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