full cost of transportation. The complexity of monetizing potential cost categories is beyond the scope the TSP. However, if you think of monetary costs as another way of appreciating and quantifying impacts, then it is important to recognize that a major portion of GHG costs are external (not borne by the primary users and the facilities) and non-market (affecting such things as health, social and economic equity and livability). By not accounting for these costs, conventional transportation planning underprices transportation choices, especially SOV travel and parking. This leads to excessive motor vehicle trips, especially for non-commute trips for work which make up approximately two-thirds of household trips. This works against Ashland's desire to realize the benefits of a more balanced and multimodal transportation system, and against planning aimed at reducing the carbon footprint. A comprehensive understanding of the full costs of transportation is complex. However, there is growing amount of research and study focused on identifying monetized costs for all transportation modes that are external to the direct user. It includes internal variable costs related to the amount of travel and the mode of travel, external costs imposed on non-users as well as market and non-market costs. Non-market costs include social, economic, and environmental impacts. A number of those costs are directly associated with carbon footprint. In general, there are two types of cost to consider when trying to reduce the carbon footprint. Damage costs address the value of the resources damaged or lost as a result of GHG emissions. Control costs result from measures taken to avoid damaging impacts. These costs are essentially avoidance and mitigation costs, and range from the cost of reducing emissions to the cost compensation for global climate impacts such rising sea levels and intensification of hurricanes. At the local level, these costs could be reflected in appropriate roadway fees or congestion pricing, parking taxes or parking fees, and encouraging insurance companies to offer "pay as you go" insurance. Prioritize Non-Motorized Transportation If reducing the carbon footprint is a transportation priority, then increasing bicycle and pedestrian travel is a cost-effective strategy. It is the alternative to autos for frequent and short trips. That makes it essential to reducing VMT. Significant barriers to walking and cycling as travel choices can be identified in roadway design, access to transit, land use patterns, and parking strategies (particularly in downtown or other business districts). Strategies and design changes to lessen those barriers can be assigned a measurable expectation with regard to carbon savings and become criteria for project approval and funding. If full cost accounting is also considered, it will be apparent that carbon costs from not reducing auto trips are not directly born by motorists. This contributes to the underpricing of automobile travel and the tendency to undervalue non-motorized travel. 160 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainability Plan Barrier effects also compromise transportation equity since disadvantaged populations will share a disproportionate share of these costs because they depend on non-motorized travel and transit. A shift in planning and policy perspective might include examining this barrier effect as part of a more comprehensive examination of potential cost allocation methodologies to determine the full cost and fair share of roadways and transportation service associated with various users. Integration of Transportation and Land Use This represents an opportunity to consider combined policies, ordinances, strategies, and incentives that reduce the carbon footprint and achieve multiple community benefits. Ashland should continue a strong land use planning approach to encouraging pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive land use. Transit can serve the most potential riders when higher density residential development and employment centers are located in transit corridors and compact, walkable mixed use surrounds stop locations. Most transit riders begin and end their trips on foot or on a bike. Ashland's current street and development standards provide for good connectivity and access to transit, especially when coupled with the type of mixed use development envisioned in the Pedestrian Places section of the Preferred Plan. For existing development in transit corridors, Ashland should consider conducting an accessibility audit to identify and prioritize improvements to sidewalks, bike routes, curb ramps, street crossings, and lighting that will make getting to transit safer and more appealing. With transit-supportive land use and pedestrian environment measures in place, TDM measures intended to shift travel choices away from the SOV trip will be more successful. As transit ridership goes up there should be increases in convenience and service, and it will become easier for the City and RVTD to work together to stabilize costs. With regard to carbon footprint, it should be recognized that, transit service in the fossil fuel vehicles (especially diesel) requires high ridership in order to have a smaller carbon footprint than automobile travel. CLIMATE CHANGE BENEFITS FROM TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING Carbon footprint reductions are about minimizing the risk of damaging, disruptive, or even catastrophic long-term climate change. Failure to mitigate that change will have global consequences that are likely to locally affect Ashland's natural resources, air and water quality, economy and affordable access to goods and services and public health. Acting now, through transportation choices, will begin to reduce those risks. Strategies can also be linked with other objectives to provide a number of co- benefits. For example, implementation of a better multimodal transportation system may result in financial savings through reduced automobile expenses, more convenient access to jobs and shopping, better health, and a greater sense of social and economic equity. r _ 161 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 sustainability Plan Increasing Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel increased use of alternative transportation by a wider range of users is the goal of the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Plans. These trips tend to be far more frequent, and are often shorter in distance. They are the most convertible trips, and often carry relatively low implementation costs. Shifting trips away from automobiles has multiple benefits. It means the transportation system is balanced, optimizing the quantity and quality of transportation services at all locations and times of day and for the needs of all users. Without adequate balance, people are often forced to make SOV trips that are not optimal, which means the carbon footprint rises and climate change benefits are lost. With policies and programs such Complete Streets, Safe Routes to Schools, and comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans in place, and with investment in the appropriate street infrastructure to support them,.a modest conversion of auto trips is a reasonable expectation. Even a modest shift brings significant air quality and carbon reduction benefits. For example, consider only Safe Routes to Schools: studies show that if the country returned to the 1969 level of walking and bicycling to school, VMT would be reduced by 3.2 billion miles, which translates to an annual savings of 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of taking more than 250,000 cars off the road for a year. The benefits of non-motorized travel become even more apparent if improved public health and transportation equity are added as plan and project criteria, and full cost accounting is better understood by the community. Adequate transportation choices also provides a "value option" within the broader understanding of sustainability. As a community, Ashland may value and support facilities that accommodate a relatively small part of the total transportation needs, such as bike and transit service which can be seen as improving transportation equity among all citizens. This value is intrinsically linked to transportation equity, which has social and economic value. For example, increasing comfort and safety for lower- income residents when they are walking and cycling may result in financial savings needed for better housing, food, or other services. Transit and Transit-Supportive Land Uses This is an opportunity for combined strategies that simultaneously realize climate change benefits from changes in travel behavior and more energy-efficient development. Transit-supportive development can indirectly influence transportation by shifting trips away from automobile travel. The range of benefits from increases in transit use, walking, and bicycling, and the corresponding reductions in automobile trips and consequent benefits of climate change have been noted. With regard to the transit component of this promising synergy, estimates vary in quantifying the actual carbon reduction to expect from transit use. Some studies conclude the results will be dramatic. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has concluded that transit use, when combined with more compact development patterns and TDM measures, can result in a national reduction of 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Others predict more modest reductions given the complexity of factors involved in development and travel choices. Factors working against big gains from changes in travel behavior include: L~"'i 162 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainobility Plan • Household factors - income and demographics influence travel choices more than simple density. • Most households don't select locations in order to minimize commutes. • Employment is increasingly decentralized and moving away from centers and downtowns which are well-served by transit. • Non-work trips are increasing and are not typically transit trips since they often involve multiple destinations. The compact and higher density development typical of transit-supportive land use policies can also bring about direct reductions in GHG through site and building design. Mixed use and infill development tend toward smaller.and more energy-efficient buildings types, fewer construction materials, and small amounts of paved service. All of those characteristics result in some reduction of GHG. However, continuing research suggests that the gains may be more modest than once thought, and are the result of a complex set of interactions between literally dozens of factors such as household characteristics and the qualities of design and construction. To date, no clear and simple evaluation of the overall carbon footprint of transit-supportive development is available. Addressing the Parking Problems The relevance of parking to GHG emissions is often overlooked. Some of the biggest problems with parking in urban areas are too much demand, too much supply and underpricing of the full cost. Correcting these problems can have significant benefits with respect to GHG reductions. Off-street parking consumes and paves an enormous amount of land. On-street parking utilizes a significant portion of the street right-of-way. Immediately, this amount of pavement in an urban setting has a "heat island" effect, which indirectly increases GHG emissions through attempts to stay cool with building and automobile air conditioning. And, there is a problem with the numbers. For residential uses, many studies have suggested that there are actually three off-street spaces for each vehicle (one residential and two non-residential), as well as one or more on-street parking spaces. This is an external carbon cost not directly borne by any user of the parking spaces, and benefit to be captured through reducing the amount of urban land devoted to parking cars. Land consumption is also a direct cost issue that influences development patterns and locations. Development patterns influence the GHG profile of a community through transportation choices and building energy efficiency. For residential infill development, which has a relatively good GHG profile, off-street parking increases the development cost per unit and reduces achievable density. At some point, that cost factor helps push development further away from accessible downtowns and . neighborhood centers to where land is less expensive. These locations take on a larger carbon footprint as they become harder to serve with transit, less compact and walkable, and create more vehicle trips and congestion. Higher ratios of parking result in lower densities, which further suppresses transit ridership. 163 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Sustainability Plan Extensive use of on-street parking also creates a competition for right-of-way allocation between pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities and vehicle parking. Setting aside market factors, the real dynamics of that competition are often not well understood. For example, converting on-street parking to bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks will have an undeniable short-term impact on available parking seen as a negative impact by many. In the long-term, there may be a different impact. If this conversion of right-of-way results in a fairly small shift away from vehicle trips and increases bicycle and walking trips, the reduced demand for parking may eventually equal or exceed the initial loss of parking. This represents a long-term opportunity to reduce GHG emissions. PRIVATE SECTOR SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS Steps taken by the private sector, particularly employers, can have a positive impact on climate change. The City of Ashland should explore ways in which they can encourage and provide incentives for those steps to be taken. Examples of potential private sector transportation solutions include: • Encourage certain types of employees to telecommute twice a month. • Employee education regarding the benefits of efficient transportation and energy use. • If parking subsidies are provided, offer employees a "cash out" option. • Offer a purchase discount for retail customers who arrive by alternative transportation. • Create a downtown business competition for the number of employees and customers using alternative transportation. • Sponsor and maintain upgraded transit stop amenities near a group of businesses. • Work with the City to development a parking management program. • Work with the City to develop and engage in a Climate Wise Program for local businesses to submit their own action plans for reducing GHG. OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Government operations themselves can initiate community-wide efforts to embrace climate-wise transportation. Some measures are relatively low-cost and could be implemented in the short-term. Other measures will require more investment and a longer time frame to enact. Examples include: • Increase awareness of fuel consumption by department. Consider satellite park maintenance shops to reduce staff travel. Establish goals for transitioning city vehicles to alternative fuel or electric vehicles. Phased replacement of incandescent street lights and traffic signals with LED lighting. 164 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 14 Funding and Implementation Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION This section provides context regarding the City's historical funding sources, which was the basis for forecasting the funds likely available in the future for transportation projects, studies and programs. Also presented within this section is the financially constrained plan which helps guide the City's implementation of the TSP. FUNDING - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND FUTURE FORECAST Historically, the City's transportation program has been funded through the Street Fund. The Street Fund is a combination of federal, state, and city funds including Local Improvement Districts (LID) and System Development Charges (SDCs). The City portion of LID total project costs may vary. The transportation program includes streets, sidewalks, bike paths, railroad crossings, and transit. The Street Fund also covers maintenance costs associated with landscaping for medians, entry ways, and downtown landscaping. This landscape maintenance is accomplished through an agreement with the -Parks Department. The Transportation Commission, specific transportation studies and the current update of the TSP are also funded as elements of the transportation program. Street Fund Revenue sources include: • Oregon State gasoline taxes that may be used on roadway pavement and maintenance projects. • City franchise fees paid by other city enterprise funds such as electric, water, wastewater, and others for use of the transportation system. • City transportation systems development charges ISM which were updated in FY08) to pay for future growth needs of the system. It should be noted that development of a multimodal system development charge methodology and program is part of the TSP Update scope of work. Work will begin on the multi-modal SDC following the TAC's, PC's, and TC's initial acceptance of the preferred and financially constrained plans. • City transportation user/utility fees assessed to all property owners, • City Local Improvement District charges for specific projects assessed through a benefiting district, and, • State and federal grants including: o TE - Federal Transportation Enhancement projects for sidewalks, bike path, etc. I~IY/ 166 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation o STP - State Transportation. Program funds for major improvements and system upgrades to the City's system. o STIP - State Transportation Improvement Plan funds for urban upgrades on state facilities. o CMAQ- Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant funds for projects that help reduce emissions (Diesel Retrofit and Sweeper purchases) and dust (paving projects). o OECDD SPWF - Oregon Economic Commission Development Division Special Public Works Funds for projects that relate to the creation of new jobs. o Other safety and specific transportation funding program opportunities. o Federal Stimulus funds (ARRA). o TGM -Transportation and Growth Management Grants for studies. Economic uncertainty has created funding shortfalls and a newly created "Unfunded" category for Capital Improvements Program (CIP) projects. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-10, the proposed CIP was over $12 Million. For FY 2010-11 the total has declined to less than $6 Million, with $2.5 Million identified for Transportation/LID projects. Table 14-1 summarizes the Transportation/LID portion of the CIP through FY 2012-17. Table 14-1 CIP Funding for Construction Years 2008-2017 Transportation Program Project Totals Street SDC Grants LIDs Fees & Rates Transportation $5,260,216 $605,070 $2,140,100 - $2,515,406 Street Improvements and Overlays $2,635,000 - $651,000 - $1,984,000 Local Improvement Districts $827,400 $148,932 - $320,100 $358,368 Transportation and LID Totals $8,722,616 $754,002 $2,791,100 $320,100 $4,857,414 Annual Total $970,000/year 0-5 Year Revenues $4,850,000 6-15 Year Revenues $9,700,000 16-25 Year Revenues $9,700,000 25 Year Capital Revenues $24,250,000 Based on the information in Table 14-1, and assuming equal funding each year based on current funding levels, it is assumed that approximately $24,250,000 will be available for capital projects over the next 25 years. It should be noted that the constrained funding forecast of $24,250,000 is based on current funding programs and could be altered from revised projections or changes in or creation of new funding sources by the City Council (e.g., the proposed multi-modal system development charge). : 167 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation Potential additional funding sources the City may choose to pursue at some point in the future are documented in Section 4 Future Demand, Land Use and Funding. IMPLEMENTATION The Financially Constrained Plan and Preferred Plan facilitate the TSP's implementation. The projects, programs, and studies included in the Financially Constrained Plan are higher priority projects on which the City plans to focus their funding resources. The Preferred Plan helps the City leverage opportunities that may arise through development, unexpected grant monies, and/or agency partnerships to implement additional projects, studies and/or programs identified as needed and desired. Preferred Plan The Preferred Plan consists of all of the policies, programs, projects, and studies identified in Sections 6 through 12. Table 14-2 summarizes the program, project, and, study costs by mode and desired timeframe based on need and priority. in general, policies do not require funds to implement, therefore, the preferred plan policies are not reflected in Table 14-2. The policies presented in Sections 5 through 11 are however, included in the Preferred Plan. Table 14-2 Transportation Programs, Studies and Project Cost Summary by Timeline Tota Priority and Pr.ie ct (Timeline) General Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Freight Studies Roadway Costs High (0-5 Years) $100,000 $8,550,000 $3,230,000 $1,000,000 - $35,000 $5,073,000 $17,988,000 Medium (5-15 Years) $30,000 $4,050,000 $1,150,000 $2,750,000 - $245,000 $4,005,000 $12,230,000 Low $2,975,000 $570,000 $3,800,000 - $3,650,000 $11,070,000 (15-25 Years) $75,000 Development Driven - - $330,000 - $2,025,000 $23,555,000 $25,910,000 - Total 5130,000 $15,575,000 $5,280,000 $7,550,000 $2,025,000 $355,000 $36,283,000 $67,198,000 As shown in Table 14-2, a total of $67,198,000 of programs, studies, and projects have been identified for the City of Ashland over the next 25 years. The following section discusses the Desired Financially Constrained Plan, which includes as many of the higher priority projects identified in Preferred Plan as fiscally possible. Financially Constrained Plan Given the anticipated funding available shown in Table 14-1, nearly all of the high and medium priority programs, studies and projects could be completed within the forecast revenues from existing sources. The list below includes projects the City would like to have funded. They include projects that are under 168 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation the sole jurisdiction of the City of Ashland as well as projects that would require the City s financial participation in joint projects with ODOT, Jackson County, and RVTD. The City will coordinate with other agencies to leverage funding opportunities and therefore the projects in the "Financially Constrained Project List" should be looked at as an illustration of the City's current funding priorities but one that will change over time. Table 14-3 presents a list of programs, studies, and projects organized by modal plan that can be considered reasonably likely to have funding over the next 25 years at the current time. As noted in the Preferred Plan Summary section, all Preferred Plan policies presented above will be carried through to the TSP pending revisions based on comments received from TAC, PC, and TC members. Only projects with anticipated costs are included in Table 14-3. As noted above, the list in Table 14-3 will change over time. Potential additional funding sources that the City could consider to increase future transportation revenues are included in the Funding Programs White Paper. Table 14-3 Financially Constrained Programs, Studies and Projects List Reasons for the Program, Study (ID Name Description or Project Cost High Priority Programs, Studies, and Projects General Studies (S2) Downtown Parking and See study description on pages Facilitate Economic Growth, Multi-Modal Circulation Study 8889 Balance Mobility and Access $100'000 Management Plan Study Active Transportation Plan Programs and Projects invest in individualized, targeted marketing materials to be - Encourage and facilitate travel as (OS) TravelSmart Education distributed to interested apedestrian and/or bicyclist $45,000 Program individuals for the purpose of Part of creating a green informing and encouraging travel transportation template as a pedestrian or by bicycle Establish funds and process for installing off-street bicycle racks Facilitate bicycle travel (04) Retrofit Bicycle Program at existing Part of creating a green $50,000 business/establishments transportation template From N Main Street to Schofield Fill gap in existing sidewalk (PI)N Main Street/Highway 99 Street network $50,000 (P5) Glenn Street/ From N Main Street to 175' east Fill gap in existing sidewalk Orange Avenue of Willow Street network $200,000 (P6) Orange Avenue 175' west of Drager Street to Fill gap in existing sidewalk Helman Street network $250,000 (P7) Hersey Street From N Main Street to Oak Street Fill gap in existing sidewalk network $750,000 (P9) Maple Street From Chestnut Street to 150' Fill gap in existing sidewalk east of Rock Street network $100,000 (P10) Scenic Drive From Maple Street to Wimer. Fill gap in existing sidewalk Street network $250,000 (P17) Beaver Slide From Water Street to Lithia Way Fill gap in existing sidewalk network $50,000 (P18) A Street From Oak Street to 100' west of Fill gap in existing sidewalk ft 6th Street network $250,000 169 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation Reasons for the Program, Study (ID Name Description or Project Cost (P22) Mountain Avenue From 100' south of Village Green Fill gap in existing sidewalk Way to Iowa Street network $450,000 (P23) Wightman Street From 200' north of E Main Street Fill gap in existing sidewalk to 625'south of E Main Street network $400,000 (P25) Walker Avenue 950' north of Iowa Street to Fill gap in existing sidewalk Ashland Street network $750,000 (P27) Walker Avenue From Oregon Street to Woodland Fill gap in existing sidewalk Drive network $200,000 (P28) Ashland Street From S Mountain Avenue to Fill gap in existing sidewalk Morton Street network $450,000 (P38) Clay Street From Siskiyou Boulevard to Fill gap in existing sidewalk Mohawk Street network $300,000 (P57) Tolman Creek Road From Siskiyou Boulevard to City Fill gap in existing sidewalk Limits (west side) network $425,000 (P58) Heiman Street From Hersey Street to Van Ness Fill gap in existing sidewalk Avenue network $100,000 From E Main Street to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P59) Garfield Street Boulevard network $750,000 From E Main Street to Iowa Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P60) Lincoln Street Street network $450,000 From E Main Street to Iowa Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P61) California Street Street network $500,000 From Siskiyou Boulevard to Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P63) Liberty Street Ashland Street network $650,000 From Ashland Street to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P65) Faith Avenue Boulevard network $350,000 From Clay Street to Tolman Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P66) Diane Street Creek Road network $20,000 From Siskiyou Boulevard to Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P67) Frances Lane Oregon Street network $10,000 From Patterson Street to Hersey Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P68) Carol Street Street network $150,000 From Ashland Street to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P70) Park Street Boulevard network $650,000 Bicycle Boulevard - From Scenic (132) Winner Street Drive to N Main Street. Upgrade of existing bikeway to $20,000 Coordinate with Project R31. encourage greater use (85) Maple/Scenic Drive/Nutley Bicycle Boulevard - From N Main Fill gap in existing bicycle $110,000 Street Street to Winburn Way network Bike Lane - From Terrace Street (B7) Iowa Street to road terminus and from N Fill gap in existing bicycle $240,000 Mountain Avenue to Walker network Avenue (1310) S Mountain Avenue Bike Lane - From Ashland Street Fill gap in existing bicycle $120,000 to E Main Street network (BSI) Wightman Street Bicycle Boulevard - E Main Street Fill gap in existing bicycle $60,000 to Siskiyou Boulevard network (1333) B Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Oak Fill gap in existing bicycle $80,000 Street to N Mountain Avenue network (1316) Lithia Way Bicycle Boulevard - From Oak Fill gap in existing bicycle $110,000 Street to Heiman Street network (1317) Main Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Heiman Fill gap in existing bicycle $50,000 Street to Siskiyou Boulevard. network (1319) Heiman Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Nevada Fill gap in existing bicycle $80,000 Street to N Main Street network 170 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Pion October 2012 Funding and Implementation Reasons for the Program, Study (ID 4) Name Description or Project Cost Bike Lane - From E Main Street to (B26) Normal Avenue Siskiyou Boulevard. Coordinate Fill gap in existing bicycle $190,000 with Project R19. network (B29) Walker Avenue Bicycle Boulevard - From Siskiyou Fill gap in existing bicycle $40000 Boulevard to Peachey Road network Bicycle Boulevard - Siskiyou Fill gap in existing bicycle (B31) Indiana Street Boulevard to Oregon Street network $20,000 (B33) 8th Street Bicycle Boulevard - A Street to E Fill gap in existing bicycle $20,000 Main Street network (838) Oregon/Clark Street Bicycle Boulevard - Indiana Street Fill gap in existing bicycle $40,000 to Harmony Lane network TRl North Side Trail Mul=P ath-From Orchid Ex and existin bi cle network ( ) AveTolman Creek Road p g cy$2,000,000 Transit Plan Program , Improve transit service to Provides funds and guidance on increase ridership Part of creating a green (O5) Transit Service Program how to to improve template, supporting economic $1,000,000 allocate funds transit service in n Ashland prosperity, and creating system- wide balance Intersection and Roadway Plan Studies and Projects Evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand, and safety along Siskiyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. The study should evaluate the adequacy of the planned pedestrian improvements along Siskiyou Boulevard (the rectangular rapid-flash beacons (510) Siskiyou Boulevard at crosswalks and diagonal Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation crossing at the Indiana- Wightman intersection) once the Improve Safety $35,000 and Feasibility Study new dormitory and dining hall ' are operational for existing and future forecast pedestrian demand. The need, ideal ' location, feasibility and cost of a grade-separated crossing should be evaluated. This project is a joint project with the city and SOU; not subject to development.. (RS) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)- Improve visibility of signal heads. Lithia Way (OR 99 NB)/E Main Identify and install treatments to Improve Safety $50,000 Street Intersection slow vehicles on northbound Improvements approach (R6) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Conduct a speed study. Identify 99)/Tolman Creek Road and install speed reduction Improve Safety $61,000 Intersection Improvements treatments on northbound approach (R8) Ashland Street FOR 66)/Oak Realign E Main Street approach Knoll Drive-E Main Street to eliminate offset and install Improve Safety $706,000 Intersection Improvements speed reduction treatments (1117) East Nevada Street Extend Nevada Street from Bear Balance Mobility and Access $2,261,000 Extension Creek to Kestrel Parkway (R25) Washington Street Extend Washington Street to Facilitate Economic Growth Extension to Tolman Creek Road Tolman Creek Road consistent Balance Mobility and Access $1,055,000 with the TAMP Exit 14 Access f7/ ~w,~ I 171 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation Reasons far the Program, Study r Name Description Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). This is a City funded project; not developer driven. Implement a temporary road diet on N Main Street. Temporary (1135) N Main Street Temporary road diet includes converting N Improve Safety, Balance Mobility Road Die[ Main Street to a two-lane and Access, Creating Space for ,$160,000 roadway with a two-way center Bikes turn lane and bicycle lanes in both directions Street reconstruction with flush curbs and scored concrete (R40) Walker Avenue Festival roadway surface. Sidewalk Street (Siskiyou Boulevard to treatments to include decorative Support Pedestrian Places $780,000 Ashland Street) bollards to delineated pedestrian Planning space, street trees, LID storm water facilities and ornamental lighting. High Priority Sub Total $17,988,000 Medium Priority Pmgrams, S[ud(es, and Projects General Studies Study to identify and evaluate (51) Funding Sources Feasibility the feasibility of additional Enable the City to Implement Study funding sources to support more Programs, Studies, and $30,000 transportation programs, studies, Projects to Achieve Goals a and projects. Active Transportation Plan Projects (P4) Laurel Street From Nevada Street to Orange Fill gap in existing sidewalk Avenue network $500,000 (P8) Winner Street From Thornton Way to N Main Fill gap in existing sidewalk Street network $800,000 (P37) Clay Street From Faith Avenue to Siskiyou Fill gap in existing sidewalk Boulevard network $1,000,000 From Garfield Street to Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P62) Quincy Street Wightman Street network $150,000 From Van Ness Avenue to B Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P64) Water Street Street network $250,000 From Fourth Street to Fifth Street Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P72) C Street network $100,000 (P73) Barbara Street From Jaquelyn Street to Tolman Fill gap in existing sidewalk Creek Road network $100,000 From Ashland Street to Prospect Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P74) Roca Street Street network $250,000 From Morton Street to Morse Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P75) Blaine Street Avenue network _ $100,000 From Crispin Street to Carol Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P78) Patterson Street Street network $100,000 Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P79) Harrison Street From Iowa Street to Holly Street network $100,000 Fill gap in existing sidewalk (P80) Spring Creek Drive From Oak Knoll Drive to road end . network $350,000 (P81) Bellview Avenue From Greenmeadows Way to Fill gap in existing sidewalk $250,000 Siskiyou Boulevard network Bike Lane - From Vansant Street (83) Nevada Street to N Mountain Avenue. Fill gap in existing bicycle network $230,000 Coordinate with Project 1137. n 172 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2032 Funding and Implementation Reasons for the Program, Study (10 Name Description or Project Cost (139) Ashland Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Morton Fill gap in existing bicycle $30,000 Street to University Way network Bike Lane - From Jackson Road to Heiman Street (1118) N Main Street Fill gap in existing bicycle $260,000 Included as part of Projects R35 network and R36. See Table 10-2 for more details. Bicycle Boulevard - From Hersey Fill gap in existing bicycle (1320) Water Street Street to N Main Street network $30,000 Bike Lane - From Siskiyou Fill gap in existing bicycle (825) Tolman Creek Road Boulevard to Green Meadows network $100,000 Way (837) Clay Street Bicycle Boulevard - From Siskiyou Fill gap in existing bicycle $20,000 Boulevard to Mohawk network (B39) Glenn/Orange Street Bicycle Boulevard - from N .Main Fill gap in existing bicycle $40,000 Street to Proposed Trail network Bicycle Boulevard - From Orange Fill gap in existing bicycle (840) Laurel Street Street to Nevada Street network $40,000 (TR2) New Trail Multi-Use Path - From Clay Fill gap in existing bicycle $400,000 Street to Tolman Creek Road network Transit Plan Program Improve transit service to Provides funds and guidance on increase ridership (OS) Transit Service Program how to allocate funds to improve Part of creating a green template, supporting economic $2.750,000 transit service in Ashland prosperity, and creating system- wide balance Heavy Rail Plan Programs and Projects Intersection and Roadway Plan Studies and Projects Conduct access management (S3) N Main Street (OR 99) from spacing study and provide near- Improve Safety $75,000 Heiman Street to Sheridan Street and long-term recommendations for improvement. (S5) Siskiyou Boulevard from Conduct access management Ashland Street to Tolman Creek spacing study and provide near- Improve Safety $75,000 Road and long-term recommendations for improvement. Conduct access management Sisk Ashland Street (OR lm from spacing study and provide near- Creek Boulevard to Tolman and long-term recommendations Improve Safety $75,000 Creek Road for improvement. Conduct a transportation safety assessment in five years along (S9) Ashland Street (OR 66) Ashland Street (OR 66) between Safety Study Clay Street and Washington Improve Safety $20,000 Street to identify crash trends and/or patterns as well as mitigations to reduce crashes. Extend Normal Avenue to E Main (1119) Normal Avenue Extension Street; Coordinate with Project Balance Mobility and Access $2,705,000 X3 Convert temporary road diet to permanent installation, which (R36) N Main Street Implement includes, at a minimum, signal Improve Safety, Balance Mobility Permanent Road Diet modifications to the N Main and Access $200'000 • Street/Maple Street and the N Main Street/Laurel Street 173 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Funding and Implementation Reaso ns for the Progra m, Study (ID Name Description or Project Cost intersections Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, storm water (838) Ashland Street Streetscape planters and bus shelters. Improve Safety, Balance Mobility Enhancements(Siskiyou Ashland Street/Walker Avenue $1,100,000 Boulevard to Walker Avenue) intersection enhancements to and Access include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. Medium Priority Sub-Total $12,230,000 High +Medium Priority Total (Cost Constrained Plan) $30,218,000 C 174 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 15 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments PLAN IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The following present recommended ordinance amendments to support the transportation elements presented in sections 4 through 10 of the TSP. SHARED ROADWAY STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The Shared Roadway street functional classification should be added to the Comprehensive Plan and the Street Design Guidebook. The proposed Shared Street definition is below. Shared Street - Provides access to residential or commercial uses in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. The Shared Streets and Alleyways white paper dated February 2, 2011 provides more information regarding Shared Streets. MULTIMODAL/SAFETY BASED (ALTERNATIVE) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS The Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process is a means to help support the City's TSP goals by providing funding for multimodal and safety programs and projects. It is inherently multimodal helping to create a green template (Goal 1), improvements are safety and multimodal driven making safety a priority for all modes (Goal 2), it supports economic growth by streamlining the development review process for developers (Goal 3), and facilitates system wide balance by placing all modes, safety, and access at the some level as mobility (Goal 4). See the Alternative to Traditional Development Review and Transportation Funding White Paper (dated March 7, 2011) for more details. The City of Ashland should amend Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code to establish a Multimodal/Safety Based (Alternative) Development Review Process for reviewing and approving development applications. The development review process is outlined below. 6) Applicants that generate 10 peak hour trips or more (i.e. 10 or more housing units) are required to prepare a transportation assessment that focuses on: E. On-site vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, truck delivery, and emergency service circulation and safety; 176 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments F. Safety, using principles and information from the Highway Safety Manual, of the proposed site access(es) to the transportation system; G. Multimodal LOS, per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, along the adjacent collector and/or arterial corridors; and . H. Person trips generated by the development, including those person trips expected to travel through any of the City's previously identified safety focus intersections. As of the City's TSP 2011 TSP update, these intersections are: • N Main Street (OR 99)/Hersey Street - Wimer Street • Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive - E Main Street • Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)-Lithia Way (OR 99)/E Main Street • E Main Street (OR 99 Southbound)/Oak Street • Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Tolman Creek Road • Ashland Street (OR 66)/Tolman Creek Road 7) The Applicant mitigates safety issues on-site and at their access(es) points to the transportation system. 8) The Applicant contributes financially to the safety and multimodal improvements identified for the City's safety focus intersections identified in Step 1. The City assesses a Multimodal SDC, whereby an applicant is assessed a fee based on the number of person trips the proposed development is estimated to generate. This allows the system revenues to be used to fund capacity related improvements to the vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems. AMENDMENT TO SUPPORT ACCESS MANAGEMENT The City should Amend Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code to include the following policies for land use actions such as partition sub divisions, site redevelopment, and expansions to maintain and/or improve traffic operations and safety along the boulevard, avenue and collector roadways. Access decisions should be based upon the review of an approved traffic assessment and applicable land use and site design requirements. • Developments with frontage on two roadways should locate their driveways on the lower functional classified roadway. • Access driveways should be located to align with opposing driveways. ui 177 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2032 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments If spacing standards cannot be met, effort should be made to consolidate access points with neighboring properties. Where standards cannot be met and joint access is not feasible, temporary conditional access can be granted with the provision of crossover easements on compatible parcels (considering topography, access, and land use) to facilitate future access between adjoining parcels. Right-of-way dedications may be provided to facilitate the future planned roadway system in the vicinity of proposed developments. Half-street improvements (sidewalks, curb and gutter, bike lanes/paths, and/or travel lanes) shall be provided along site frontages that do not have full build-out improvements in place at the time of development unless otherwise directed by the public works director. Exhibit 15-1 on the following page illustrates the application of cross-over easements and conditional access permits over time to achieve the desired access management objectives. The individual steps are described in Table 15-1, following Exhibit 15-1. As illustrated in the figure and supporting table, using these guidelines, all driveways along city, county, and state roadways will eventually move in the overall direction of the access spacing standards as development and redevelopment occur along a given street. 1 L~~ 178 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments Exhibit 15-1 Example of Cross-over Easement/Indenture/Consolidation/Conditional Access Process LOTS I FUM 7, p' i r- r---- STEP I EXISTING CONDITIONS REDEVELOPMENT OF LOT 8 LOTA e Ej F_~,7 STEP 2 STEP 3 nn I IOTC i - 0 1~7. n-, AWL-J - - J L--- - r - Cun,pletr STEP 4 STEP 5 179 Kittelsan & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October 2012 Plan Implementation Recommendations for Ordinance Amendments Table 15-1 Sample Crossover Easement/Indenture/Consolidation - Conditional Access Process EXISTING - Currently Lots A, 8, C, and D have site-access driveways that neither meet the access spacing criteria of 300 feet nor align 1 with driveways or access points on the opposite side of the roadway. Under these conditions motorists are into situations of potential conflict (conflicting left turns) with opposing traffic. Additionally, the number of side-street (or site-access driveway) intersections decreases the operation and safety of the roadway. REDEVELOPMENT OF LOT B -At the time that Lot B redevelops, the City would review the proposed site plan and make recommendations to ensure that the site could promote future crossover or consolidated access. Next, the City/County/ODOT would 2 issue conditional permits for the development to provide crossover easements with Lots A and C, and City/County/ODOT would grant a conditional access permit to the lot. After evaluating the land use action, the City/Co u nty/ODOT would determine that LOT B does not have either alternative access, nor can an access point be aligned with an opposing access point, nor can the available lot frontage provide an access point that meets the access spacing criteria set forth for segment of roadway. REDEVELOPMENT OF LOT A - At the time Lot A redevelops, the City/County/ODOT would undertake the same review process as with the redevelopment of LOT B (see Step 2); however, under this scenario the Ci ty/Cou nty/ODOT would use the previously obtained cross- 3 over easement at Lot B consolidate the access points of Lots A and B. City/County/ODOT would then relocate the conditional access of Lot B to align with the opposing access point and provide and efficient access to both Lots A and B. The consolidation of site-access driveways for Lots A and B will not only reduce the number of driveways accessing the roadway, but will also eliminate the conflicting left-turn movements the roadway by the alignment with the opposing access point. 4 REDEVELOPMENT OF LOT D-The redevelopment of Lot D will be handled in same manner as the redevelopment of Lot B (see Step 2) REDEVELOPMENT OF LOT C-The redevelopment of Lot C will be reviewed once again to ensure that the site will accommodate crossover and/or consolidated access. Using the crossover agreements with Lots B and D, Lot C would share a consolidated access point 5 with Lot D and will also have alternative frontage access the shared site-access driveway of Lots A and B. By using the crossover agreement and conditional access permit process, the City/County/ODOT be able to eliminate another access point and provide the alignment with the opposing access points. 6 COMPLETE -After Lots A, B, C, and D redevelop over time, the number of access points will be reduced and aligned, and the remaining access points will meet the access spacing standard. 180 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix A Project Prospectus Sheets City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 1 Project R2 N Main Street (OR 99)/Wimer Street-Hersey Street Intersection Improvements Description: Install a traff ic signal at the intersection once MUTCD traff ic volume or MUTCD crash warrants are met. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 15-25 years $300,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ U ❑ 66 Project Location: r~ } 1 ources USGS, ESRI, ANA, AND..' Project Image: WITHOUT ROAD DIET WITH ROAD DIET PROPOSED LANE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC PROPOSED LANE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS A~- % A"' 09 L LOS-A LOS-8 10 s~ D041.7 jt g1 oa-Isa Ir ,0 VK__0160 10 V/c-0.75 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 2 Project R5 Lithia Way (OR99 NB)/E Main Street Intersection Improvements Description: Improve visibility of signal heads. Identify and install treatments to slow vehicles on northbound approach. See the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 613 Guidelines for the Selection of Speed Reduction Treatments at High Speed intersections for guidance and potential treatments. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 0-5 years $50,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ © ❑ Project Location: • i I a = ~ ~ .4~ 4 F,NV•RN (1e i-zf z Sources: 'U GS, E I, TANA. AND Project Image: rp ' ~lyq' i10?~• Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Paatland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 3 Project R6 Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Tolman Creek Road Intersection Improvements Description: Conduct a speed study. Identify and install speed reduction treatments on northbound approach. See the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 613 Guidelines for the Selection of Speed Reduction Treatments at High Speed Intersections for guidance and potential treatments. Continue to monitor crashes. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 0-5 years $61,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ o ❑ ❑ Project Location: 'K F , f ' Sources. USGS. ESRI. tI~-A{VD Project Image: w. r rff " x ;i :Gti^E-i W Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon i I I City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 4 I Project R8 Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main Street Intersection Improvements Description: Realign E Main Street approach to eliminate offset and install speed reduction treatments. Continue to monitor crashes. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 0-5 years $706,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access CI © ❑ Project Location: - , es ources. USGS, ESRI, TANA, AND Project Image: lot. 4* ' 4 -v Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 5 Project R9 Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main Street Intersection Improvements F Description: Install a roundabout. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 15-25 years $3,150,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access CI 1V-J ❑ ~I Project Location: a' . . ources. U5GS, ESRI, TANA, AND Project Image: let P} r ,per f ~ ~ ~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 6 Project R11 Lithia Way (OR 99 NB)/Oak Street Intersection Improvements Description: Install a traffic signal. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue 15-25 years $200,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑C Project Location: T 1 1 3 J i C' 4T. I1 Sou"'S.. u ESRI NNA, AND Project Image: PROPOSED LANE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS LOS=8 A Del=18.0 ~ r VIC=0.63 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 7 Project R12 Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Sherman Street Intersection Improvements Description: Realign Sherman Street approach to eliminate offset. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Neighborhood Development Driven $391,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ~l ❑ 66 Project Location: s r I Y ! Y r iSources: U GS, E I, TANA, AND Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 8 Project R13 Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Park Street Intersection Improvements Description: Realign Park Street approach to eliminate offset. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue Development Driven $296,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access 11 Project Location: f I f I 1 • L+ I'. i I r:MO{RRi - Souroes. USGS~ ESRI, NA, AND Project Image: bu. 4. ~ L ''tom '4. NNI 46L n' 7ACTS y ry■T h ~ ~•ti ( ~ g Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 9 Project R14 Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Terra Avenue-Faith Avenue Intersection Improvements Description: Realign Terra Avenue approach to eliminate offset. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. i Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Neighborhood Development Driven $216,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ a ❑ o Project Location: r ~I r-~A ouMl st ~l MMrvu I ,I t Sources: USGS,ESRI, `IA. AND Project Image: 's. €51--..~ f 7L`'' < -prc Dpi r 1II . Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 10 Project R17 E Nevada Street Extension Description: Extend Nevada Street from Bear Creek to Kestrel Parkway. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Avenue 0-5 years $2,261,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ L1 Project Location: 1 I r , A f ` p r ~ ~ 3 U Sources: US S. ESRI, TANK, AND Project Image: Side Planting Bike Tom:"i Tu;vu Bike Planting Side Walk Strip Lane lane Lane Strip Walk 6' 7'-fi' 6' 10'-10.5 19-10.5' 6 713, 6' 6' Cure 6" Curb 2-Lane Avenue - ROW 59'-78' (Parking is allowed in 8' bays) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 11 Project R19 Normal Avenue Extension Description: Extend Normal Avenue to E Main Street consistent with the IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). Coordinate with the Normal Avenue at-grade railroad crossing upgrade project (X3). Right-of- way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Avenue 5-15 years $2,705,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: A_________ A V y ---..._----------"9. " • . 'r i A~~GPY C. Sources: USGS. ESRII TANA, AND Project Image: Side ftrgng ease Travel Sake Planting ! Side Walk Sinp [,am :X1:_ Lane Lane SVip Walk 6' t0'-t0.5' 10'-10.5' E T-6 6' t 6- Cwt) curt) 2-Lane Avenue - ROW 59'-78' (Parking is allowed in 8' bays) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 12 Project R24 Clear Creek Drive Extension Description: Construct anew roadway to connect the two existing segments of Clear Creek Drive providing a continuous east - west roadway between Oak Street and N Mountain Avenue. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector Development & Access Management Driven $2,505,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ c 9/1 Project Location: , , N v _ j - I ~ 'Sources: USGS. ESRI- NA. AND Project Image: mh_ SKJ@ Plana mg I'a6ng h,.el lrwEe Fanny Planting Side . Walk I Strip L.I•,i; Lame - Strp WaBc B' 10' 10' i e' , 5' 8'-10' 6' Curb C,b Neighborhood Collector, Commercial - Row 53' - 57' (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 13 Project R25 Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road Description: Extend Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road consistent with the IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). This is a City funded project; not development driven. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector 0-5 years $1,055,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑o EVII Project Location: Sources: USGS. ESRI. TANA. AND Project Image: - -sue- Sid! Ftsnbny r.. , g I .i.• 1ra:c1 Rirkn:7 Planing S-de walk Stnp f +^r. Lana Sfip Walk 81-10' 5' a 10 10' 8' j 5' 8'-1U' - b-C.,b ----6-Curb Neighborhood Collector. Commercial - ROW sx - 6%' (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 14 Project R26 New Roadway (D) Description: Construct a new roadway from E Main Street to Ashland Street (OR 66) consistent with the IAMP Access Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector Development & Access Management Driven $2,422,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access I~ I I ~ Project Location: i " I . Sources: SGS, ESRI. TANA, AND Project Image: ~--1 i--~ Skis Renting x.i Psir,ri PStr Sak Went Smu Stei) p Wek a' 5' 'i - 6'Cwb 6'Curb Neighborhood Collector, Commercial - Row 83' - er (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) Kittelson & Associates Inc. Portland Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 15 Project R29 Washington Street Extension Description: Extend Washington Street to Benson Way. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector Development Driven $1,301,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ L7 0 Project Location: . INllbw 1 a , l / ~ JI 1 , I 1 II 1 ~ ■ 1 ♦r Sou\es.,J GS, ~SRT. TA 4ND Project Image: a -ter Side Planting Fvamrv s+de y Walk Slap ..r L10' strtr W 8-10' S 1 r 10' tC H 5 5 8-10 10' .11If 6' Curb 6- Curb Neighborhood Collector, Commercial - Row 63,- 67' (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 16 Project R31 Wimer Street Extension Description: Extend Wimer Street to Ashland Mine Road. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. The exact location of the street will be refined at the time of annexation. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector Development Driven $3,125,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: j ~i - - - \ - i THE EXACT LOCATION ! OF THIS STREET WILL ' BE REFINED AT THE 1 si ' TIME OF ANNEXATION e ' t F ' i , i t , ~ a i ~ -r • • • Sources: USGS, ESRI TANA, AND Project Image: Soo Plgntr_ txarltmg Srac WAN'. Slnp l.a' Lanc Str, Walk 5-6' 7.-8' Y-1D' g'-10' 78 5-6' r V Curb 6" Curb Neighborhood Collector, Resldenhal - RaN sr - 6,3 (Parallel Parking on Both Sides) I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 17 Project R35 N Main Street Temporary Road Diet Description: Implement a temporary road diet on N Main Street. Temporary road diet includes converting N Main Street to a two-lane roadway with a two-way center turn lane and bicycle lanes in both directions. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard 0-5 years $160,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ OO (1 Project Location: 1 1 = 111 c Y.R 1 2 nw \ I - n:;;KEAfI j c\~ Sources: USGS. RI. TANA. AND Project Image: Side Bike Travel Striped Travel Bike Side Walk Lane Lane Median Lane Lane Walk 6' 6' 11' 12' 11' 6' 6' Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 18 Project R36 N Main Street Implement Permanent Road Diet Description: Convert temporary road diet to permanent installation, which includes, at a minimum, signal modifications to the N Main Street/Maple Street and the N Main Street/Laurel Street intersections. Project assumes community and City decide to keep road diet on N Main Street (R35). Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard 5-15 years $200,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ © ❑ Project Location: ~hr1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t,nu Ot J u -5 Sources: USGS.SRI. TANA,AND Project Image: NORTH MAIN (0R99)/IMAPLE STREET NORTH MAIN (OR99)/LAUREL STREET PROPOSED LANE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC PROPOSED LANE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS CONFIGURATIONS OPERATIONS dti ` A\' ~6-~ v>C=o.95 vs--r v".n lr~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 19 Project R38 Ashland Street Streetscape Enhancements (Siskiyou Boulevard to Walker Avenue) Description: Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, storm water planters and bus shelters. Ashland Street/Walker Avenue intersection enhancements to include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard 5-15 years $1,100,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access Project Location: i 0. I 1 Q SOUPT: USGS. ESRI~ TANA, AND Project Image: - r.,~ri L. M.....~, ir...i.w M.InM 4.,..,..,lw !w~ r.w...... n..0.+. 7 M....., n... Y,V. L.. her •+••w.M SOP :.h n-f ~ue•t iunnr Impm..•mrt: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 20 Project R39 Ashland Street Streetscape Enhancements (Walker Avenue to Normal Avenue) Description: Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, storm water planters and bus shelters. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard Development Driven $1,300,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑O VV Project Location: - .r Mwrs So PT: USGS, ESRI1 TANA, AND Project Image: y i? "lo 1~ y ( j5 Ff i~Rl iemem Zw W Famrr trrwt try.. W i:Wr-!rte Irc. EeJrrvy. h4.9,aFr LMe TwY.urr r L,nrr Irv tl FwMprd.Vnr I+puxarlr IW r :..:I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 21 Project R40 Walker Avenue Festival Street (Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street) Description: Street reconstruction with flush curbs and scored concrete roadway surface. Sidewalk treatments to include decorative bollards to delineated pedestrian space, street trees, LID storm water facilities and ornamental lighting. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Avenue 0-5 years $780,000 Project Goals Met: ,I Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access [J © LIVI Project Location: I / k ^I So FT: USGS, ESRI TANA, AND Project Image: a-a Kittelson S Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 22 I Project R41 Ashland Street/Tolman Creek Road Streetscape Enhancements Description: Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, storm water planters and bus shelters. Ashland Street/Tolman Creek Road intersection enhancements to include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue Development Driven $1,500,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ELI ❑ Project Location: ~7 fwr aK w.~ ~ Sources: USGS, ESRI. TANA, AND ' ..._.fn Nll Lw N, Project Image: r . . e ii....., X.. i.n. rw 0.u... P... iA. t.... M.r.4/.dNM AA.w.nMMr 1.' ~-}ce6 Rv4d F.t nr Irnprcr,r11-.rr11 Sritnzr, A Luua Nu th Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 23 Project R42 E Main Street/N Mountain Avenue Streetscape Enhancements Description: Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, storm water planters and bus shelters. E Main/N Mountain Avenue intersection enhancements to include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard/Avenue Development Driven $1,500,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑V ❑ ~i Project Location: x ~I a tu„rn~ar Y , EE6 G j i Sources: USGS, ESRA TANA, AND Project Image: f % alb f 1~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 24 Project R43 New Roadway (E) Description: Construct a new roadway from Mistletoe Road to Siskiyou Boulevard (OR 99) consistent with the Croman Mill District Plan. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard Development Driven $4,322,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ P Project Location: 1 l' 1, ~Ir ~ 1 11 _y Sou\ s: GS, E9W TA ND Project Image: .~.aw °mlc Ran Tan lLM Stlawe~ i PuvIN Troll tort Proleclrtl SIWwk Po~IJnp Ike =0 1 %A. l Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 25 Project R44 Tolman Creek Road-Mistletoe Road Streetscape Enhancements Description: Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with street trees, stormwater planters and bus shelters consistent with the Croman Mill District standards. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Boulevard Development Driven $3,478,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access V] n n Project Location: I \ pMlllw Ml S, i_. c~s ~USGS, ES TANA, AND soul Project Image: T ~k Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 26 Project R45 New Roadway (F) Description: Construct a new roadway from Washington Street to New Roadway (E) consistent with the Croman Mill District Plan. Coordinate with the Washington Street at-grade railroad crossing project (X2). Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Avenue Development Driven $1,199,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access Project Location: +F .max "Y' i i SouicessJ GS, F~SRT. TAtND Project Image: siaewau Op iond i G ©n as OGM1Ono 7' T,,, N,I LOO[Nnq era AV'C LCC~i ti, a +Kk'+:aU 7.- sw-i-e a^e 7n.• r I y 1 7' 1 D' 10' 7' 1.3- -+I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 27 Project X1 4th Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing Description: Pursue a new at-grade ped/bike railroad crossing at 4th Street. Coordinate with 4th Multi-Use Path Project (TR4). Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Railroad NA Development Driven $275,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: r - ysources: USGS, ESR1., NA, AND Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 28 Project X2 Washington Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing Description: Pursue anew at-grade railroad crossing at Washington Street as part of the Croman Mill Site Development. Coordinate with New Roadway (F) Project (R4). Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Railroad NA Development Driven $1,000,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access 0 0 a LVI Project Location: 49 Of 1, \V I Sources: USGS. SIT I. TANA, A D. Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 29 Project x3 Normal Avenue At-Grade Railroad Crossing Upgrade Description: Upgrade the exising at-grade railroad crossing at Normal Avenue to public crossing standards. Coordinate with Normal Avenue Extension (1119). Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Railroad NA Development Driven $750,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: f r ~ Sources: USES, ESRI, TANA. AND Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 30 Project S1 Funding Sources Feasibility Study Description: Study to identify future feasible funding sources to support improvements to the transportation system. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 5-15 yeas $30,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access i~ ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 31 Project S2 L Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Study Description: The City of Ashland will conduct a downtown parking management and multi-modal circulation study to evaluate the effectiveness of existing downtown parking management and truck loading zones and potential changes in parking management and travel demand management (TDM) strategies to increase overall accessibility to downtown for tourists, customers, and employees. The multi-modal circulation study Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 0-5 yeas $100,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access Project Location: y y 4 AST _ y~C = 8Sr CSr C9 y 42 3 co ¢ O E MAIN ST sT Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 32 Project S3 N Main Street (OR 99) from Heiman Street to Sheridan Street Description: Conduct access management spacing study and provide near- and long-term recommendations for improvement. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 5-15 years $75,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ ❑ Project Location: TUCKER ST GRA NTST OTIS ST N MAPLE ST r ~ z s o r- z U (Q Z q Z r a o a U 7 co r c ~ ~ oe J1 N al E HERSEY ST m ~ fl p _ B gl Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 33 Project S5 Siskiyou Boulevard from Ashland Street to Tolman Creek Road Description: Conduct access management spacing study and provide near- and long-term recommendations for improvement. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 5-15 years $75,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ o Project Location: ASHLAND sY t > ~ d CC 0o g 9R~ z At, L a e ~ ~ z ?P 700DLAND < w NOVA D F a0U' J = r xy > c PEACHEY RD a a } ~ U G UJ W t0 Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 34 Project S6 Ashland Street (OR 66) from Siskiyou Boulevard to Tolman Creek Road Description: Conduct access management spacing study and provide near- and long-term recommendations for improvement. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 5-15 years $75,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ © ❑ Ll Project Location: CREEK DR w T > 1 ai Ix w U L) rRKER ST ? V z J ASHLAND ST OL C<4 z l OODLAND D w v j NOVA D J Q Z Project Image: I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 35 Project S7 E Main Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to Wightman Street Description: Conduct access management spacing study and provide near- and long-term recommendations for improvement. J Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 15-25 years $75,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ O ❑ ❑ Project Location: es _ - J J J ' E MAIN ST r 1/ i 4 Z W S W 0 U. / J r of z < W J U 1 as IOWA ST w ` v ` u, c LU a < m Project Image: i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 36 Project S9 Ashland Street (OR 66) Safety Study 1 Description: Conduct a transportation safety assessment in five years along Ashland Street (OR 66) between Clay Street and Washington Street to identify crash trends and/or patterns (if they exist) as well as mitigations to reduce crashes. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 5-15 years $20,000 Project Goals Met: i ~I Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access L 1 CI ❑ Project Location: w z a w x y VILLARD ST W Q U J z ' i V Qw U r ~~m y~rZo } ASHLAND Si U) 2 z 'T } z T~ g z m CJ ~ y9 I Project Image: I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project 10633 October 2012 Page 37 Project 510 Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Feasibility Study Description: Evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand, and safety along Siskiyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. See Table 10-2 for a full description of the study. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Study NA 0-5 years $35,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ fl ❑ ❑ Project Location: LEE ST HOMESAV ¢ rn O ti WEBSTER ST Z m N COLLEGE WY PARKER ST 3 LU _Y ¢ ASHLAND Si 1 t~ii Q O(i w o MADRONF..S1 z Project Image: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Appendix B Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Toolkit CITY OF L ASHLAND Transportation System Plan BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN TOOLKIT 1 I. y ItEl All The City of Ashland is committed to providing a quality,pedestrian and bikeway network that will encourage healthy and active lifestyles. The following Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Toolkit provides a menu of options to improve facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians-facilities that increase user comfort and make active transportation more attractive. The Toolkit offers comprehensive design guidance based on information compiled by Alta Planning + Design and Kittelson & Associates and the following reference materials: Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 Chapter 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards'forAccessible Design The Toolkit provides a brief description of each individual treatment along with technical information, typical application, peer commuities that are actively using the treatment and documents that can provide additional guidance. Facility costs can vary significantly byjurisdiction due to differences in materials and labor costs, among other contributing factors. As a result, the cost estimates in this Toolkit have been separated into three categories: HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW. These designations are meant only to illustrate the relative cost of individual facilities in relation to'the other treatments included in the Toolkit. alto Ai, ~Nltt[LBONf~gOCIATEq INC. ~ /r ' ~~~.'~~ffifff ~-:u••o~• ~ ~ . w ~~iiiw°HO DESIGN SUMMARY> Shared lane markings (SLM's), also known as "sharrows", are often used on streets where dedicated bike lanes are desirable but not possible Z due to physical or other constraints. Such markings delineate where bicyclists should operate within a shared vehicle/bicycle travel lane. \ SLM's are not a substitute for conventional bike lanes and should not be used as such. Benefits of SLM's include: Correctly position bicyclists in the travel lane and away from parked b cars (if any) Encourage bicyclists to ride in a straight line so that their _ movement is predictable to motorists W Alert motorists to expect the prescence of bicyclists DIMENSIONS: rmeAllPla VS See MUTCD Section 9C.07 Xee J Must be positioned 4' min. from curb or 11' min. from curb if on- street parallel parking is present y' 0 TYPICAL APPLICATION: W • Streets with traffic volumes < 3,000 AADT Streets with posted travel speeds < 35 mph Q L 6• L rr I. Ir io COST' c~!Xn• rtur!und TTT Iu we l '~IMH@I 28`CmW o-Ulb - ' J f A Low • PEER COMMUNITIES: SLM's are widely adopted throughout the US i ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: a .c ff ~a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Chapter 9: Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities, National Association of City' ftt j Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide 2 ; t f r • Shared adjacent Lane Markings parking encourage bicyclists to "door ride outside the zone" RITTHLiOXl A1HCC1ATH41NC- ~ ®„I„Y ^^„I ^w, u,r-di rnn.cin.n^nni AlI11ANP . D W Traditional bike lanes can be uncomfortable for cyclists on high- Z volume or high-speed roadways, as automobiles pass or are parked Q too close to bicyclists. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lanes and the travel lane or parked cars. Advantages of buffered bike lanes include: W Providing motorists greater separation between cyclists and motor vehicles M Providing additional space for cyclists to avoid door openings I.Y Providing space for cyclists to pass one another without f Q encroaching into the travel lane DIMENSIONS: Uj M, Same as a Conventional Bike Lane (5'to 6') with the addition of ' a 2'to 3' painted buffer on either or both the travel lane and/or ; i U" parking side of the bike lane 1 1 um 7- um TYPICAL APPLICATION: 1 Any location where traditional bike lanes do not provide sufficient comfort for cyclists Streets with posted travel speeds > 25 mph ~^I 7 I e' I,21, n' 17 I u' YL a m' COST: 57'Curo-to rh Medium PEER COMMUNITIES: Marin County, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington / - - ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: Y V ! NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, CROW Design Manual, J-_ London Bicycle Design Standards' r Buffered bike lanes increase the ® shy distance between passing motorists and bicyclists ante A.I arrrusaxuuoeuna,rwe ^ !LA D W Bicyclists are especially vulnerable at locations where there is ambiguity between the rights-of-way of motor vehicle and bicycle Q traffic. Some jurisdictions use colored bike lanes to guide cyclists through major vehicle/bicycle conflict points (FHWA requires green colored pavement). These conflict areas include at intersections or W merge areas. Colored bike lanes typically extend through the entire bicycle/vehicle conflict zone (e.g., through the entire intersection, or ~B through the transition zone where motorists cross a bike lane to enter a dedicated right turn lane). Use these treatments to: 4 m Draw attention to conflict areas i Q Increase motorist yielding behavior Emphasize expectation of bicyclists on the road ~W/ DIMENSIONS: O Width is the same as a conventional bike lane with addition of J colored thermoplastic and dashed lines TYPICAL APPLICATION:} O • Streets with traffic volumes > 3,000 AADT- r~ - Streets with posted travel speeds > 25 mph COST: i T. 1- 7- a I~, + l~J ~ JG'CUrbdo-arb I LE7 High PEER COMMUNITIES: Los Angeles County, California; Detroit, Michigan ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: MUTCD (interim approval; see Section 3G.01), NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide b k Colored . visibility I bicyclists • R • • Y transition zone j, mar " RITTi LBCN R.RtBOC1AT6 ING DESIGN SUMMARY> Protected cycle tracks are at-grade bikeway facilities that utilize existing on-street parking and a painted buffer to separate bicyclists a from motor vehicle traffic. Cycle tracks provide many of the comforts A/ of a shared use path within the road right-of-way. Benefits of r protected cycle tracks include: Dedicates and protects space for bicyclists and improves I W f comfort Reduces risk of'dooring' compared to a bike lane, and eliminates =@. - ,y r , the risk of a doored cyclist being struck by a motor vehicle w Low implementation cost through use of existing pavement using parking lane as a barrier } Q DIMENSIONS: S'to 7' plus 3' buffer separating on-street parking from bike lane By moving cyclists behind parked vehicles bicyclists are less { visible at intersections. As a result, greater design emphasis is t r required to provide sufficient sight lines at intersections and for the treatment of pedestrian crossings of the cycle track o- W • TYPICAL APPLICATION: t .y I 0 • Streets with multiple lanes and high traffic volumes Streets with high travel speeds ( 30 mph) ` . „a', ! ` µ,w "3 6' u+m+ Streets with high-parking turnover (ensures the cycle track is A Qr 47'cu*ta rb sufficiently protected throughout the day) Street segments with few intersecting driveways or cross-streets - COST: r Low PEER COMMUNITIES: Portland, Oregon; Missoula, Montana; New York City, New York City, New York ; j '7 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Portland Bicycle Plan for ~i 2030 (Appendix D) I alts tea, ®llttlL/OMII{{OCIATlI,IMC. DESIGN 1 f 1A. J At some intersections bicyclists require additional assistance in making certain movements, -(e.g. bicycle only movements separate to traffic movements and where there are turning conflicts with motorists, transit, z or pedestrians). In these areas, bicycle signal heads can be used to provide Z additional guidance to bicyclists and other roadway users. Bicycle signals are used in combination with conventional traffic signals and use the standard ,green, yellow, red lenses with the addition of a bicycle stencil. These N treatments: Prioritize bicycle movements and separates them from conflicting • m -j J vehicle traffic movements Improves comfort for bicyclists V Are preferable to instructing bicyclists to use pedestrian signals DIMENSIONS: Signal head should be clearly visible to oncoming bicycles ° Bicycle phase should provide adequate clearance time and actuation/ detection (if not pretimed) TYPICAL APPLICATION: Intersections with bicycle only movements or conflicts with other roadway users ~o n r I c( v i )cry2• [rLV= r•uw..,l. r:.•rL•+_ 'im.xti Itfu.:l [:L••, Multi-use path crossings and other high bicycle volume locations Rj) 45 curoiocac COST: High PEER COMMUNITIES: a Portland, OR; Davis, CA; Washington, DC; Alexandria, VA o ,.s ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: Currently there are no standards for determining bicycle clearance times. Design and operation should consider general MUTCD guidance, local` t ON C conditions, and engineering judgment A bicycle signal in use in San A bicycle signal with Luis Obispo ( i keeps bicyclists separated in time bicyclists to obey the signal e 1111111i ~fITTf L00Mf L1fO CIfTYY,IMG. ~ ~r IIAA •TIT<.••~rw.. :u AiII1wY0 jPESIGN SUMMARY W Left-turns are often difficult for bicyclists, especially when cyclists must • make their turn from a bike facility on the right side of the street by crossing vehicle traffic lanes. Two-stage turn boxes (sometimes referred to as Copenhagen lefts, hook turns, or box turns) provide an option for bicyclists co safely make left turns in two stages. In a two-stage left turn, cyclists / il proceed straight through the intersection with the green signal and wait in " a queue box in front of vehicle traffic on the cross street to proceed through the intersection when the cross street gets a green signal. These treatments: Z Increase bicyclist comfort making left turns Reduce conflicts between bicyclists, turning motorists, and pedestrians - in the crosswalk Are preferable to instructing bicyclists to use pedestrian signals Disadvantage: Increases signal delay for bicyclists , DIMENSIONS: W Up to 9' long and 3' wide with bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement E J _ markings. Green thermoplastic background is recommended Located in a protected area between bike lane and parking lane or W o setback crosswalk on streets with no parking lane V Located between cycle track and motor vehicle travel lane on streets Q with cycle tracks to the right of on-street parking TYPICAL APPLICATION: xt ■ Rom Signalized intersections o rc S N 1 Streets with high traffic volumes and/or speeds _ „ O Streets with a significant number of bicyclists making left-.turns COST: Low (without thermoplastic) Medium (with green background)Q l i r s t PEER COMMUNITIES: ~ t Portland, OR; New York City, NY G ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: A two-stage left turn box in use CROW, Portland Bikeway Facility Design Guide r near Portland State Univers.1 4 In Vancouver, BC bicyclists are ty :i directed to use the ! left-turn allows bicyclist to safely wait for I ~11 queue box via •.directional, traffic to clear before crossing pavement markings r i alta tea,, •inxuax uaeoeutx0. ixe ~ DESIGN SUMMARY> Bike boxes move back the stop bar for vehicles at signalized intersections O in order to create a designated area for bicyclists to wait during the red signal phase. Bike boxes create a more comfortable and safe environment for cyclists by increasing their visibility to motorists and providing them a W way to get ahead of queued traffic. Increases visibility and safety of cyclists 4 m • Helps prevent "right-hook" conflicts between cyclists and vehicles ~ Facilitates cyclist left turns and transitions from right to left side bike lanes (if box extends across entire intersection) C~ DIMENSIONS: Transverse lines shall be used to create a bike box 10' to 16' deep and indicate where motor vehicles are required to stop (MUTCD 38.16) A Bike Symbol or Helmeted Bicyclist Symbol (MUTCD 9C-3A or 9C-3B) shall be centered between the crosswalk line and stop line Bike boxes may be combined with a green colored thermoplastic background TYPICAL APPLICATION: _ Signalized intersections on streets with bike lanes or cycle tracks ( v I c I. I I c~ OMo Intersections with high volumes of motorists and bicyclists intersections with frequent motorist right-turns and/or bicyclist left- 46!Cu,N~o p turn COST: Medium (without thermoplastic base) High (with green background) PEER COMMUNITIES: 1 Portland, Oregon; New York City, New York; Copenhagen, Denmark x ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: i NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, MUTCD lit , + - • • green behind i j boxeslocat a SW 14th Ave and i bicyclists waiting for a signal Burnside _ _ M. l -rye Street _--S . NITTYLiON 94900 CIpTYt,INC. VAN AVIIIwNP . DESIGN I M~i [ Wayfinding signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and z along bike routes, including where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist "decision points." Wayfinding signs displaying destinations, Q distances and "riding time" can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing users' comfort and accessibility to key destinations. Lim A cost-effective yet highly-visible treatment that can improve the [rnTVUU i riding environment O Visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bicycle route and ® ® 4 should correspondingly use caution s+ May be combined with on-street pavement markings I DIMENSIONS: Note that too many signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is j I recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than per vehicle signage standards. TYPICAL APPLICATION: WIN • To NVn Tail I ~ Designated bicycle routes Bicycle Boulevards COST: Source: NACrO Low PEER COMMUNITIES: Wayfinding signage is standard in many communities in the US ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: MUTCD, NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Bicycle Boulevard Wh T - Planning and Design Handbook, www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook. ` C{p ~oNNEp ASKS r php y I ~jALTOH 8' t ~ L0a ~ fiNE~PAR alts %A [In[.[o[u[eomAT[[,ipa al K DESIGN SUMMARY> Bike-only entrances, also known as "choker entrances" are intersection curb extensions or raised islands allowing full bicycle passage while 1"- restricting vehicle access. When'motorists approach a bike-only z entrance at a cross-street they must turn onto the cross-street while W bicyclists may continue through the intersection. These devices can also be designed to permit some vehicle turning movements from a p ` cross-street onto the through street while restricting other movements. T Maintain through bicycle travel on a street while physically ~J restricting through vehicle traffic f ` Direct through vehicle traffic onto parallel higher-order streets O Most effective when higher-order streets can sufficiently accommodate the diverted traffic E%CEP:T (BICYCLE'S, LLI TYPICAL APPLICATION: [ Bicycle Boulevards or other low-traffic streets where motor vehicle cut-through traffic is not desired rr ir ~,.pt n Jr 1.1.1 y5 W. ~x 2 ~Ye~~ „ • COST: 4 • It[ Low PEER COMMUNITIES: Portland, Oregon; Vancouver, British Columbia ` - } i ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: Alta Planning + Design and IBPI, Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook,www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php,ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan r i f Bicycle {l A choker entrance use Boulevard Portland, OR r alto RITTFI{OP l1ifOC1/rT®I,INC i►~ I e.xrrur.iur n.~u3ii.... rt v.rr. ~ ^;Ii1wYP . r N ' J Where the placement of racks on sidewalks is not possible (due to narrow sidewalk width, sidewalk obstructions, street trees, etc.), bicycle E g parking can be provided in the street where on streetvehicle parking is allowed. Racks can be clustered in a parking space, or they can be located on sidewalk curb extensions where adequate sight distance ! ' t Y. exists. The conversion of a parking stall into a bike corral increases f1' O overall parking capacity on the street by providing space for 12 F 41~~ bicycles. V W 'd p t u DIMENSIONS: Varies by jurisdiction, but generally consisting of 6-12 "staple" racks r M lined diagonal or perpendicularto the roadway.The corral is the width of a parking space j 1 Hi-visibility striping and/or flexible bollards may also be used to It demarcate the bike corral area r TYPICAL APPLICATION: Streets with a high density of retail, commercial and restaurant establishments Streets with a high demand for bicycle parking }r COST: ! • LOW E - - _r 3 y - PEER COMMUNITIES: Portland, Oregon; Ashland, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: a City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, http://www. portlandonline.com/transportation/ I it A standard bike Corra in use in ill Downtown Portland, R 1 RITTILYf, ~,1- , rF •T' . • M1 •ONL49000IATE{.IgC r_!P K D W Bike sharing is a form of public transportation that is gaining momentum globally to help cities become greener, quieter and healthier places to live. It is a unique opportunity to convert non- bicyclists to cycling and to increase the visibility of bicycling. all ILA The key to successful bike sharing systems is density. Stations 1 - should be located reasonably close together so as to always be ;r , r f W convenient, and there should be more bicycle docks located at major Y transportation hubs, employment centers, entertainment areas and large institutions. Bike sharing programs can help travelers complete the "last mile" of a transit trip and provide an inexpensive and , • y., ii j W convenient mobility option for short trips. DIMENSIONS: System size and type varies byjurisdiction i o { COST: High: Funding is required for capital and ongoing operating costs. Options include public funds, private sponsors and advertising PEER COMMUNITIES: •,,1 y/~ P Washington DC; Boston, Massachusetts; Montreal, Quebec; Denver, ' 1• Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: h Alta Bike Share Resources http://www.altabicycleshare.com/ resources; The Bike-sharing Blog http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com r s lQ leineuae uaeoeute4~Ae. DESIGN SUMMA, Automatic counters like the those used in Copenhagen (top right) W provide a public display of the number of bicyclists that pass a particular location each day. This technology provides valuable data , L for future planning and evaluation, but perhaps more importantly, highlights the success of well-used infrastructure, encourages t bicycling, and serves to legitimize bicycling as a key component of the r r _ f transportation system. Other popular automatic counters (bottom . right and left) record bicyclist movements similar to how motor vehicle ® O traffic counts are taken. Though not highly visibble, these types of counters can help illustrate existing capacity/demand for a given- bicycle facility. TYPICAL APPLICATION: 1 - On facilities with high numbers of bicyclists At locations that serve as main entrances/exits to the central' + 1^. I z business district or other defined area ` w Before and after the installation of a bikeway facility _ p COST: i y. O • Medium K ` ` PEERCOMMUNITIES t { Q Copenhagen, Denmark; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:. '"k':{ The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project Infrared Counter at x ' t 'Rose Diego, Bicycle Path in San f • ' IITTtLiORI AYYOCIAT60INC ~ 'LI riruTr a ~•..rer.Tinrr~• ~ A\IIIwMO -DESIGN SUMMARY>> Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, J as they provide an area for pedestrian travel that is separated from vehicle traffic. Sidewalks are typically constructed out of concrete and _ are separated from the roadway by a curb or gutter, landscaping, and on-street parking. Sidewalks are a common application in urban and, suburban environments. W The Sidewalk Corridor is typically located within the public right-of-way between the curb or roadway edge and the property line. The Sidewalk , I• Corridor contains four distinct zones: the Curb Zone, the Furnishings T N Zone, the Through Pedestrian Zone, and the Frontage Zone. I ; I _ kl Curb Zone: defines the pedestrian space from the roadway and 'i` ► . n prevents water in the street gutters from entering the pedestrian spaceI Furnishings Zone: buffers pedestrians from the adjacent roadway, and is also the area where elements such as street trees, signal poles, utility poles, street lights, etc are located Through Pedestrian Zone: the area intended for pedestrian travel. This zone should be entirely free of permanent and temporary objects r Frontage Zone: allows pedestrians a comfortable "shy" distance from the building fronts DIMENSIONS: Sidewalks should be at least 6' wide, exclusive of the curb and other obstructions Must enable two pedestrians (including wheelchair users) to walk side-by-side, or to pass each other comfortably COST: k ` High PEER COMMUNITIES: i Most jurisdictions have guidelines for sidewalk construction a • ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: NOW, W out also takes care to keep the Pedestrian Through Zone clear of ADA Standards for Accessible Design alts Aa, Curb ramps allow users to make an easy transition from the street to the sidewalk. There area number of factors to be considered in the design and placement of curb ramps at corners. Properly designed curb ramps ensure that the sidewalk is accessible from the roadway. m A sidewalkwithout a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back to a driveway and out into the street for access. Visual-tactile warning strips provide contrast with the sidewalk and _ alert people with visual impairments to changes in the pedestrian environment. These devices are most effective adjacent to smooth t pavement so the difference is easily detected. They are used at: The edge of depressed corners The border of raised crosswalks and intersections Q The edge of transit platforms where railroad tracks cross the sidewalk DIMENSIONS: ~,'.tPs ~e.~ `yr~' `icrlt~ctYS h - . The landing at the top of a ramp should be at least 4'-0" long and at least the same width as the ramp itself - , • The slope should no more than 1:50 (2.0%) in any direction i TYPICAL APPLICATION: Any street with sidewalks COST: Medium PEER COMMUNITIES: ADA-compliant curb ramps are required ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: ADA Standards for Accessible Design Three different applications of visual-tactile strips on curb ramps MMVMM~ F 1.0 PIP alts A~,, [C lairnuawuacoeuregiNe. L~14~.,~ a~: ter'"~ n{iiuup D V1 z Curb extensions minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by O shortening crossing distance and give pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing. They are appropriate for any crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten the crossing distance x and there is a parking lane adjacent to the curb. (Note that if there is no parking lane, the extensions may be a problem for bicycle travel and 3 sl. truck or bus turning movements.) `W DIMENSIONS: r X In most cases, the curb extensions should be designed to transition W between the extended curb and the running curb in the shortest _ practicable distance. _ m For purposes of efficient street sweeping, the minimum radius for N the reverse curves of the transition is 10 ft (3 m) and the two radii should be balanced to be nearly equal TYPICAL APPLICATION: - u On streets with high incidence of pedestrian-vehicle conflict Where decreasing the crossing distance significantly improves the pedestrian experience Environment/streets with higher pedestrian volumes COST: Medium PEER COMMUNITIES: Curb extensions are widely adopted throughout the US ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities DRAFT - ~a A curb extension in Santa Monica, CA helps to improve crossing a busy intersection FITT{ICON{Il{OCI~T{{,IMC. r~ Irrirv~urrin n.•vT ii.a ~iinr.nn4 ~ ~SIIUNP e Enhanced crossings include colored, textured, and/or raised crosswalks. a These facilities are designed to heighten driver awareness of pedestrian crossings and assign priority to pedestrians by providing an additional visual cue beyond traditional crosswalk markings. Where there is poor motorist awareness of an existing crossing or at high-use locations, t N high-visibility crosswalks can increase safetyfor pedestrians and fff~~~ (A bicyclists. An enhanced crosswalk may also add visual interest to the t O streetscape in locations such as an historic main street or commercial district--areas with high pedestrian activity. DIMENSIONS: d V Common materials for textured crosswalks include brick, stone, i c,, Q x and decorative concrete For raised crosswalks the approach to the crosswalk (ramp angle) W • must consider the needs of emergency vehicles u TYPICAL APPLICATION: 4~ ~ y Q Where a special emphasis on pedestrians and pedestrian priority is r desired • On traffic calmed streets Along routes to school to improve visibility of school children Z W COST: Medium PEER COMMUNITIES Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Charlotte, North Carolina t Q~ I] f ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: _ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Pedestrian and Bicycle ± Information Center ! f i f This red crosswalk in London heightens the visibility of ik f pedestrians crossing thestieo ~xiYreuexaweeeuntixa ~ Median refuge islands help improve safety by providing a crossing refuge for pedestrians and slowing motor vehicle traffic. Refuge islands Q at intersections should have a median "nose" that gives protection to I E. J y Y I• the crossing pedestrian. N . • ~Y I~ ~~t ~ Minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and increasing the number of available gaps for W _ crossing. ■ w Allow pedestrians to gauge safe crossing of "one direction" of v traffic at a time DIMENSIONS: Lim The refuge island must be accessible, preferably with an at-grade LU/ passage through the island ratherthan ramps and landings. € lip The island should be at least 6' wide between travel lanes and at least 20' long The refuge area should be wide enough ( > 6') to accommodate bikes with trailers and wheelchair users * 1 On streets with speeds higher than 25 mph there should also be double centerline marking, reflectors, and "KEEP RIGHT" signage f 1 If a refuge island is landscaped, the landscaping should not t compromise the visibility of pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. t s+ N TYPICAL APPLICATION: ti' r W Where the roadway to be crossed is greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) I Q wide or more than four travel lanes 4 Tom- - W At signalized or unsignalized crosswalks ' a COST: Medium f PEER COMMUNITIES: i Median refuge islands are popular with many jurisdictions throughout the US ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: r _ - < - alto AL, ~•inucan awcaoeurq~wa .~urv.aT. n.-wTi ~v~n. ni Al11lANP DESIGN SUMMARY>- z.. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB's) are a type of active warning O beacon that is designed to alert motorists to the presence of a V pedestrian entering the crosswalk. RRFB's are activated by a pedestrian via a push button mounted on a pole in advance of the crosswalk. The amber lights in an RRFB are high-intensity, similar to those used on emergency vehicles and the flashing pattern is irregular to better W MM attract motorist's attention. W DIMENSIONS: ~ - ;.vr Locate RRFB adjacent to crosswalk facility Rectangular amber LED's should be 2" x 5" and installed directly r Q below crossing sign See MUTCD Interim Reportfor flash rate and sequence J specifications - ' LAM TYPICAL APPLICATION: At uncontrolled intersections with high pedestrian volumes to FL supplement pedestrian crossing/warning sign ~r At uncontrolled intersections where motorist compliance with G1~ existing crosswalk facility is low LAND USE CONTEXT: Urban and suburban COST: - - A m n .,m ,n M r Low r w PEER COMMUNITIES: t 1 i Portland, Oregon; Astoria, Oregon 9- 1W t ♦ ~ ~ . . ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: oil; MUTCD MUTCD - Interim Approval for Optional Use of Rectangular W Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11), NACTO Urban Bikeway Design ) N Guide r introduced li adjacent to uter transit center imp edestrian access TWO _ . alta Aa,: •ITL@U0NAA*%OC1ATM1NC. I_ ' Z O In some cases a demand-responsive pedestrian or bicycle signal V is needed to assist in crossing high traffic volume streets. For the y' demand-responsive signal, a push button or imbedded loop detector _ i ' ' a Q is provided to actuate the pedestrian/bicycle phase. A Pedestrian W Hybrid Beacon is a combination of a beacon flasher and traffic control signaling technique for marked crossings. The beacon signal consists W of a traffic signal head with a red-yellow-red lens. The unit is off until activated, then the phasing of the signal is: Q The signal flashes yellow to warn approaching drivers emu/ A solid yellow advises drivers to prepare to stop The signal changes to a solid red, and a WALK indicator is shown W The beacon signal converts to an alternating flashing red, allowing the drivers to proceed after stopping at the crosswalk, while the bicyclist or pedestrian is shown the flashing DON'T WALK signal g ° r y _ k S TYPICAL APPLICATION: ~J ~ t L Streets along a designated bicycle or pedestrian route where a _ ? a fixed signal phase would cause undue delay to motor vehicle 'bra operations. The MUTCD provides warrants for the use of hybrid beacons based on motor vehicle speed, crossing length, motor - - ° vehicle volumes, and pedestrian volumes. Locations where heightened visibility of crossing is desired - Where bicycle or pedestrian facilities intersect major streets W without existing signalized crossings s COST: Q WA High li r4 PEER COMMUNITIES: Portland, Oregon; Phoenix, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona t 4 , ,t ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: MUTCD 1 , A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon stops traffic on Hawthorne Blvd in i Portland, OR RITTBLION I ASSOCIATE& IRM M DESIGN SYMMARY> J Enhanced pedestrian signals include features designed to make a crossing easier. These include pedestrian countdown signals that display the amount of time remaining to cross the street, or a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), where pedestrians are given a "walk" / 11 designation a few seconds before the vehicle green phase begins. R ' V These are most appropriate is helpful at intersections with frequent conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians. N _ Audible pedestrian signals provide crossing assistance to pedestrians Z with vision impairment at signalized intersections. To be considered for audible signals, the location must first meet the following basic criteria: n. _ The intersection must already be signalized , The location must be suitable to the installation of audible signals, • w noise level, and neighborhood acceptance ' v l There must be a demonstrated need for an audible signal device. l1 W The need is demonstrated through a user request Q The location must have a unique intersection configuration and in characteristics - W Audible signals should be activated by a pedestrian signal push A button with at least a one second-delay to activate the sound COST: W • Medium V PEER COMMUNITIES: Z Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington Q ~ TT ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: ADA Standards for Accessible Design r Z W Speakeron pedestrian traffic Countdown signals help signal. 4 alta Aj, ®xrtrcuox unxocurxgwe M Ir A J a In areas with very heavy pedestrian traffic, an all-pedestrian signal phase gives pedestrians free passage in the intersection when all motor vehicle traffic movements are stopped. By stopping all motorvehicle approaches, pedestrians can cross straight or diagonally through the intersection. + N Pedestrian scramble phases are only recommend where pedestrian ® W volumes are very high and should be used sparingly, given that J the additional phase increases wait times for all modes (including pedestrians) and longer wait times can lead to greater non-compliance. m < ~ C DIMENSIONS: S This non-standard treatment requires explicit signage and pavement markings that explain the facility TYPICAL APPLICATION: i Where pedestrian volumes are very high Z Dense commercial/shopping areas Locations with frequent motorvehicle/pedestrian conflicts COST: Medium f~w PEER COMMUNITIES: V 1 W Oakland, California; Toronto, Canada 0 ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:' W ITS Berkeley technology Transfer Program Newsletter (Spring 2003) , http://techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/03-2/scramble.php i r alta Aa, •:rreiaoxa~seotuieR~Me.'~ ir. K • 3AIIVAONNI 53111N3WV dO1S lISNVkll s M s ~v_ ~h Zl u 1 f III l '1~j _ r-. l ~ i 4 i~-~j ~l `3~ Ljafl 1y 6o~f 4 llf f e v N > Y ° N [ry I' w V n t Y U I LP u R C N N ~ C CIA Q o°c' a o .n v Y ° c a.+ Y tO N Ol O !•6 a~ d U T D. O ~ y 3? ~ ~ Q G ~ = ~ N Ul ~ ~ Y N O in ~ Q ~ H .N Ol UI N> E v~ QN C N Q V a O N N v1 LU c (o ra ~ E aCu °~ra t Q `6 v a mC L o- E o O Y Q r0 L Ol aL-. C O N N ip cam' Yv Ecpv vQ c. v N = N 01 rp ~n N N in a-+ °C~ is ~ ~ °aEi~y Ev cvo~°-"OO-a LQ Ol ro in OL- _p L Ul til N a Vt U E ro cu d a a..n V O) o N Z p iUl_+ > > w- N p Ul Z Q a N E m N Ot C v O v L E W d N ¢ ip y, rC c U1 Ot T °-.C - in O Y 2 V G t m D 2 O a.. .n O c C a Z N r w N O a O. v O) N c OV t%1 O- O J a{{ Y Q `1 c 0 >1 6i V L L U F in O O Z 2 N 41 w -O E MOD CD N d Q d cm Q W Q Q F S 2 ~ F- V N ~ a H 0 1]0 H N 0 V d Q g W'0 g, momwam i s Q a wdw DNISSOU3 a31VHVd3S 3aVH9 t y'~ r CN3 :d '•s - oil T v V d. 01 i!e T~ p N vmi C V O m v V R ~ t0 ~ <t 3~v~ x n v O o? c r~ v i m v m 'p ' m ` Ta ~Ol N V N p iL C > C •U n N w d N L n u - -O L~ w N E c ¢ m Y .0 -z- y0 O o ;u V 01 v t ti -o > v _ n E fO TT UI % N _ ~ U ~ _O F-~ v m C E v> 4o r m ow°J,a~iE° ¢E c mov _p vvv°Ov ow ooa 30 roc Q1 OJ N = N > O N .n ~ C N v1 ~ C ra n ~ O -O ~ 4 'gyp Y V -O _ ma u_2 ~ v E E F -°'o x v w C C d 0 2 a,~; o~ o~ T v U A v L°, - F' L, D o, ~o - C i-- z v Q. w E -°c a`i a3 O N rip i0 -o w v v L Q c p -o O m -p 'C Z L O L ¢ L> L > L J S C _0 ` _ .N Ol m W F- lJ n Vl l.1 > > F S OC LL m m W W C O n y~y O d ¢ V' O C 0= -F D • 3ARVAONNI 1N3W39VNVW SSD:)V "Ic 00 1 p6 C N -O C C C N A n~mEc~E a ; z~ 01 C C ~ W~ C a C w O w 6 c C N v C ' O o O V N C .n O C C u 0 °i f w la E CL E v ca c .o c v c W p Y C w C in .0 O -0 c O' O m V ` C N -O O. T o 4, tO m o w, O G N Oa O O> O J O U L N v`i U N O~ w N v C rG \ C O C E V N A ° Y ra m C N L V v. E T Y V C O T m N c C ~n ra V V `ti 0 •m E E ~a O la O O Y 0 0 E E a, 0 3 v m o v .n ' L C E E C an• al N N N a u Q o 0 0 o z v rn v v m Z u_ ~ ° E° v 5 L rn w v v ¢ ,a~aia S ¢ QE,a O1c o a U EE c¢ 3` N O ya al U U 'p L t C ra > O c C3) r+ d N Y YO z , M J ra K -0 cE>o~ > ¢ 0) ° Eo_ z v-0 ~v0M v~~ J '71 v` -o O uc o a-m 6 3 Y>° c a> o N w ¢ o a m - v O w O LL~ ~a o E ~ E,. ~ u a ¢ (133H15 (13HVHS) 3b3N00M ~-III g~ III _ F E< z v a rx $ III Gg 5 - G~ X fry v-.. Y.~.~ ~ ~^,u :.mow.. 'GS t {il IS, ~ ~ m w w vi w ti c 00 ai W L T -o o° o aci u Y I-- °w ° a3i tca o a c 3 c tUa o>,orcvo'vmE~E ^LO Ku p N c E Q C H C O L > m 0 w C N N L w w Y C w w ~I, m Y d O Y C w p w° -O ' C O w 3 C mw~E - r: E> Y c L w y `p n N N C- L U w w E O TL c L = n L 'm o 3 m~ L E N Y ~j 0) Y- c m u m !%t m „i w V n rns rn 3 m aci w L o c Eo`-'rn~'L O;~aoE wwLL OC>~~ tla av o ITS O 'O IV N 'V Y O E N `J v H Y O Y m m vn w -p m i6 > rL N Y.L.+ T in d L m Y N m C vi 'a. O C w N -6 w E -6 1°] v Uai C v rOa c N C C E A N s `Y C Y rY°a Ot `C° of 75 L~a~iao» ova YOr o'ao °EpO°'L vc3E~' wa a~i a01i c ~npE~vEa m._~Qw YF- I, c - O >i C° C> vt m OJ t^ L_ m aw. V Z, Y E-o V in E C an N m N m -oo`°pc3Y„r>lo° mavim0,, fE a~o~vo> :-°m o E - v fl.a m ° U E E a o. v ~a° cc~ooEvu~J a EOM" crr~a`mLLYsv co a° vdvc w c m p 2.- m~ U` L E E m E -O C .n 'D U L w T v Q L a w Y \ U \ > U CO 4 -Z V e 0 O m> °V in O Y C Ol G Y T O v L=71~ U .n O, M N> IV U m i O w .n Ol N 'a+ C_ _D- a p `l N N C Ol m -O 01 vVi d io C C T `p r0 ai !4 O P 6-0 -p m w a O m N N Y m N N 3 OJ C w L N TL -O M U O E Y p Yw wm rraLmEY a3ca-o `m ~•ar:. n?N ~E.om~t,t IV IV ins m.Ymc c w Z,.o A I M IXI c aiw a o o u 3 = O wY `-c° F o v t`"a o v 'ZI v > .0 c o 3 N> IV _0 v w-o °u~'O:YA MIA-0 c-M E >tYA E m c v - m a+ _O L -6 m> m w w E M Z vLi~ rco 'O E v o~ ° ~vLi m (133b1S (13UVHS) JH3NOOM rt, , +y y', r ■ ~ ..wC '~.ayu ..sTilM~7 vigil 6 i pip Es t~< ~ N Ol'N C O N O) O N tl! -0-0 v '.n C L « V w is LCO V1 V~ H w d V ~ ~ N Y: O O y u c O r, C C T.OI ~ O L C o _ C V O 13i n C a= U o rz -00 O 3 o c "y _s L -O ~ ✓i T> > O O C w N c Ol O C - Z N OJ O1 N O S 9 N Y v V C ~Y N ~ C 'V N d ~ N ~ C w C~ -O N V N .3 O w IO C N C vYi V~1 = N N ~ ~ UI T'Ol O - ~ t+ 01 = yr ~ C R O v j 3 u _O v O.r V i+ Ul N C C L .01 ~l N C~ V O 9 L V rn L iii f- V M.p yr C 2 C O. OZ V vtoNi z p m N N O O O H O W N ¢O C '6 8) oc w y c 0) m o. ~ d v w of o U; -0 Q 0--0m Ou °J m F 0 u a Q Gty of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update Ocro6er 2012 ty L/ } - - x T - - ,,y f 1 a r- r s i4- - 'i,~-• Sources: USGS, ESRI. TANA. AND - tr:e.>:ate - PlaonW 0uulevam cry uce B.:ulevard Planned Avenue C', -'s Avenue PlannedNeghbcrhoodCoiled-n: Figure ' -NeighoorhoodCollector PI-dNeOhborhondStreet Street Dedication Map 10-1 Shared Steel - Spacial Transportation Area 0-p-1- N9lghhorhpod Street Urban Buonesa Area D-gnabon Crtyof q.d,land Tran5pnrI it,- SyNern Plan updare OCMb,,, 207, - j.-.F . J f - I 1 L ~ I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S _ sources uses. ESP] TANA AND 8 i -Ime"ta!e pm-dBculevam Bowl and Planned A-, -1rL,11$ Figure Avenue - - - Planned Neighborhood Collector - Ne0bohooCCollector Planned Neighbommd Street Street Dedication Map 10-1 - Ch. a; etl Stleer ~ S~ec~al tra~sDCrLbo~ area Ces:o^a^_- - 4e'o^.DC moad SDee' J2 a~3cs ^.esx area Ce.:gYro-. s x