Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Packet February 2017Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 1 of 7 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2017 CALL TO ORDER Graf called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm Commissioners Present: Joe Graf, Danielle Amarotico, Dominic Barth, Sue Newberry Corinne Viéville, and David Young Council Liaison Absent: Stef Seffinger SOU Liaison Absent: Janelle Wilson Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Mike Faught, and Kyndra Irigoyen ANNOUNCEMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of January 26, 2017 minutes The minutes were approved as amended. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC FORUM None. NEW BUSINESS Nevada St Bridge Anne Sylvester read from the attached Technical Memorandum. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, gave an overview of the history of transportation in Ashland and referred to the attached PowerPoint slides. The first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1982. Our transportation chapter identified the need to have a diverse transportation system. Even back then, there was an initial map in 1983 with respect to arterials and collectors, which identified the connection of Mountain to Oak. In the 1990’s land use planning and transportation was done together, focusing on reducing reliance on automobiles and reducing vehicle miles traveled; there was renewed system on grid systems. The new transportation system plan identifies modal equity. John Karns, City Administrator, formerly the Ashland Fire Chief, spoke from a fire operation standpoint. Medical response time is critical. For this area, we are a little restricted. If we are responding from fire stations it does not make a difference with the bridge, however most of the time fire calls come in while responders are in other areas from a previous call. In 2016 there were over 300 calls to the Mountain Meadows area, 15% were critical calls (cardiovascular, strokes) time of delivery of patient to hospital is critical. Ashland Fire responds to ACH, Rogue Regional, and Providence. In the case of a cardiac event where CPR is in progress, we would go to ACH, which would make a difference in response time if the bridge were there. In case of a major emergency event, people are trying to get out while emergency responders are trying to get in, the more routes the better. Graf asked Karns how many ambulances would use the bridge yearly. Karns said about 100. Faught presented from the attached PowerPoint. Faught said the grant money needs to be used to build the bridge by 2018. He asked RVCOG if the grant money could be used to build a pedestrian bridge instead of a vehicle bridge, which is what was applied for, and that is uncertain. The project would have to go back RVCOG to be considered and could lose the grant money. Viéville asked what happens if more grants are not received. Faught said if we do not receive grant money we would have a conversation of the local residents paying a share of the cost. Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Newberry asked how ADT’s were calculated from peak hour volumes. Sylvester said we have ground counts that were taken by the City for several days, we looked at a correlation of what was counted in the peak hour and what is the whole day. It varies in this area from 9-10%. Newberry asked if the forecast included completion of things like Kestrel Parkway, do they take into consideration the land use plan that is out there and how the traffic would flow if those links are completed by 2038. Sylvester said they take into consideration the comprehensive plan and looking at the elements of what is in the TSP, those are all in the network and are assumed. Newberry said she created some spreadsheets because the maps were a little hard to read. She observed the counts that we are looking at, as far as with and without the bridge, were quite low. Newberry asked if this bridge will significantly decrease traffic in the downtown area. Sylvester said it is a small reduction in the downtown area; it is more noticeable at Hersey and Eagle Mill. Newberry asked how substantial it was at Hersey and Eagle Mill. Sylvester said Hersey is running about 50 with the two directions and Eagle Mill is a bit higher than that. Ted Hall 210 E Nevada St Read from attached letter. Jim Flint 355 Fair Oaks Read from attached letter. Susan Sullivan 305 Stoneridge Ave Read from attached memo. Marty Breon 295 E Nevada St She hopes the Commission considers adopting a 12ft pedestrian bridge that accommodates emergency vehicles. Spike Breon 295 E Nevada St Nevada is curvy and has an awkward connection to N. Mountain Ave. It does not fit the description of an avenue. All we need is a pedestrian bridge. A 12 ft. wide bridge can be built for under $2 million. Dennis Kendig 870 Cypress Point Loop Read from attached letter. Nancy Driscoll 348 Fair Oaks Ave Why did the City of Ashland approve and permit a development after 1998 which obstructs its own goals. The street connectivity and design now in place from the recent City approved development is inadequate and obstructive to the 1998 and 2013 TSP priority project. Fair Oaks Ave is the main avenue into this development. If traffic starts to go through and the development gets larger, people will use Kestrel and Fair Oaks; there are some real problems existing already on Fair Oaks Ave. The medium at the bottom, in front of her home, obstructs fire trucks from getting into the alley. People drive the wrong way on the street to get into the alley. Why would you want more cars? There are children on scooters and elderly people who walk their dogs to the dog park. For four years, she rides her bike, walks, or drives her car daily. She observes the elder, children, animals, wildlife, drainage, very carefully through all the seasons and she has decided there should not be a bridge there at all. Susan Hall 210 E Nevada Read from attached letter. She heard earlier that the connection across Bear creek was to always be a vehicular bridge, this is not true, the original plan to cross Bear Creek was a pedestrian/bike bridge. Tom Mar 955 N Mountain Ave He is disappointed, at the last meeting, the Commission asked the City to present a pedestrian bridge, which was not presented tonight. An auto bridge is counterproductive the goals of the Transportation Commission. More traffic in a family neighborhood is going to be more hazardous. The more cars, the more congestion and frustration, and speed will increase. It will discourage pedestrian travel and bicycle travel. No one wants to be on crowded roads with many vehicles. Construction in a riparian zone that happens to be a major tributary of Bear Creek is not a good idea. This construction will break up the green areas we have there currently and protecting what fish runs are trying to continue Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 3 of 7 to recover. Kestrel Park Way was granted by the City to be in a flood zone. The idea that his bridge will be an alternative to the Mountain Ave bridge, it will not work because it floods in a minor flood. It is not viable. He agrees that the original N Mountain plan had a footbridge and that was changed without due process. This will cost a lot more than just the cost of the bridge. He is against an automobile bridge but is in favor of a pedestrian bridge. Dave Helmich 468 Williamson Way He has been asking for about three years to see schematic plans for alternatives. There is an approach fill on each end, which will have an impact on the neighborhood and the wetlands. The price cannot be estimated without a model. When approvals are done in the Planning Commission they demand schematic plans. This is an unusual project for Public Works. He thinks the Transportation Commission should expect the same level of presentation that the Planning Commission does. It will tighten up what the potential conflicts are from neighbor to neighbor and it will better define what the costs will be. Bryan Fulbright 960 Oak St Maintaining existing streets should have priority over the bridge. A pedestrian bridge would be acceptable only if it were to be part of the greenway completion and economical. There is a bridge over Ashland Creek just before it connects to Bear Creek on the greenway; does not think it costs anywhere near a million dollars to build. In the last election, the measure to increase by 25% the amount of meals tax to buy land and to remove from tax rolls was labeled as a measure to increase road maintenance funds. We need the streets repaired and maintained and not remove more money from the tax rolls. He thinks this project should be dropped. If you build the bridge anyway, will it be maintained as well as Hersey St is now. Greg Williams 744 Williams He takes Admiral Brown’s expertise to the highest degree. We have some real problems in this City. The bridge over Ashland Creek is inadequate. He has written to Faught and the Planning Commission about it. He could spend the million and half fixing that. He was here in ’97, ’74, and ’64 and that bridge completely washed out. Raw sewage was being dumped into the stream; that bridge needs to be fixed. If that washed out, this new bridge will do no good. Now that we have the road diet, people are traveling over that bridge constantly. He encourages the Commission to look at where they are spending the money. Craig Anderson 575 Elizabeth Ave He has been a transportation planner for 25 years and worked for Rogue Valley Council Governments for six of those years. He developed the transportation model that has been referred to with ODOT when he was there. He currently works for Jackson County, but is representing himself, not Jackson County. Transportation projects are primarily oriented towards serving future development. This project is coming before you to mainly provide the infrastructure for the N Mountain plan development. It has been justified and funds were allocated by the NPO for a bypass project. This bypass relies on Eagle Mill Road, which is a highly substandard road that will not be improved by the county; it is not in their TSP. It relies on E Nevada, which is a steep street; it is a 19% gradient over a section of it. It is 24ft wide and there is no development proposed on the right side that would pay for the widening of the street. The City recently completed a project on Plaza Ave. Plaza Ave is a one block street, it has eight residents on it, so the only people who use it are the people who live there or who visit. That project was completed for $800,000; that gives you an idea of the lack of thought that has gone into the construction of projects in the City of Ashland in recent years. He worked with Paula Brown who got the Siskiyou Blvd project done for $2.2 million. That project provides transportation for everyone in the City every day. Another issue that is related to this is the Normal Ave plan that was recently approved. Normal Ave for 20 years plus, was planned as a through connection from Ashland St to E Main. The City had owned right of way, it was a straight shot and relatively easy to construct. When they worked with the developer for that project, the result was a street that meanders around the development and provides excellent access for that development, but provides no connectivity for existing residents. The existing residents are going to end up paying for that street. The cost of the railroad crossing alone is going to exceed the forecast costs for all of the streets that are going to be built. The original cost estimate for this bridge in the TSP is $2 million. We have developers that are paying SDC fees based on those ridiculously low costs in our TSP. Development needs to pay its share. Existing City residents should not have to pay for new infrastructure required by new development. Whatever this Commission prioritizes as its projects should be based on what is in our TSP and what our TSP says in terms of broad policies, which is primarily promoting bicycle and pedestrian transportation and multi modal transportation. This project is not Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 4 of 7 going to do that. RVTD will not run buses up that street and they do not have money to run that route anyway. Andrew Kubik 1251 Munson Dr He has 25 years of planning experience in Cal Trans. He wrote a letter to the Daily Tidings about a year ago. A project should have a purpose of needs statement to be initiated and they need to become justified. They also need to have a project study report. These things did not occur early on. They should have been the first thing that occurred and from there, we would have had a more fluid planning process. The purpose and needs has not been established. Bridges are among the most challenging projects any agency can undertake and he cannot describe the number of pitfalls and surprises one discovers in a course of one of these projects. The $8.8 million estimate that ODOT provided is based upon many things they know; he would not brush that aside, it could cost even more than this estimate. If this were presented to him as a planner, without having the documents necessary and the necessary rationale, he would say no to the project. Linda Peterson Adams 642 Oak St Read from attached letter. David Brabec 440 Drager St Read from attached letter. Jennifer Hall 440 Drager St Read from attached letter. Jennifer Butler 986 Stoneridge Ave Agrees with Jennifer Hall’s comments. We have 17 children living on one block and roam free there. This project will destroy our neighborhood. Megan Danforth 248 Orange Ave She supports so many of the sentiments that have been communicated already. She values the undeveloped places in her neighborhood, there is a huge space of just green space with Bear Creek going through it, and it is not a park. To be able to go down there and enjoy that space in the heat of summer is an exquisite treat for their neighborhoods. She has lived there for 10 years and watched tons of families move in. Her friends on the other side of the bridge have never thought they needed easier access between Hersey and Eagle Mill Rd. The communities on either side seriously do not want this. Is it not our obligation to respond to the immediate need in those areas in order to improve the quality of life. Brian Comnes 444 Park Ridge Pl The City of Ashland is about to embark on the energy action plan. One of the stated aggressive goals on that is reducing our carbon footprint. Any project that promotes more cars is going to work against those citywide goals. Let us stick to a bike/pedestrian bridge and not enable more cars to pass through our town faster. Peter Schultz 375 E Nevada He is in favor of the bridge. He has property on both sides of the bridge. He wants to see pedestrians, bikes and vehicles go across it. He travels to Medford and it is a great way to get to the north Ashland interchange, it is a great way to get to downtown and will save us from going over to Eagle Mill which has no shoulders or room for pedestrians to walk. All the people who live on Eagle Mill are subjected to cars going by all the time, a lot faster than they would be going down E Nevada St. He has heard a lot of objections to the bridge by siting environmental problems, but what it comes down to is that people do not want more cars going by their house and he was there before that subdivision. If he had protested that subdivision, none of those people would be living there today if he had protested successfully. Every road, bridge, and house we have in this town was not there before it was built, we all want to live in houses and drive on roads, it will vastly increase connectivity from east to west and a boom for the area and help traffic in Ashland. He is for it. Beth Oehler 215 E Nevada Read from attached letter. Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Andrea Napoli 325 Stoneridge Ave She is in favor of a connection. She knew when she bought her house a connection would be coming in. She does not want to rely on their car all the time to get to downtown. She would love to be able to walk or bike to downtown. The N Mountain neighborhood is a mixed-use neighborhood; we have one existing commercial building, one mixed- use building currently under construction, and two more mixed-use buildings that will be coming along soon. Right now, the existing commercial building has been empty for quite some time, there was a coffee there but it had to close its doors because of the lack of connectivity. She of course does not want speeding cars past her house, but a 20 MPH roadway with some traffic calming is not that scary to her. She wants to see a bike/pedestrian connection and does not want the commercial to fail in that area. Don Morehouse 325 Stoneridge Ave Agrees with Napoli’s comments. He hears comments about the bridge generating traffic, which he does not agree with. He is in favor of the bridge. The main point is connectivity. He wants to be connected to downtown and Lithia Park. There are not many options right now for getting to downtown or Lithia Park. What we have now is inadequate. Laz Ayala 604 Fair Oaks Ct He is in favor of the bridge. He supports the connectivity for the same reasons that Schultz, Napoli, and Morehouse stated. He rides bikes and there is no safe way to bike out of that neighborhood. There is a need for connectivity and this neighborhood is still in the development process. There is plenty capacity to build for what remains of the vacant land. He lives there, works there, and thinks it makes sense for the community to build the bridge. Mark Knox 485 W Nevada St He is in support of the bridge. He hopes the Commission does not deny the project because of a few neighbors complaining about a few extra trips past their houses. He is asking the Commission to base their decision on the comprehensive plan and sound analysis by at least two certified traffic engineers. The maps that he handed out to the Commission show aerial views that show the growth from 1994 to 2012. Roughly 900 units have been developed or being planned. As a land use planner himself, he cannot imagine how the community does not plan for that type of growth where we do not have any east/west connections. We are sending trips out Eagle Mill Rd where there are no shoulders and cars go by 50 MPH, where kids are walking to their houses without any refuge. He hears many conflicting comments that is ok to push off traffic onto other streets but not in their backyard. There are tough decisions that have to be made and not based on emotion but on sound analysis. Graf said people will have two weeks to send in comments about the bridge before we make a decision. Barth asked about the left turn on Eagle Mill to N Mountain and how that was a problem at the speed, changing the left turn to Nevada would be safer. Why not drop the speed limit on Eagle Mill toward that left, it would solve the problem. Sylvester said the speed limit is set by the state traffic engineer. It is based on a speed zone study. It measures speeds that people are currently driving and they set the limit to what is close to the 85th percentile and that is perceived by drivers as a safe speed. We do not want to set speed limits that are artificially low because that will encourage people to disobey them. Newberry asked about 2.3 on the analysis. She looked at the numbers here and did not see that these comments had anything to do with the bridge because there was no significant impact. Sylvester said she was being comprehensive about where she saw the shifts occurring. She saw a small shift here and this is a problem location that will get worse. Amarotico said people had mentioned slope of that street and if it could be an avenue. Faught said they will answer that at the next meeting. She asked about the developer and the neighborhood and if costs would be passed on to residents and what the chances are of that happening. Faught said his goal is get grant funding for the project and not have residents pay. If the residents did have to pay, it is a shared responsibility because it is a collector; it would be a small piece that would be tied to the neighbors in terms of cost. The rest would be funded by existing funds we have. Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Viéville said there is not a schematic with exact building and costs. Does the City have to do environmental impact studies? It seems that we are being asked to approve a blank check without knowing how much everything will cost. Faught said we are in the early phases of deciding to do a project or not to do it. We hired a bridge building consultant that understands all the environmental constraints. He is confident in their cost estimate. Since we are in the phase of deciding, we do not want to spend additional money until we decide to approve the connection. This is common with Public Works documents. We get a project estimate, then it is approved, then we start with the specific design. If we are not going to do the project it does not make sense to do the full schematic design. Barth said he thought the update of Eagle Mill was contingent with this solution, but it is not in Jackson County’s TSP to improve it. Faught said he did not talk about improving Eagle Mill, what he talked about is that is part of the project. When we did the 2012 TSP update, the technical review committee actually included the County Public Works group. We talked about this as a potential bypass and whether or not that would work in terms of a bypass with the facilities the way they are. They did not have any issues with us as listing this project and supported it as part of the technical review for the TSP update. Amarotico asked how this moves forward if the Commission approves. Faught said we would get larger schematics for design options to review with the Commission and then it would go to Council. He would continue to work on getting the rest of the funding for the project. Graf said he feels an obligation to the people in the developments that are east of the creek, they are sandwiched between I5 and the creek and if there is only one way out, why isn’t Eagle Mill Rd an acceptable second egress for the people who live there. If almost all the people who are going to take the bridge according to the model take it from east to west, are people who would have gone over the interstate and that wouldn’t necessarily be people who actually live in that community. He is confused about the value added of the bridge to the people who live to the east of it and that makes it hard for him to figure out which way to lean on this. Sylvester said we saw an increase in traffic in the model west of Oak St on Nevada. When the connection is built through, there is some through movement of traffic that is coming from Mountain Ave area from the west. Graf said it would be easier for him to understand if he saw the traffic counts from Nevada St and Fair Oaks right now, without the bridge. Sylvester said we could get those counts. She said Eagle Mill is out of the way, it is not going to be improved based on the county’s plans, it is not good condition, not enough shoulder, the intersection and Oak and Eagle Mill Rd where traffic today is making a left and going on Eagle Mill opposed to following the natural pattern of the road to go straight and go across the bridge, logically the way the road is laid out it would direct you down Oak St, it would make sense to do that if you have the Nevada bridge connection. Graf asked if we went with a pedestrian/bike bridge, is it clear that this is the best place to put the bridge? Faught said he is working with parks to do an analysis of where the best location would be. Young said he wants to attend the next meeting via Skype because he will not be in town. He feels that from the get go this thing has been done wrong and backwards. He regrets supporting this from the beginning because he did not have the right information. He does not think this project should be considered and push it back to the TSP update. Viéville said she seconds that. She voted for it without understanding the full implications because she did not have all the information. She would like to push it back to the TSP update and prioritize it then. We could work on other projects in the meantime. Newberry said this project does not do any of things it has been portrayed to do, shown clearly in Sylvester’s traffic modeling. We do not have estimates based on diagrams, drawings or studies. She thinks this project has been a colossal waste of our time. She does not think there is anything that justifies it and all of this should have been done before applying for a grant. She thinks it should be pushed back to the TSP update. Barth said there have been so many inconsistencies with this project and would like it to go back to the TSP update. Amarotico said she would like to have more input from the community for the next two weeks and make a decision then. Graf said he is not sure a vehicle bridge is justified based upon the data he is seeing. He is not convinced the pedestrian/bicycle bridge will be in the best place right there. TASK LIST Discuss current action item list None. Transportation Commission February 23, 2017 Page 7 of 7 OLD BUSINESS None. FOLLOW UP ITEMS None. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Action Summary None. Accident Report None. Making an Impact Newsletter (January) None. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Transportation System Plan update process CIP Budgeting ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyndra Irigoyen Public Works Administrative Assistant TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 315 W Mill Plain Blvd Vancouver, WA 98660 Office 503.341.6248 www.scjalliance.com TO: Mike Faught, Director Ashland Public Works Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon FROM: Anne Sylvester, PTE DATE: February 15, 2017 PROJECT #: 722.01 E. Nevada Street Extension SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis for E. Nevada Street Extension 1. INTRODUCTION This memorandum documents our review of the transportation planning and traffic engineering issues associated with the City’s proposed project to extend E. Nevada Street across Bear Creek. Completion of this project would create a connected east/west collector street to serve the north and eastern portions of the City. Our review includes the following: • A brief synopsis of the history of this project and it’s planning context. • An evaluation of impacts and benefits associated with adding the new connection. These include not only an assessment of its potential traffic-related effects, but also other considerations that related to consistency with City policy, safety, and other issues. • A summary of conclusions. 2. BACKGROUND/POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 1998 Transportation System Plan (TSP) In April of 1998, Ashland adopted a transportation plan that provided policy guidance and standards for development of the multimodal transportation system in the city, and laid out a program of recommended improvement projects. Specifically pertinent to the E. Nevada Street project are the following: • The plan established the street classifications of boulevard and avenue that are intended to be consistent with the more commonly used definitions of arterials and major collectors, respectively. E. Nevada Street was identified in the Plan as an avenue, as was Mountain Avenue, Oak Street, Hersey Street and many others in the vicinity. The following are characteristics of avenues as described in the Plan: o Avenues are intended to penetrate neighborhoods and distribute trips to/from boulevards. They balance a need to provide direct property access with through traffic connectivity. February 15, 2017 Page 2 of 11 o Avenues are expected to carry daily traffic volumes that would range from 3,000 to 10,000 vehicles with speeds typically posted at 25 mph. o Standards for new avenues would typically have two travel lanes (ranging from 10 to 10.5 feet in width), two 6-foot bike lanes, and two 5-foot sidewalks. Ultimate curb-to-curb width of avenues would range from 33 to 44.5 feet. o Street design for both boulevards and avenues shall provide for emergency and fire vehicle access. Street widths of less than 28 feet are discouraged. o The recommended spacing of avenues as a component of the community-wide transportation system is ¼ mile. • Development of the Plan included preparation of traffic forecasts using the Rogue Valley regional model which includes Ashland, but also surrounding unincorporated areas and other communities in the vicinity. The model was used to test alternatives that included consideration of the need for the E. Nevada Street connection. The Plan recommended that the E. Nevada Street connection be made as part of a short-range (five year) plan implementation strategy. As indicated in the Plan, the street “provides needed capacity improvement in North Ashland”. It would provide an alternative route to using the Hersey Street corridor which, in turn, would be improved to provide relief for North Main Street, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. The Nevada Street extension and new bridge would provide for full multimodal connectivity by including general vehicle travel lanes, bicycle lanes and sidewalks (see TSP page 9-4). 2.2 2008 Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets (City of Ashland) In 2008, the City of Ashland adopted a handbook that presents the City’s approach to developing and improving its multimodal transportation system based on the policy guidance of the earlier Transportation Plan and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Key elements of the Handbook that are relevant to the E Nevada Street project include: • The Handbook strongly encourages development of traditional street design in the city which is typically focused on providing narrower streets and an interconnected street network with smaller blocks that better accommodates multiple route choices and multimodal travel. • Section II of the Handbook documents the City’s street connectivity standards that stress interconnectivity, development of walkable neighborhoods, maximum block size, preservation of natural features and other factors. • Section III of the Handbook lays out the specific design standards that are applicable to all streets in Ashland that are under city jurisdiction. These standards are summarized in Table 1 of the Handbook which is attached to this report. Applicable to E Nevada Street are the 2-lane standards for Avenues. As illustrated: o The recommended pavement width for a 2-lane avenue is 32 to 33 feet, with travel lanes varying between 10 and 10.5 feet. o 6-foot bicycle lanes would be provided on both sides of the street, as would on-street parking in 8-foot bays. o The overall street right-of-way would also accommodate sidewalks on both sides and landscaped buffers. February 15, 2017 Page 3 of 11 o This section also notes that the function of Avenues is to “provide access from neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards”, and traffic volumes are expected to range from 3,000 to 10,000 per day (with the lower end of the range being more likely along a 2 lane avenue such as E Nevada Street). Speeds would be posted at 20 to 25 mph. o The Handbook also notes that in certain situations where the physical features of the land create severe constraints, or natural features should be preserved, exceptions to the standards may be made. 2.3 2013 Transportation System Plan (TSP) In 2013, the City completed and adopted an update to the earlier Transportation Plan. The purpose of this update was to reflect new development expectations and the completion of projects included in the prior plan, and to incorporate emerging city values and priorities, particularly with respect to multimodal transportation. Especially relevant to the E. Nevada Street project are the following: • The Plan endorses the City’s 2008 street standards with the addition of a shared street classification. Thus, the street standards identified for an avenue in the 2008 Handbook are the applicable design standards for E. Nevada Street. • The Plan provides existing and future year (2034) traffic volume forecasts and analysis of traffic operations which indicate heavy congestion on Highway 99, particularly in the vicinity of the intersection of N Main Street with Hersey/Wimer Streets and the intersection of Oak Street with both E Main Street and Lithia Way. The intersection of Mountain Avenue at E. Main Street is also currently heavily congested. Crash experience at several intersections in the downtown area is also high, and is generally dominated by rear end collisions. There is a strong relationship between this crash experience and congestion. • The Plan includes Project #R17 to extend E Nevada Street across Bear Creek completing a direct connection between Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. o Nevada Street would retain its classification as an Avenue and the stated purpose of the improvement would be to “balance mobility and access”. The need for the project is high and is recommended to be completed within five years after plan adoption (i.e., by the end of 2017). See attached Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-3 from the TSP for an illustration of this recommendation and the street classification. o It is recommended that this street extension include bicycle lanes with a complete connection to be provided between Vansant Street and Mountain Avenue. See attached Figure 8-1 from the TSP for an illustration of this recommendation. o With the Nevada Street extension, it is recommended that a new transit route (Route 8) be initiated to serve unserved transit-supportive areas along Mountain Avenue. E Nevada Street would form the northern extension of this service that is intended to connect many of the neighborhoods of Ashland to each other and the downtown/Highway 99 corridor. See attached Figure 9-1 for a map of this new proposed service and Figure 9-2 for a map of existing transit-supportive areas that are presently unserved. • The Plan also supports the use of Eagle Mill Road as an alternative bypass route of the downtown area to destinations along Highway 99 north of the city, and the City encourages Jackson County February 15, 2017 Page 4 of 11 to make improvements to this road in a timeframe consistent with the City’s proposed improvements to E Nevada Street. 3. IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF THE CONNECTION This section presents a discussion of potential impacts and benefits associated with the E Nevada Street connection project. Included are: • An evaluation of potential shifts in future traffic volumes associated with the project and the traffic operational implications of expected changes. • Consistency of the project with adopted plans and policies. • Accessibility and connectivity considerations. • Safety considerations. • Environmental Justice considerations. • Air quality considerations. • Potential alternatives to the E Nevada Street connection. 3.1 Analysis of Traffic Volume Changes and Potential Operational Impacts To assess the effect of the E. Nevada Street connection on both localized and community-wide traffic circulation, development of future year traffic forecasts for conditions with and without the connection was undertaken. This section describes the modeling and analysis process, and documents key findings and conclusions. Traffic Analysis Methods and Assumptions The preparation of traffic forecasts was based on PM peak hour data from the Rogue Valley travel demand model that is developed and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) in Salem. This model covers the entire Rogue Valley region from Eagle Point to Ashland, and includes a level of detail for the local and regional street system appropriate for preparing travel forecasts within each community. Model version 3.1 was used as this was the most current scenario available. The future modelling horizon year was 2038, which is four years beyond the analysis horizon used in the City’s 2013 TSP. Separate model runs were made to reflect conditions with and without the E. Nevada Street connection so that the effects of this transportation network change could be specifically identified. The preparation of future traffic forecasts also relied on existing traffic count data which is used to normalize model output. Models are very good at estimating the traffic implications of land development and changes to the transportation network, but models are not calibrated to match existing traffic volumes on each individual roadway. Accordingly, the traffic forecasting process always applies projected growth to real world traffic counts to get a more realistic estimate of likely future traffic conditions. Existing traffic count data used to develop future 2038 PM peak hour traffic forecasts were obtained by the City of Ashland and included turning movement counts (primarily in the downtown area), and roadway segment counts on many of the streets in the vicinity of the proposed E. Nevada Street extension. A review was also made of 2009 PM peak hour turning movement counts collected for the 2013 TSP, where they were useful in understanding potential traffic impacts. February 15, 2017 Page 5 of 11 Traffic Analysis Findings and Conclusions Figures 1 and 2 attached to this report illustrate the 2038 PM peak hour projections for key roadway segments in the community, particularly for roads near or affected by the completion of the E. Nevada Street connection. Figure 1 presents projections for conditions without the E. Nevada Street connection, while Figure 2 shows conditions with the connection. The addition of the E. Nevada Street connection would cause a shift in projected volumes from a number of streets or corridors in the broader Ashland area. Most notably: • A small traffic shift would be experienced on Hersey Street resulting from a spread of traffic east of Mountain Avenue and north of Hersey Street wishing to travel east/west within the city. • A small diversion of traffic that would otherwise use Lithia Way and E. Main Street in the downtown core area, as well as N Main Street, likely desiring to go to/from destination further up Highway 99 north of the city. • A diversion of traffic expected to use Eagle Mill Road to travel between Mountain Avenue and destinations to the north and west along Eagle Mill Road. This could include traffic destined for the I-5 interchange at Valley View Road. As noted in Figure 2, in the 2038 PM peak hour, traffic volumes on the new E. Nevada Street connection are expected to be approximately 195 vehicles westbound and 170 vehicles eastbound. This totals to about 365 total vehicles during that future PM peak hour or approximately 3,000 to 3,600 daily vehicles. This level of traffic represents the low end of the range expected for an avenue based on the City’s street planning and design standards. Traffic volumes will likely be less during the immediate years after construction of the connection pending future growth in the vicinity and increasing congestion on other streets over time. The impacts of these traffic volume shifts are not expected to result in any significant traffic congestion problems at key intersections in the vicinity. A comparative review was conducted based on intersection level analysis conducted for the City’s TSP at the following locations: • E Nevada Street at Oak Street – projected in the TSP to operate at LOS B during the 2034 PM peak hour. Total approach volumes in this earlier analysis were higher than total approach volumes projected for the 2038 PM peak hour without the E. Nevada Street connection, but lower than those projected for conditions with the connection. It is anticipated that future LOS with the connection may drop slightly from LOS B, but it is expected that the intersection would still continue to meet the City’s intersection performance standards. Operational analysis was conducted of projected turning movements at this intersection for conditions with and without the E Nevada Street extension in the 2038 PM peak hour. Analysis results are illustrated in Table 1 below. These results indicate that without the E Nevada Street connection, the intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) B or better for all movements. With the addition of the E Nevada Street connection, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better for all movements. Of note is the eastbound movement at this intersection which is expected to drop from LOS B to LOS C with an increase in average delay of 4.6 seconds per vehicle. This change is not significant and the intersection would continue to operate substantively better than the City’s LOS E standard. Based on information in February 15, 2017 Page 6 of 11 the 2013 TSP, the intersection currently operates at LOS B with an average of 10.7 seconds of delay for the eastbound movement. • Mountain Avenue at Hersey Street – projected in the TSP to operate at Level of Service (LOS) B during the 2034 PM peak hour. Total approach volumes in this earlier analysis are higher than the total approach volumes expected for the 2038 analysis both with and without the project. This is because, 2016 baseline traffic counts have dropped in comparison with the 2009 counts used in the TSP. This has been a common occurrence in many communities since the Great Recession. Operational analysis results are illustrated in Table 1 below. These results indicate that with or without the E Nevada Street connection, the intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) B or better for all movements. Based on the 2013 TSP, the intersection is currently operating with very similar levels of delay. Table 1: Summary of 2038 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Without E Nevada Street With E Nevada Street Intersection Movements Delay (sec) V/C Ratio LOS Delay (sec) V/C Ratio LOS E Nevada Street @ Oak Street NB Left 7.6 0.03 A 0.03 7.6 A EB All 0.12 11.0 B 0.24 15.6 C WB All 0.03 11.2 B 0.32 12.7 B SB Left 0.00 7.5 A 0.09 7.7 A Mountain Avenue @ Hersey Street NB All .047 13.4 B 0.46 13.2 B EB Left 0.03 9.2 A 0.05 9.4 A EB Right 0.34 10.5 B 0.30 10.1 B SB Thru 0.25 10.1 B 0.30 10.5 B SB Right 0.04 7.8 A 0.03 7.6 A Note 1: NB means northbound, SB means southbound, EB means eastbound and WB means westbound. Note 2: V/C Ratio refers to the relationship between projected traffic volumes and expected street capacity. Note 3: LOS means level of service. 3.2 Intersection Improvements and Stopping Sight Distance E Nevada Street at Mountain Avenue Improvement In conjunction with the E Nevada Street extension, the City of Ashland has developed a proposed project that would improve the connection between E Nevada Street and Mountain Avenue. This project would relocate E Nevada Street from its existing intersection with Mountain Avenue approximately 230 feet north of Fair Oaks Way further north to be directly opposite Skylark Place (driveway to the Skylark Assisted Living facility). This location is within the upward climb from the existing E Nevada Street intersection to the I-5 overpass to the north. This project would eliminate the two 90-degree turns that currently exist on E Nevada Street immediately west of Mountain Avenue, replacing them with a more gradually turning alignment. This improvement would result in greater separation between E Nevada Street and Fair Oaks Way and would consolidate turning movements on Mountain Avenue near the northern edge of the city to one location. February 15, 2017 Page 7 of 11 E. Nevada Street at Mountain Avenue Sight Distance Using American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) methodology, the minimum stopping sight distance at the intersection of E Nevada Street with Mountain Avenue is 250 feet for a 35 mph design speed, which is considered a conservative assumption based on a 25 mph posted speed limit and similar 85th percentile speed data gathered on Mountain Avenue to the south. Based on field research conducted by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering (SOTE), the existing sight distance from E Nevada Street at Mountain Avenue is approximately 310 feet looking to the south and 495 feet looking to the north. Thus, to the south the existing intersection has close to the minimum sight distance required, and has more than sufficient sight distance to the north. As measured by SOTE, at the new intersection location sight distance is approximately 500 feet to the south and 380 feet to the north. Thus, both the existing and proposed E Nevada Street connections area shown to provide the minimum stopping sight distances as recommended by AASHTO. The existing location is shown to have greater sight distance to the north than the proposed location (495 feet versus 380 feet), but the proposed location is shown to have greater sight distance to the south than the existing location (500 feet versus 310 feet). A copy of the sight distance analysis report prepared by SOTE is appended to this memo. E Nevada Street at Oak Street Sight Distance Visual observation by SOTE of sight distance at the intersection of E. Nevada Street with Oak Street indicates that all approaches have good visibility that is inhibited in some locations by vegetation. If necessary, vegetation within the public right-of-way could be pruned to improve visibility. Eagle Mill Road at Oak Street Sight Distance Visual observation by SOTE at the intersection of Eagle Mill Road with Oak Street, indicates that sight distance is constrained by the curving road alignment and bridge to the south of this intersection (assuming that the Oak Street/Eagle Mill Road through moving segment runs north/south and the segment of Eagle Mill Road that passes under I-5 runs east/west). This sight distance constraint affects both southbound left-turning vehicles and westbound right turning vehicles in an area where speeds are posted for 35 to 45 mph. Traffic on both of these movements would be diverted by the E Nevada Street project and would become through movements. This diversion would reduce the potential for crashes at this location. Sight distance is also constrained by an existing earthen slope located in the northeast corner of the intersection. This particularly affects vehicles turning left from Eagle Mill Road onto southbound Oak Street. 3.3 Consistency with Adopted City Plans and Policies As noted in the discussion under Section 2, E Nevada Street has been functionally designated as an Avenue with the intended purpose of providing connections within and between neighborhoods, linking them to boulevards or other regionally-significant roads. The role of avenues is to balance accessibility and mobility by providing both for through-moving traffic and property access. The proposed project to extend E Nevada Street across Bear Creek as a multimodal street facility is entirely consistent with the definition of an avenue and was recommended for implementation in both the adopted 1998 Ashland Transportation Plan and the Transportation System Plan adopted in 2012. The project is also included in the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. February 15, 2017 Page 8 of 11 3.4 Accessibility and Connectivity The E Nevada Street extension is intended to play a key role in building an interconnected traditional street network in North Ashland as recommended by adopted plans and the City’s street design handbook. National guidelines recommended that as an area develops and its street system is established, collector streets (or avenues in Ashland) be established at approximately ¼ to ½ mile spacing depending on density, physical features and other connectivity in the vicinity. As there is no east/west collector north of Hersey Street to serve the entire North Ashland area between I-5 and Highway 99, there is a need for a connection to serve overall traffic circulation in North Ashland, particularly as the community develops. The E Nevada Street extension provides the only realistic opportunity to meet this need. The benefits of providing connectivity such as E Nevada Street include: • Provides access to/from and between neighborhoods consistent with the long term land development plans in the area. • Provide access and circulation for emergency vehicles traveling between neighborhoods and to/from police or fire stations or the Ashland hospital. For example, calculation of travel time savings between the Skylark Assisted Living facility on Mountain Avenue near I-5 indicates that with the E. Nevada Street connection the travel distance to the Ashland hospital would be approximately 1,660 feet shorter and about ¾ minute faster. The use of this structure by non- local emergency vehicles would necessitate a street cross-section that is wide enough to safely pass any bicyclists or pedestrians on the structure without slowing. • Provide walking access to schools, such as Helman Elementary School, where some students must currently be driven. • Provide access to the Bear Creek Greenway. • Provide a shorter path for pedestrians and cyclists for general east/west travel. • Providing street system redundancy in the event one travel path is heavily congested or unavailable. • Provides better sharing of the traffic burden as opposed to relying solely on Hersey Street for east/west travel north of the railroad. As noted above, the purpose of a designated Avenue such as E Nevada Street is to provide access to/from and within neighborhoods. As such, they are intended to carry some through traffic, as well as local traffic. As noted in Comprehensive Plan policy 10.09.02.32 boulevards, avenues and collectors are specifically excluded from the discussion about discouraging non-local traffic on a local street. Thus the use of this road by traffic traveling between Mountain Avenue and destinations to the west is entirely consistent with its function and street classification. 3.5 Safety Considerations As noted above under the discussion of the City’s 2013 TSP, there is currently a relatively high incidence of crashes occurring in the downtown core area, particularly along E. Main Street and Lithia Way, as well as the Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street and N Main Street corridors. These higher crash rates are typically correlated with traffic congestion as there are a significant number of rear end collisions. Diversion of traffic away from Highway 99 and the downtown area that is anticipated to result from the E Nevada Street connection would help to address these existing safety problems. It is not expected that the street connection would result in any greater safety concern that other typical avenues in the city – most of February 15, 2017 Page 9 of 11 which have operated with relatively low crash rates (based on TSP analysis of roadway segments and key intersection throughout the city). A review of more recent available crash data (2011 through 2015) indicates that there were no reported crashes on Mountain Avenue at the intersections with Skylark Place, E Nevada Street or Fair Oaks Avenue. One crash was reported at the intersection of E. Nevada Street with Oak Street. This crash occurred on April 30, 2012 at 11 am and involved an angle collision between a westbound vehicle turning left from E Nevada onto southbound Oak Street and a vehicle traveling south on Oak Street. Failure to observe right- of-way was cited as the cause of the crash. 3.6 Environmental Justice Considerations A concern has been raised about the impact of the E Nevada Street extension on Environmental Justice (EJ) populations. According to the US EPA, environmental justice, by definition, refers to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Meaningful involvement for minority, low income and other interested parties requires outreach and engagement to ensure that groups facing difficult barriers to participation are included in decision-making about federal actions, particularly through the NEPA environmental process. Federal actions include transportation funding of community projects. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that EJ requirements are met for federally-funded transportation projects in the Rogue Valley region. To assist, in 2014 they published an Environmental Justice and Title VI Plan which documents EJ review requirements and provides the demographic information about EJ-covered population groups including low income, minority, non-English-speaking, senior and others. Typically, an environmental justice evaluation is conducted to ensure that impacts to these groups are fairly considered. When the E Nevada Street project was incorporated into the RVGOG’s Regional Transportation Plan consideration was given to potential EJ population groups and no issues were identified. 3.7 Air Quality Considerations The two pollutants of concern in the Rogue Valley include Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Particulate Matter (PM10). Since the E Nevada Street project is included in the RVCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as project #161, an analysis of potential CO and PM10 air quality impacts was conducted. Called an Air Quality Conformity Analysis, this evaluation found that the roadway improvement projects in the RTP (including E. Nevada Street) would not result in exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO. The analysis of PM10 indicates that the project may have a net benefit to air quality. 3.8 Potential Alternatives to E. Nevada Street Connection A potential alternative to the E Nevada Street project has been suggested through the public process. This improvement would entail construction of a new interchange on I-5 at Mountain Avenue. A quick assessment of this option raises some potential concerns. These include: • Development of an interchange at this location violates Oregon Highway Design Manual (HDM) policies on interchange spacing along an Interstate Highway. Minimum interchange spacing in an urban area is identified as being no closer than every three miles. The distance to the existing interchange to the north (Valley View Road) is about 2.5 miles. The distance to the south (Ashland February 15, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Street) is about 1.9 miles. Neither of these meet the minimum interchange spacing standards and it is highly unlikely that such a project would be approved. • The addition of an interchange at this location would also need to satisfy FHWA’s criteria under the Added Access Decision Report process. This process requires that local circulation problems be solved on local streets. It would also be unlikely that FHWA would approve this project. In cooperation with ODOT, FHWA has considerable say over the use of and access to interstate highways. • A new interchange would be substantially more expensive than the proposed E Nevada Street extension project. By way of comparison, the recently completed I-5/Fern Valley interchange cost $72 million. • A new interchange would have substantial impact on Mountain Avenue and would likely necessitate building a four-lane road like Ashland Street. • A new interchange at this location would also likely have a growth-inducing impact on land on the east side of I-5 which is outside of the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and not in an urban reserve area slated for long-term development. 4. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the likely traffic consequences of building the E. Nevada Street connection to link Mountain Avenue with Oak Street in the northern portion of the City. As documented in the discussion above: • Projected traffic volumes on this new connection are expected to range from 3,000 to 3,600 vehicles per day in 2038. Volumes are expected to be lower during the initial years of operation. • Based on data available from the City’s TSP as updated by new traffic counts and model projections, no significant adverse traffic operational impacts are anticipated with the new connection. • Past and current Ashland transportation plans and policies support development of this connection to provide necessary system connectivity and route choice redundancy, balance travel demand for all modes, provide the opportunity for new North Ashland transit service, and provide improved emergency vehicle response times, particularly to the Ashland Hospital. • The bridge project provides the impetus and opportunity to improve the existing connection of E. Nevada Street with Mountain Avenue eliminating the two 90-degree turns, and widening the spacing of E. Nevada Street from Fair Oaks Avenue along Mountain Avenue. No adverse impacts to required stopping sight distance are anticipated, and stopping sight distance for vehicles turning left from E. Nevada Street to Mountain Avenue would be improved. • No realistic alternatives are available to meet this connectivity need. Attachments: Figure 1: 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes without E. Nevada Street Connection Figure 2: 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes with E. Nevada Street Connection Table 1: Ashland Street Design Standards, a Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets, 2008 TSP Figure 8-1: Existing and Planned Bikeway Network February 15, 2017 Page 11 of 11 TSP Figure 9-1: Existing and Planned Transit Service TSP Figure 9-2: Transit Supportive Areas Based on Existing Service (shows areas that are largely unserved) TSP Figure 10-1: Existing and Planned Street Network TSP Figure 10-3: Planned Intersection and Roadway Projects Intersection capacity analysis worksheets Memorandum from Kim Parducci to Mike Faught dated February 15, 2017 and titled “E Nevada Street Sight Distances” Oak St W Hersey St E Main St Lithia W a y Neva d a St Oak St N M ai n S t K e s t r e l Pkwy Siskiyou Blvd Fair Oak s Ave Eagle Mill Rd E Hersey St Eagle M ill Rd E Main St Nevada St N Mountain Ave N Mountain Ave Helman St East Dr N Mountain Av e BEAR CREEK B E A R C R E EK ASHLAND CR EEK BE A R C REEK NORTH MOUNTAIN PARK LITHIA PARK 6010 16 0 17 5 14 5 17 0 18 0 20 0 225 165 220 195 205 245 2 9 5 3 7 5 18 5 17 0 55 5 32 5 22 5 13 0 370 320 290155 160 0 1 2 6 0 9 1 0 6065 10 6 5 245 320 125 330 585 685 13 0 10 5 11 0 130 90 50 1515 8 7 5 Figure 1 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes without E. Nevada Street Connection 95 75 Figure 2 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes with E. Nevada Street Connection 1010 26 5 29 0 195 170 115 95 14 5 17 0 18 0 20 0 180 195 195 175 180 225 2 9 0 3 9 0 21 0 19 0 57 0 32 5 23 5 13 0 365 320 290155 157 5 1 2 3 5 9 0 0 70 75 10 5 5 245 320 125 330 585 685 16 0 17 0 10 20 10 0 50 149 0 8 6 5 0 500 1,0001,000 1,500 2,000Feet N Oak St W Hersey St E Main St Lithia W a y Neva d a St Oak St N M ai n S t K e s t r e l Pkwy Siskiyou Blvd Fair Oak s Ave Eagle Mill Rd E Hersey St Eagle M ill Rd E Main St Nevada St N Mountain Ave N Mountain Ave Helman St East Dr N Mountain Av e BEAR CREEK B E A R C R E EK ASHLAND CR EEK BE A R C REEK NORTH MOUNTAIN PARK LITHIA PARK 6010 16 0 17 5 14 5 17 0 18 0 20 0 225 165 220 195 205 245 2 9 5 3 7 5 18 5 17 0 55 5 32 5 22 5 13 0 370 320 290155 160 0 1 2 6 0 9 1 0 6065 10 6 5 245 320 125 330 585 685 13 0 10 5 11 0 130 90 50 1515 8 7 5 Figure 1 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes without E. Nevada Street Connection 95 75 Figure 2 2038 PM Peak Hour Volumes with E. Nevada Street Connection 1010 26 5 29 0 195 170 115 95 14 5 17 0 18 0 20 0 180 195 195 175 180 225 2 9 0 3 9 0 21 0 19 0 57 0 32 5 23 5 13 0 365 320 290155 157 5 1 2 3 5 9 0 0 70 75 10 5 5 245 320 125 330 585 685 16 0 17 0 10 20 10 0 50 149 0 8 6 5 0 500 1,0001,000 1,500 2,000Feet N _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Standards Handbook August 2008 City of Ashland Page 20 Table 1: City of Ashland Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB AREA TYPE OF STREET ADT R.O.W. WIDTH CURB-TO- CURB PAVEMENT WIDTH MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVEL LANES MEDIAN AND/OR CENTER TURN LANE BIKE LANES on both sides PARK- ING CURB on both sides PARK- ROW on both sides SIDE- WALKS on both sides 2-Lane Boulevard 8,000 to 61'-87' 34' 11' none 2 at 6' each in 8' bays 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 3-Lane Boulevard 30,000 73'-99' 46' 11' 12' 2 at 6' each in 8' bays 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 5-Lane Boulevard ADT 95'-121' 68' 11' 12' 2 at 6' each in 8' bays 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 2-Lane Avenue 3,000 to 59'-86' 32'-33' 10'-10.5' none 2 at 6' each in 8' bays 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 3-Lane Avenue 10,000 ADT 70.5'- 97.5' 43.5'-44.5' 10'-10.5' 11.5' 2 at 6' each in 8' bays 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 Neighborhood Collector, Residential 1,500 to NA NA 3 No Parking 5,000 49'-51' 22' 11' none 6" 8' 5'-6' Parking One Side ADT 50'-56' 25'-27' 9'-10' one 7' lane 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Parking Both Sides 57'-63' 32'-34' 9'-10' two 7' lanes 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Neighborhood Collector, Commercial Parallel Parking One Side 55'-65' 28' 10' one 8' lane 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 Parallel Parking Both Sides 63'-73' 36' 10' two 8' lanes 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 Diagonal Parking One Side 65'-74' 37' 10' one 17' lane 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 Diagonal Parking Both Sides 81'-91' 54' 10' two 17' lanes 6" 5'-8' 1 6'-10' 2 Neighborhood Street, Residential less than NA NA 3 Parking One Side 1,500 47'-51' 22' 15' Queuing one 7' lane 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Parking Both Sides ADT 50'-57' 25'-28' 11'-14' Queuing two 7' lanes 6" 7'-8' 5'-6' Alley NA 16' 12' paved width, 2' strips on both sides NA NA NA none none none none Multi-Use Path NA 10'-18' 6'-10' paved width, 2'-4' strips on both sides NA NA NA none none none none 1 7’ – 8’ landscape parkrow shall be installed in residential areas, a 5’ hardscape parkrow with tree wells shall be installed in commercial areas. 2 6' sidewalk shall be installed in residential areas, 8'-10' sidewalk shall be installed in commercial areas. A 10’ sidewalk shall be required on Boulevards (arterial) streets in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. 3 Bike lanes are generally not needed on low volume (less than 3,000 ADT) and/or low travel speed (Less than 25mph) streets 4 All dimensions and ranges in the City of Ashland Street Design Standards represent minimum standards or ranges for the improvements shown. The approval authority may require a dimension within a specific range based upon intensity of land use, existing and projected traffic and pedestrian volumes or when supported through other applicable standards. The approval authority may approve dimensions and ranges greater than those shown when volunteered by the applicant. E MAIN ST IN T E R S T A T E 5 S B SIS K I Y O U B L IN T E R S T A T E 5 N B B ST OA K S T ASHLAND ST A ST N M A I N S T GRA N I T E S T WA L K E R A V CL A Y S T C ST N M O U N T A I N A V SC E N I C D R TO L M A N C R E E K R D E NEVADA ST E M I G R A N T C R E E K R D DE A D I N D I A N M E M O R I A L R D 400 BE A C H S T 405 NO R M A L A V AS H L A N D L O O P R D HEL M A N S T GL E N V I E W D R PA R K S T IOWA ST WIMER ST TE R R A C E S T DIT C H R D G R E E N S P R I N G S H W Y 6 6 LIB E R T Y S T ASHLA N D M I N E R D S M O U N T A I N A V CROW S O N R D HOLLY ST POMPADOUR DR N L A U R E L S T W NEVADA ST L I T H I A W Y OA K K N O L L D R FA I T H A V E HERSEY ST H O R N C R E E K R D WIN B U R N W Y 40 4 RO C A S T WIG H T M A N S T LIT W Y RA Y L N MI S T L E T O E R D PR I M S T HIL L V I E W D R PINECREST T R IN D I A N A S T BE S W I C K W Y MO R T O N S T GA R F I E L D S T WA L N U T S T E H I L L S D R WAT E R S T AL T A A V GRANDVIEW DR VAN N E S S A V LIN D A A V WA S H I N G T O N S T STRAWBERRY LN TAY L O R S T PIN E S T OREGON ST TE R R A A V MAPLE ST GR E S H A M S T VIS T A S T W HERSEY S T ME A D E S T OTIS ST FRANK HILL R D HIT T R D HA R M O N Y L N DIANE ST ORA N G E A V SHERIDAN ST FOX S T W F O R K S T SIX T H S T HOMES AV EUCL I D A V AL M O N D S T CL A R K A V IVY LN BR I D G E S T HA R R I S O N S T CLINTO N S T AL I D A S T AV E R Y S T MO R S E A V JENSEN LN WE S T W O O D S T CHUR C H S T C R E S T V I E W D R CRE E K S I D E R D WOODLAND DR BE N S O N W Y JA Q U E L Y N S T FO R D Y C E S T RO C K S T AIR P O R T R D MAYWOOD WY ABBOTT AV PEACHEY RD WINDSOR ST AS H L A N D A C R E S R D PATRICK LN GL E N D A L E A V BE L L V I E W A V LIN C O L N S T UNI O N S T GA R D E N W Y HENRY ST LE O N A R D S T OHI O S T WA T E R L I N E R D TH O R N T O N W Y FAIR OAKS AV EMMA ST EL K A D E R S T GU T H R I E S T PI L O T V I E W D R ALMEDA DR CA L I F O R N I A S T FO U R T H S T PATTERSON ST OXFORD S T SEV E N T H S T MORADA LN WWT P R D MA R Y J A N E A V HIDD E N L N PA L M A V GL E N W O O D D R CREEK DR N P I O N E E R S T KENT ST CAMBRIDGE ST W JA C K S O N R D ORCHARD ST PA P E S T MCKENZIE CANYON RD CLEAR CREEK DR CR O C K E R S T TW I N P I N E S C R SK Y C R E S T D R WE L L E R L N ALNU T T S T CO U R T N E Y S T GAER K Y C R E E K R D MC BRIDE LN FOREST ST MAE ST WILLIAM S O N W Y GLENN S T RA N C H R D EM E R I C K S T MCC A L L D R SPR I N G C R E E K D R MUNSON DR JOY AV JESSICA LN VA N S A N T S T RUSSEL L S T EX I T 1 4 S B O F F A S H L A N D PR A T H E R S T BEACH A V YORK ST JE F F E R S O N A V SKYL A R K P L ALDER LN FO R K S T AS H L A N D C R E E K D R SY L V I A S T LOG A N D R DRAGONFLY LN TIM B E R L I N E T R AUDRY CR SUTT O N P L SH E R M A N S T ST A D I U M S T DO V E R A V MO N R O E S T SAN D E R W Y M E A D O W L A R K W Y WEISSENBACK WY CL A Y S T E NEVADA ST EL K A D E R S T HI G H S T IOWA ST PA R K S T HORN CREEK RD SC E N I C D R TR1 TR2 TR3 B8 B10 B5 B4 B3 B40 B39 B19 B21 B18 B14 B34 B7 B6 B20 B2 B17 B33 B9 B29 B38 B31 B11 B7 B12 B35 B13 B26 B22 B28 B37 B25 B24 B30 B5 B16 TR4 Existing and Planned Bikeway Network 7-1 Figure N G:\ 1 0 - 0 5 6 A s h l a n d T S P \ M X D September 2012City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update §¨¦5 SOU Campus School Rivers Parks Wetlands City Limits Airport High Priority Med Priority Low Priority Bikeway Priority Projects Off-Street Trails Existing Bike Path/Greenway Planned Bike Path/Greenway Planned On-Street Bikeways Existing Bike LanePlanned Bike Lane Planned Bicycle Boulevard Existing Shoulder LanePlanned Buffered Bike Lane Existing On-Street Bikeways 8-1 # !! ®v MAIN SISKIYOU ASHLAND HIGHWAY 66 LIT HIA B AOAK MOUNTAIN WALKER SCENIC IOWA HERSEY CLAY HELMAN NORMAL TOLMAN CREEK PARK LAUREL WIMER GRANITE C RO W SO N O A K K N O L L ASHLAND DEAD INDIAN MEMORIAL WIGHTMAN MISTLETOE BEACH ASHLAND MINE NUTLEY ORANGE MAPLE NEVADA C H U R C H GRANDVIEW GUTHRIE MORTON CHESTNUT WINBURN G L E N N GRESHAM MAIN IOWA NEVADANEVADA HERSEY CLAY MORTONHOLLY TERRACE HILLVIEW INDIANA WASHINGTON STRAWBERRY WESTWOOD FORDYCE MOUNTAIN SCENIC WIGHTMAN CRESTVIEW Existing and Planned Transit Service 9-1Figure N H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\gis\Tech Memo 9 City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update Existing Route 10Potential Long-Term Route 10 ModificationPotential Long-Term Express RouteModified Route 8B !Potential Long-Term Park & Ride #Potential Croman Mill Site Park & Ride September 2012 Express RouteTo Medford §¨¦5 !10 !EX !8 !10 !10 !EX !8 !EX !10!10 !10 !8 !10 !10 !EX !10 !EX !10 !8 !8 ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MAIN SISKIYOU ASHLAND HIGHWAY 66 HIGHWAY 99 LIT H IA B A OAK MOUNTAIN WALKER TOLMAN CREEK SCENIC IOWA HERSEY CLAY HELMAN NORMAL PARK LAUREL WIMER GRANITE CRO W SO N ASHLAND MINE O A K K N O L L DEAD INDIAN MEMORIAL ASHLAND WIGHTMAN MISTLETOE BEACH NUTLEY ORANGE MAPLE NEVADA C H U R C H GRANDVIEW GUTHRIE MORTON WINBURN MAIN G L E N N IOWA NEVADANEVADA HERSEY CLAY MAIN HOLLY TERRACE HILLVIEW INDIANA WASHI NG TON STRAWBERRY WESTWOOD FORDYCE MOUNTAIN CRESTVIEW Transit Supportive AreasBased on Existing Service 9-2Figure N H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\gis\Tech Memo 9 City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update §¨¦5 September 2012 !Bus Stops Bus Route 10 Bus Route 15 Transit Supportive Areas Served Current Service Coverage Area Transit Supportive Areas Unserved City Limits City UGB (Based on 2034 Household and Employment Forecasts) MAIN SISKIYOU ASHLAND HIGHWAY 66 HIGHWAY 99 LIT H IA B A OAK MOUNTAIN WALKER TOLMAN CREEK SCENIC IOWA HERSEY CLAY HELMAN NORMAL PARK LAUREL WIMER GRANITE CRO W SO N ASHLAND MINE O A K K N O L L DEAD INDIAN MEMORIAL ASHLAND WIGHTMAN MISTLETOE BEACH NUTLEY ORANGE MAPLE NEVADA C H U R C H GRANDVIEW GUTHRIE MORTON WINBURN MAIN G L E N N IOWA NEVADANEVADA HERSEY CLAY MAIN HOLLY TERRACE HILLVIEW INDIANA WASHI NG TON STRAWBERRY WESTWOOD FORDYCE MOUNTAIN CRESTVIEW Existing and PlannedStreet Network 10-1 Figure N H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\gis\Tech Memo 9 City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update Interstate Boulevard Avenue Neighborhood Collector Shared Roadway Neighborhood Street Boulevard Planned Avenue Planned Neighborhood Collector Planned Neighborhood Street City UGB City Limits MAIN LIT HIA SISKIYOU LIT HIA B AOAK SCENIC HERSEY HELMAN LAUREL GRANITE NUTLEY ORANGE C H U R C H WIMER MAPLE WINBURN G L E N N GRANDVIEW MAIN SCENIC ALNUTT STRAWBERRY §¨¦5 September 2012 Special Transportation Area Designation Urban Business Area Designation ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! R45 R43 R44 R6 R13R14 R12R5 R11 R2 R8/R9 R41 R42 R39 R38 R40 R35/R36 R19 R31 R24 R26R22 R32 R18 R29 R20 R25 R27 R28 R17 R34 R23 R30 X2 X3 X1 MAIN SISKIYOU ASHLAND HIGHWAY 66 HIGHWAY 99 LIT H IA B A OAK MOUNTAIN WALKER TOLMAN CREEK SCENIC IOWA HERSEY CLAY HELMAN NORMAL PARK LAUREL WIMER GRANITE CR O W S ON ASHLAND MINE DEAD INDIAN MEMORIAL ASHLAND WIGHTMAN BEACH NUTLEY ORANGE MAPLE NEVADA C H U R C H GUTHRIE MORTON G L E N N NEVADA CLAY HOLLY TERRACE STRAWBERRY WESTWOOD MOUNTAIN Planned Intersectionand Roadway Projects 10-3 Figure N H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\gis\Tech Memo 10 City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update §¨¦5 September 2012 XX Project Number !Proposed New At-Grade Ped/Bike Rail Crossing !Proposed New At-Grade Rail Crossing !Planned Intersection Projects !Planned Streetscape Projects Planned Streetscape Projects Planned Road Diet Planned Roadway Projects HCM 2010 TWSC Projected 2038 Baseline 1: Oak St & E Nevada St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 1 40 5 5 5 35 130 5 5 100 55 Future Vol, veh/h 35 1 40 5 5 5 35 130 5 5 100 55 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 1 44 6 6 6 39 144 6 6 111 61 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 384 381 146 405 408 147 172 0 0 150 0 0 Stage 1 153 153 - 225 225 - - - - - - - Stage 2 231 228 - 180 183 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.5 6.24 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.2 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4 3.336 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 560 555 896 560 536 905 1417 - - 1444 - - Stage 1 831 775 - 782 721 - - - - - - - Stage 2 754 719 - 826 752 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 537 536 893 515 517 905 1412 - - 1444 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 537 536 - 515 517 - - - - - - - Stage 1 806 771 - 759 699 - - - - - - - Stage 2 721 697 - 777 748 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11 11.2 1.6 0.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1412 - - 680 602 1444 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.124 0.028 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 11 11.2 7.5 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A -BBAA - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.1 0 - - HCM 2010 AWSC Projected 2038 Baseline 2: N Mountain Ave & E Hersey St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.4 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 15 0 230 0000017510020 Future Vol, veh/h 0 15 0 230 0000017510020 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %200020002112 Mvmt Flow 0 16 0 240 0000018210421 Number of Lanes 010100000010 Approach EB NB Opposing Approach SB Opposing Lanes 0 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 HCM Control Delay 10.4 13.4 HCM LOS B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 59% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 34% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 7% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 295 15 230 155 30 LT Vol 175 15 0 0 0 Through Vol 100 0 0 155 0 RT Vol 20 0 230 0 30 Lane Flow Rate 307 16 240 161 31 Geometry Grp 67777 Degree of Util (X) 0.469 0.027 0.338 0.246 0.042 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.49 6.295 5.085 5.488 4.781 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 651 565 702 647 739 Service Time 3.572 4.073 2.861 3.28 2.572 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.472 0.028 0.342 0.249 0.042 HCM Control Delay 13.4 9.2 10.5 10.1 7.8 HCM Lane LOS BABBA HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 0.1 1.5 1 0.1 HCM 2010 AWSC Projected 2038 Baseline 2: N Mountain Ave & E Hersey St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 155 30 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 155 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %2000 Mvmt Flow 0 0 161 31 Number of Lanes 0011 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left 0 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 9.7 HCM LOS A HCM 2010 TWSC Projected 2038 With Extension 1: Oak St & E Nevada St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 55 35 10 25 160 35 130 5 110 100 55 Future Vol, veh/h 5 55 35 10 25 160 35 130 5 110 100 55 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 61 39 11 28 178 39 144 6 122 111 61 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 714 614 146 665 642 147 172 0 0 150 0 0 Stage 1 386 386 - 225 225 - - - - - - - Stage 2 328 228 - 440 417 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.5 6.24 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.2 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4 3.336 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 336 410 896 376 395 905 1417 - - 1444 - - Stage 1 621 614 - 782 721 - - - - - - - Stage 2 668 719 - 600 595 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 230 360 893 284 347 905 1412 - - 1444 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 230 360 - 284 347 - - - - - - - Stage 1 602 556 - 759 699 - - - - - - - Stage 2 500 697 - 461 539 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.6 12.7 1.6 3.2 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1412 - - 445 686 1444 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.237 0.316 0.085 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 15.6 12.7 7.7 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.9 1.4 0.3 - - HCM 2010 AWSC Projected 2038 With Extension 2: N Mountain Ave & E Hersey St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 200 0000016011020 Future Vol, veh/h 0 25 0 200 0000016011020 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %200020002112 Mvmt Flow 0 26 0 208 0000016711521 Number of Lanes 010100000010 Approach EB NB Opposing Approach SB Opposing Lanes 0 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 HCM Control Delay 10 13.2 HCM LOS A B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 55% 100% 0% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 38% 0% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 7% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 290 25 200 190 20 LT Vol 160 25 0 0 0 Through Vol 110 0 0 190 0 RT Vol 20 0 200 0 20 Lane Flow Rate 302 26 208 198 21 Geometry Grp 67777 Degree of Util (X) 0.459 0.046 0.297 0.298 0.027 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.467 6.342 5.13 5.426 4.719 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 653 561 694 655 749 Service Time 3.546 4.119 2.907 3.213 2.506 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.462 0.046 0.3 0.302 0.028 HCM Control Delay 13.2 9.4 10.1 10.5 7.6 HCM Lane LOS BABBA HCM 95th-tile Q 2.4 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.1 HCM 2010 AWSC Projected 2038 With Extension 2: N Mountain Ave & E Hersey St PM Peak Hour Nevada St Extension TIA Synchro 9 Report SCJ Alliance 02/15/2017 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 190 20 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 190 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles, %2000 Mvmt Flow 0 0 198 21 Number of Lanes 0011 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left 0 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 10.2 HCM LOS B Memorandum To: Mike Faught, Ashland Public Works Director Date: 02/15/2017 Subject: E Nevada Street Sight Distances Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC measured sight distances from E. Nevada Street at existing and proposed connections to N. Mountain Avenue. Results are provided below. E. Nevada Street at N. Mountain Avenue E. Nevada Street currently intersects N. Mountain Street approximately 230 feet north of Fair Oaks Avenue and 150 feet south of Skylark Place. This location is at a low point of two vertical crests as can be seen in the following pictures. (E. Nevada Street is located at the arrow in each picture) On N. Mountain looking south (from I-5 overpass) On N. Mountain looking north (from Fair Oaks) The minimum stopping sight distance, using American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) methodology, is 250 feet for a 35 mph design speed, which is considered a conservative assumption based on a 25 mph posted speed limit and similar 85th percentile speed data gathered to the south. The sight distance from E. Nevada Street was measured in the field to be approximately 495 feet to the north and 310 feet to the south when positioned where a vehicle would pull forward to see N. Mountain Avenue traffic. Sight distance to the south was limited by a vertical curve at Fair Oaks. See below. S.O. Transportation Engineering, LLC 319 Eastwood Drive Medford, OR 97504 Telephone 541.941.4148 Fax 541.535.6873 Kwkp1@Q.com Memor A new E from Sky to the I approxim horizonta Directly approxim limited m overpass Both the distance the north greater s contact u Southern ________ Kimberly Firm Prin Attachm randum E. Nevada Stre ylark Place. T -5 overpass mately 380 fee al curve at the across the s mately 250 fee more on the e s. existing and p s as recomme h (495 feet ver sight distance us with any qu n Oregon Tran _____________ y Parducci, PE ncipal ent: Vicinity M eet alignment This location is to the north. et to the north e I-5 overpass. treet at the e et to the north east approach proposed E. N ended by AAS rsus 380 feet) to the south ( uestions or con nsportation En _____________ E PTOE Map proposes to s within an upw The sight and 500 feet . See below. existing Skyla h and 400 feet h than on the Nevada Street SHTO. The e ) than the prop (500 feet vers ncerns regard ngineering, LLC ________ intersect N. M ward climb fro distance mea to the south. ark Place app t to the south e west approa connections a existing locatio posed location us 310 feet) t ing this analys C Mountain Aven om the existing asured in the Sight distanc proach, sight . Sight distan ach by the sa are shown to p on is shown to n, but the prop than the existi sis. nue along the g E. Nevada S e field from ce to the north distance was nce to the nor ame horizonta provide minim o have greater posed location ng location. P Page 2 of west side ac Street intersec this location h was limited measured to rth is shown to al curve at the mum stopping s r sight distanc n is shown to h Please feel fre f 3 cross ction was by a o be o be e I-5 sight ce to have ee to Memorandum Page 3 of 3 E. Nevada Existing Proposed North Mountain Neighborhood Plan North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Land Use Designations Proposed East Nevada Street Bridge Project Estimated Bridge Costs Conventional Bridge (11’ lanes, 6’ walk, 6’ bike)$6,292,715 One Bridge (with combined 12 Bike/Ped on one side) $5,760,125 Two Bridges (one vehicular the other bike/Ped) $6,292,715 Emergency and Ped/Bike Only (24’)$4,390,400 Realign Nevada and North Mountain $ 430,600 My name is Dave Brabec My address is 440 Drager Street Towns originate when a group of people decide to share a common area. Decisions once made over the campfire are now done over the kitchen table, coffee shops, and occasionally barstool. But the ideas begin with people in a community trying to make something better for their friends and neighbors. The traffic commission, the city council and the mayor put their official stamp on the decision but its true origins begin with its people. That is how democracy works and will continue to work if it wants to remain a legitimate, viable form of government. Ashland is a city that has transformed itself from a rough blue collar logging spot, to a creative, art loving, forward thinking town. Taking the lessons learned from the past and not repeating its mistakes. Thanks to people like you, our citizens, you help continue this effort. You volunteer to insure that Ashland will remain a great place to live, raise a family, and grow in a responsible manner. A town many aspire to become. So it was with great concern when I saw the bids supplied by the public works director. There is no bid for a 12 foot wide bike/pedestrian bridge. How am I supposed to go to my neighbors and friends and make the comparison if this option is not there. So instead of a cordial debate amongst the citizens of our city, I am going to listen to people and their justifiably frustrated comments about how the city is not listening. Instead of saying here are the options, they are going to be yelling where are the options we have been asking for. Where is the option the city originally planned for that runs more true to the theme and spirit of our city. One of alternative transportation, a greener future and a continued safe place for our children and citizens to travel upon. This city has many nature gifts laying before it. Beautiful mountains, wondrous trees and clean running streams. Go to Lithia during rain or shine and see people play around the creek. But instead the city planner only suggest a road wide enough to bypass one of its natural gifts, to raise the speed limit from 15 to 30 so cars can fly around corners, down hills, and across a creek where people want to gather. You and I will decide this debate, like our forefathers around the campfire. I’m not demanding we choose the 12 foot bridge. But I would like to present it to my friends and neighbors over coffee, dinner, or maybe the occasional barstool. Thank-you for your tireless and often thankless job. I thank-you in advance for trying to keep the conversation open and honest. David Brabec