HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Packet March 2017Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Transportation Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please
rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be
allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
AASSHHLLAANNDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN
MMaarrcchh 2233,, 22001177
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes: February 23, 2017 & February 9, 2017
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Nevada St. Bridge (2 Hr.)
Staff Update
Commission Questions
Commission Discussion
Potential Motions
Next Steps
VI.TASK LIST
A. Discuss current action item list
VII.OLD BUSINESS
A. None
VII.FOLLOW UP ITEMS
A. None
VIII.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Action Summary
B. Accident Report
C. Making an Impact Newsletter (February)
IX.COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION
X. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
A. Transportation System Plan update process
B. CIP Budgeting
XI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 PM
Next Meeting Date: April 27, 2017
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Public Works
Office at 488-5587 (TTY phone number 1 800 735 2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
Transportation Commission
Contact List as of March 2017
Name Title Telephone Mailing Address Email Address Expiration of Term
Dominic Barth Commissioner 617-840-5425 586 ½ C Street dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com 4/30/2018
Danielle Amarotico Commissioner 541-840-3770 265 Alta Avenue Danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com 4/30/2017
Joe Graf Commissioner 541-488-8429 1160 Fern Street jlgtrans15@gmail.com 4/30/2018
Vacancy
Corinne Vièville Commissioner 541-488-9300 805 Glendale Avenue corinne@mind.net 4/30/2019
or 541-944-9600
David Young Commissioner 541-488-4188 747 Oak Street dyoung@jeffnet.org 4/30/2018
Sue Newberry Commissioner 775-720-2400 2271 Chitwood Lane sue.j.newberry@gmail.com 4/30/2019
Non-Voting Ex Officio Membership
Mike Faught Director of Public Works 541- 488-5587 20 E. Main Street faughtm@ashland.or.us
Stefani Seffinger Council Liaison 541-708-3665 20 E. Main Street stefani@council.ashland.or.us
Brandon Goldman Planning Department 541- 488-5305 20 E. Main Street goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Steve MacLennan Police Department 541- 552-2433 20 E. Main Street maclenns@ashland.or.us
Scott Hollingsworth Fire Department 541- 552-2932 20 E. Main Street hollings@ashland.or.us
Janelle Wilson SOU Liaison 541-552-8328 1250 Siskiyou Blvd wilsonjan@sou.edu
VACANT Ashland Schools
Dan Dorrell PE ODOT 541- 774-6354 100 Antelope Rd WC 97503 Dan.w.dorrell@odot.state.or.us
Edem Gómez RVTD 541-608-2411 3200 Crater Lake Av 97504 egomez@rvtd.org
VACANT Ashland Parks 20 E. Main Street
Jenna Stanke Jackson County Roads 541- 774-6231 200 Antelope Rd WC 97503 stankeJS@jacksoncounty.org
David Wolske Airport Commission david@davidwolske.com
Staff Support
Scott Fleury Eng. Service Manager 541-488-5347 20 E. Main Street fleurys@ashland.or.us
Karl Johnson Associate Engineer 541-552-2415 20 E. Main Street johnsonk@ashland.or.us
Kyndra Irigoyen Administrative Assistant 541-552-2427 20 E. Main Street irigoyenk@ashland.or.us
Transportation Commission
February 9, 2017
Page 1 of 3
These minutes are pending approval by this Commission
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 9, 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
RVTD Liaison Present: Paige Townsend
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC FORUM
Willow Denon 132 6th St
She lives between B St and C St and since May there have to been two wrecks there on the corner. People speed
down B St at 40 MPH. She is requesting that there be a four-way stop on 6th St at B St and at C St. People will have
to stop at C St and B St instead of flying through in their car. There are yield signs at C St but people still speed.
NEW BUSINESS
Transportation System Plan Update Request for Proposal
Graf and Fleury gave an overview of what the Transportation System Plan (TSP) is and the process for selecting a
consultant for the five year plan update.
Public Forum
Sharon Javna 219 Almond St
Read from attached letter.
Ron Adams 642 Oak St
About 15 years ago he was in Santa Barbara, they have a lot of parking issues during the summer, as a tourist there
he found it refreshing to get on the trolley to get around town, it made it easier, and it was popular. The driver of the
bus pointed out points of interest and there was a sense of community on the bus, it was like a party. He thinks it
would be great to have that in Ashland. The benefits are carbon footprint, fewer cars downtown, pedestrian friendly,
reduce traffic and pollution, reduce competition for parking and eliminate for more parking or parking structures. He
hopes that the consultant that is hired can incorporate the Climate Energy Action Plan and the Downtown Parking
Plan and one that understands municipal public transportation rather than regional. In addition, we need someone
who understands our carbon and emission goals, clean energy goals, and our desire to reduce traffic and the need
for more parking. We need a consultant who understands the need for renewable and sustainable public
transportation.
Marni Koopman 1206 Linda Ave
Read from attached PowerPoint.
James Stephens 640 Oak St
Read from attached PowerPoint.
Transportation Commission
February 9, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Roy Sutton 989 Golden Aspen Pl
He agrees with Denon about the traffic on B St. Having an electric trolley will create less pollution for pedestrians.
Business has to be supported, a proper shuttle would provide equal access to downtown without searching for
parking space. He is in support of a citizen advisory committee to assist the commission.
Susan Rust 42 N Wightman
As the revision of the TSP begins, she urges the commission to include the following in the RFP:
-Ensure all elements of TSP are consistent and supportive with the Climate and Energy Action Plan
-Consultant coordinates closely with both staff and with ad-hoc committee
-Consider how each decision will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
-Coordinate with RVTD in ways the entire system can go from natural gas to electric buses
-Consider methods of providing electric shuttle to transport citizens and tourists in and out of the downtown area
-Coordinate connectivity for all modes of transportation
-Ensure that parking planning is incorporated in the TSP with eye for reducing parking altogether
Elizabeth Hallett 938 Mt. Meadows Circle
She thanked the Transportation Commission for shoehorning us into the new era.
Donna Swanson 863 Plum Ridge Dr
She said she echoes Hallett’s comments.
Huelz Gutcheon 2253 Hwy 99
He seconds everything everyone has said. In the 90’s the buses would pick up anyone who was walking on the side
of the road and it was calm. Now everything is faster. Only 20% more people changed the town. The buses now run
fast. They ruin the ambience of the town because they are running behind. Accidents happen and we do not know
who causes them. The accidents are caused by cars, not the people walking. Everyone is driving fast. Build it and
they will come.
Fleury said he has made additions to the RFP based on comments he has received. Graf said we should include the
bullet points in the RFP. Newberry liked the comment made about including someone who has a municipal
knowledge, not just regional. She asked if it was possible to have a steering committee. Fleury said one of things we
would talk about is the schedule for the transit related issues and have meetings associated with the TSP. Last time it
was the Transportation Commission and the Planning Committee working together for the update. Javna said they
are not looking for an ad-hoc committee right now, they are looking for a citizens committee and call it a steering
committee. She would like the Commission to direct them to form it, so they can report who the members of the
citizen committee are.
Graf said we have the following three groups: One who evaluate the consultants for the RFP. One who will assist in
updating the TSP and one who will help with the transit part of the TSP update. Fleury said all of the meetings that
we have for the update will have a public forum, so if someone is not part of any of the groups, they will have a
chance to give input.
Townsend said in her experience when doing planning projects, there is a citizens advisory committee that can be a
broad reach of citizens from the community and also a technical advisory committee that can be a broad reach of city
staff and others who have technical knowledge that can be available to you. Those committees would work together
and report back to the Commission or Council.
Graf said there is a group of citizens who have been working hard for a long time who want to be part of this. If we
created a steering committee, it might not just be this group and include other members of the community. We neeed
to balance this group and have the right makeup of this committee to make the decisions. Young said the scope of
this to get to a feasibility study and to help guide a feasibility study, with no assumption that it will be feasible. The
charge of this group is to look at many points of view. If we make it too big, referring to the downtown committee, it
could be a drag on the feasibility process. He does not think we need to be concerned of the makeup when we have
a group here already. Viéville said other people will have the opportunity to come to the regular meetings for input
Transportation Commission
February 9, 2017
Page 3 of 3
instead of putting them on the steering committee.
Amarotico asked how we go about recommending this group as a steering committee without excluding others who
are not aware of it. Fleury said he is envisions a sub-committee to focus in on the feasibility of transit and have a
technical advisory committee that focuses on the TSP itself. We have to find a way to give them the power to make
recommendations to the Transportation Commission without being an appointed committee. Young said we should
have a committee that does not require staff but has a liaison between the committee and the Commission. Viéville
said we should have a committee that is loose, where people are not appointed and people can join and participate
when they want. Newberry asked to include in the RFQ that the consultant have experience working with citizens and
find out their ideas how they would work with various groups.
Commission agreed to have a citizens group as a resource to update the TSP.
The Commission agreed to have Dave Young as the liaison to the citizens group.
The Commission agreed to include in the RFP that the consultant will consult with the citizens group.
Newberry asked that we have engagement opportunities with the citizens prior to a draft.
Fleury will include updates in the RFP from this meeting. Newberry will be the liaison from the Commission to help
grade the RFPs. Fleury will have the RFP in May, grade responses in June, and award in July or August.
TASK LIST
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
FOLLOW UP ITEMS
None.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
None.
COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION
None.
FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
TSP update process
Nevada St Bridge (February)
CIP Budgeting
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyndra Irigoyen
Public Works Administrative Assistant
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 1 of 7
These minutes are pending approval by this Commission
ASHLAND 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 of the land use plan 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. 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.
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
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.
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 3 of 7
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
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
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 4 of 7
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.
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.
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 5 of 7
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.
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
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 6 of 7
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, he said it was part of the project. We talked
about this during the 2012 TSP update, the technical review committee talked about this as a potential bypass and
they did not have any issues with us as listing this project and supported it for the 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 asked why Eagle Mill Rd is not an acceptable second egress for the people who live there. If all the people who
are going to take the bridge according to the model, from east to west, are people who would have gone over the
interstate, it would not necessarily be people who live in that community. Sylvester said we saw an increase 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.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
FOLLOW UP ITEMS
None.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Action Summary
None.
Transportation Commission
February 23, 2017
Page 7 of 7
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
E Nevada Street Extension
Transportation Analysis
Ashland Transportation Commission Meeting
February 23, 2017
Introduction
•Review of proposed E Nevada Street
connection from a transportation planning
& traffic engineering perspective
Background
Traffic Analysis
E Nevada Street planning considerations
Background
Background
•1998 Transportation Plan
Identified E Nevada Street as an “avenue”
whose function is to connect neighborhoods
to major streets (boulevards), balancing
through and local traffic
Identifed parameters for design (width and
lanes), speeds and target traffic volumes for
avenues
¼ mile spacing of avenues
Included project to connect E Nevada Street
with a bridge to serve vehicles, pedestrians
and bicyclists
Background
•2008 Handbook for Planning and
Designing Streets
Establishes city’s connectivity standards
Identifies street curb-to-curb widths for
2 lane avenues (32-33 feet) with 6-foot
bike lanes and buffered sidewalks
Daily traffic volumes expected range
from 3,000 to 10,000 with speeds posted
at 20-25 mph
Background
•2013 Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Endorses 2008 street standards
Includes Project #17 –E Nevada Street
extension (street to connect over Bear Creek)
Classified as an avenue –to balance
mobility and access
Serve all modes (vehicles, bikes and
pedestrians)
Identifies a new N Ashland transit route with
E Nevada Street connection as a key link to
serve a largely unserved area
Background
Traffic Analysis
Traffic Analysis
•Developed 2035 PM peak hour traffic
projections on streets in vicinity of E
Nevada with and without the proposed
connection
•Purpose was to identify how this
connection could change existing traffic
patterns in the City and determine if
adverse traffic impacts would be created
Traffic Analysis Approach
•Obtained traffic count data from City
and other sources
•Obtained 2038 PM peak hour traffic
forecasts and other data from latest
version of Rogue Valley regional model
with and without E Nevada Street
•Evaluated model output, developed
roadway segment and intersection
turning movement projections based
on industry procedures
•Evaluated intersection operations
Traffic Analysis Findings
•Shift in traffic volumes observed from other
east/west streets to E Nevada Street
Hersey Street
Main Street/Lithia Way
Eagle Mill Road
•Volumes on E Nevada Street expected to be
about 365 vehicles by the 2038 PM peak hour
Volumes will likely start out lower and
grow as surrounding area develops
Equates to about 3,600 daily vehicles –
low end of range for an avenue
Traffic Analysis Findings
•Intersection operations analysis conducted
at E Nevada/Mountain & E Nevada/Oak
No significant adverse intersection impacts
anticipated
Intersections expected to operate much
better than city mobility standards
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
(Standard = LOS E)EB All 11.0 0.12 B 0.24 15.6 C
WB All 11.2 0.03 B 0.32 12.7 B
SB Left 7.5 0.00 A 0.09 7.7 A
Mountain Avenue @ Hersey Street NB All 13.4 0.47 B 0.46 13.2 B
(Standard = LOS D)EB Left 9.2 0.03 A 0.05 9.4 A
EB Right 10.5 0.34 B 0.30 10.1 B
SB Thru 10.1 0.25 B 0.30 10.5 B
SB Right 7.8 0.04 A 0.03 7.6 A
2038 PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis
Traffic Analysis Findings
•Sight distance evaluated using national
(AASHTO) roadway design stopping sight
distance requirements
E Nevada/Mountain –considered both
existing location and potential relocation of
intersection further north opposite Skylark
Place to improve connections when bridge
is in place
All requirements met with
or without this change
E Nevada St
Traffic Analysis Findings
Existing Intersection Relocated Intersection
Intersection Direction
Available
Sight
Distance
Sight
Distance
Needed
Adequate
Sight
Distance
Available
Sight
Distance
Sight
Distance
Needed
Adequate
Sight
Distance
E Nevada Street @
Mountain Avenue
Looking south
Looking north
310 ft
495 ft
250 ft
250 ft
Yes
Yes
500 ft
380 ft
250 ft
250 ft
Yes
Yes
Sight Distance Evaluation at E Nevada Street/Mountain Avenue
Note: Sight distance requirements based on assumed conservation 35 mph speed which is faster than 85th percentile
speed measured on Mountain Avenue near Fair Oaks Avenue (29 mph northbound and 24 mph southbound.
Traffic Analysis Findings
•Sight distance also evaluated at other key
intersections
E Nevada/Oak –visual observation
indicates some interference by vegetation.
No change with or without the bridge.
Oak/Eagle Mill –visual observation
indicates some obstruction to/from the
south due to curving road and bridge on
Oak. With E Nevada bridge
diversion of traffic
currently using Eagle Mill
Road to Oak Street would
reduce risk of crashes
Eagle Mill Rd
Oak Street
Why Build the E Nevada Street
Connection?
Why E Nevada Street?
•Consistent with both 1998 and 2013
Transportation System Plans
The connection has been adopted city
policy since 1998
Is also included in the Regional Plan
•Safety considerations
No reported crashes (2011 to 2015) at
Mountain at Skylark, E Nevada or Fair Oaks
1 reported crash at E Nevada/Oak
No significant change expected –likely
future crash experience similar to other
streets in vicinity which is low
Why E Nevada Street?
•Accessibility & Connectivity
Connects neighborhoods consistent with long
term plans including ¼ mile spacing standard
Emergency vehicle access/circulation for
larger community. Could save +45 seconds
between Skylark Assisted Living and Ashland
Hospital.
Walking/biking access to Helman School and
general east/west active transportation
Access to Bear Creek Greenway
Street system redudancy
Better sharing of east/west traffic burden
Makes future transit route more viable
Why E Nevada Street?
•Environmental Justice considerations
EJ issues and demographic data were
evaluated when E Nevada connection
added to Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). No issues were identified.
•Air Quality considerations
Analysis of project for inclusion in RTP
indicates that there would be no violation
of national CO standards and may benefit
PM10 pollution levels
Why E Nevada Street?
•Evaluation of Potential Alternatives such
as new I-5 interchange at Mountain
Avenue
Inconsistent with Oregon Highway Design
Manual interchange spacing standards (3
miles required, 2.5 to north and 1.9 to south)
Would not satisfy FHWA Added Access
Decision Report process requiring local
traffic problems be solved on local streets
Very expensive (I-5/Fern Valley = $72 million)
Would likely require reclassification &
widening of Mountain Avenue, may induce
growth east of I-5 or north of existing city
Conclusions
Conclusions
•Projected volumes appropriate for street’s
designated function as an avenue
•No adverse traffic operational or safety impacts
are anticipated
•Past and current transportation plans call for
the improvement as a short-term action (0-5
years after plan adoption)
•Opportunity to improve alignment of E Nevada
Street approaching Mountain Avenue to reduce
street curvature and improve flow. Meets
stopping sight distance requirements.
•No realistic alterntive exists to meet connectivity
need
E
N
e
v
a
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
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
Page 1 of 3
Transportation Commission Meeting
March 23, 2017
Title: East Nevada Street Bridge
From: Michael R. Faught Public Works Director
mike.faught@ashland.or.us
Suggested Next Steps:
If the Commission is inclined to recommend the proposed East Nevada Street Bridge then the
commission should make a simple motion recommending Council approve the bridge.
If the Commission decides to recommend delaying the East Nevada Street Project and have it
further evaluated with the TSP update, then the Commission would need to make a
recommendation for the disposition of the $1.5 million grant.
If the Commission decides to recommend that the East Nevada Street Bridge not be constructed,
the commission should provide recommended modifications to the related AMC as well as
recommend the disposition of the $1.5 million grant listed below.
If the Commission decides to recommend the construction of a bike/ped emergency only bridge
in compliance with the Oregon fire code (minimum 20 feet width; per attached memo from the
City of Ashland Division Chief/Fire Marshall), it will trigger a new project review with the
granting agency. The Commission should also determine if any modifications to the existing
project meet the long term priorities of the transportation system needs.
Discussion Questions:
If the Commission does not recommend approval of the East Nevada Street Bridge specified in
the TSP as high priority project what modifications to the following Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC), Comprehensive Plan, and 2012 TSP will the Commission recommend be made to AMC
18.4.6.040?
a. AMC 18.4.6.040.D.6
b. AMC 18.4.6.040.D.8
c. AMC 18.4.6.040.D.10
d. AMC 18.4.6.040.D.21
e. AMC 18.4.6.040.E.1
2. Comprehensive Plan; AMC 10.09.02.32
a. Modify Transportation element #32 Interconnections between residential
neighborhoods.
b. Modify transportation element #33 Plan for the full improvement of
Hersey, Nevada and Mountain Avenue as alternative routes to the
downtown areas for north-south traffic.
Page 2 of 3
3. 2012 TSP
a. Modify the Street Classification Map.
b. Modify Financially Constrained project list.
What are the Commission’s recommendations for the disposition of the $1.5 million grant for the
project?
If the Commission decides to recommend a bike/ped emergency vehicle bridge only, what width
of bridge would they recommend? Is the recommendation compliant with the Oregon Fire Code?
What other alternative bridge crossings does the Commission recommend to meet connectivity
requirements outlined in the AMC?
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
The proposed East Nevada Street Bridge is identified in the 2012 adopted TSP as a high priority
project and meets Goal #4 “Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian,
bicycle, rail, air, transit, and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through
the City of Ashland”.
This project is supported in the AMC and the Comprehensive Comp Plan as identified above.
Background and Additional Information:
The Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2017 on the proposed East Nevada Street
Bridge. The record was held open for two additional weeks and was closed on March 9, 2017.
Our contract traffic engineer, Ann Sylvester, has outlined the following benefits of the proposed
East Nevada Street Bridge.
The E Nevada Street connection would:
Provide additional access and circulation for emergency vehicles traveling
between North Ashland neighborhoods and to/from policy or fire stations or the
Ashland Hospital. In some cases this new access could reduce emergency vehicle
response times to/from N Mountain Avenue neighborhoods;
Provide walking or bicycling access to/from the Bear Creek Greenway, while also
providing a shorter travel path for pedestrians and cyclists who generally want to
travel east/west across North Ashland or to/from downtown;
Provide vehicle access to/from and between neighborhoods consistent with the
long term land development plans in the area;
Provide necessary street system connectivity and redundancy in the event of an
emergency along N Mountain Avenue and/or Hersey Street;
Result in no significant adverse traffic or safety impacts with the new connection;
Provide the opportunity to improve E Nevada Street west of N Mountain Avenue
by smoothing the S-curves and relocating the existing intersection to a spot
opposite Skylark Place;
Page 3 of 3
Provide the opportunity for new North Ashland transit service in the future as
called for in the City’s Transportation Plan.
The commission wanted to know how the City competes for limited transportation funds through
the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization. The process is a very competitive
process, and the project must have regional significance in order to compete. Generally a project
like widening Foothills as east/west corridor, or Lozier Lane, Table Rock, State projects etc. In
order to compete with these types of projects, our grant applications have to be significant and
listed as a high priority (0-5 years) in the TSP.
There has been ongoing questions about how the remaining portion of the project would be
funded. To that end, I have recently learned that a proposed transportation funding package may
be getting legislative traction. They are considering three funding options: an 11 cent gas tax
increase, a 21.5 cent gas tax increase and a 30 cent gas tax increase. An 11 cent gas tax increase
would generate sufficient funds to pay the debt service on this project.
There has also been a lot of discussion about maintaining the existing infrastructure. The good
news here is that with Ashland voters approving the reallocation of Food and Beverage Funds to
Street maintenance, there will be a little over $1 million available in the next biennium budget
for streets and $2.5 million per year by 2023 after the wastewater debt has been paid off.
The commission had some questions about whether or not we had sufficient preliminary
engineering work to adequately estimate the price of the project. To that end, we will have the
engineer of record at the meeting to answer any detailed questions the commission has.
Responses to questions raised through testimony and by commissioners are as follows:
Testimony
“All collectors or Avenues cannot exceed 7% grade”. In Ashland grades are limited to
15% for new roads AMC 18.4.6.040.c.a. East Nevada is 13.9%, Hersey at North
Mountain is 11.7%, and North Mountain at Hersey is 13.7%.
“A bike/Ped Bridge with emergency service can be 12 to 14 feet.” In Ashland the City
has adopted the Oregon Fire Code that requires a minimum of 20 feet per AMC
15.28.010.
There was a question about bike sharrows on East Main. Our contract traffic engineer
confirms that placing bike sharrows on East Nevada is an acceptable method of providing
bike facilities (examples of other places in town with bike sharrow includes Oak Street
and “A” Street which are both collectors.
Attachments:
Additional Citizen Written Testimony
Memo from Margueritte Hickman, Division Chief/Fire Marshall
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Kim Blackwolf <wolf@mind.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
Dear Joe Graf and Kendra Irigoyen;
I would like to comment on the Nevada Street Bridge proposal. I have reviewed both the available Public Works
materials and the informal discussions about this issue on media platforms. I regret missing the Transportation meeting
at which this was discussed.
I feel the bridge is a good idea. I think having additional vehicle and pedestrian/cycle access is not only a positive for the
community but probably smart in light of potential neighborhood emergencies. The Nevada ‐ Mountain Street area is
only going to continue to grow and I think it has very limited egress considering the numbers of people in the newer
subdivisions, Mountain Meadows, and an additional subdivision now in planning for Nevada up to the freeway edge. I
do not live in that area of town but I am a native Oregonian and a 35 year resident of Ashland. I understand the
oppositions concerns but I also think a lot of it is “not in my backyard.” I feel for those people but feel the larger
advantage to the community as a whole needs to outweigh the adjustment of a few.
Thank you for your time.
Kim Blackwolf
354 Liberty St.
Mail to: P.O. Box 757
Ashland Or 97520
541‐324‐4237
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Mike Faught
Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:46 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:FW: Nevada Bridge Extension Support
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Nora Knox [mailto:nora@mind.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:37 PM
To: Mike Faught
Subject: Nevada Bridge Extension Support
Hi Mike,
I left you a voicemail and wanted to follow up in writing regarding my support of the Nevada St bridge. I have lived on
Nevada St for over 20 years and have watched new homes and new families move across the creek. Unfortunately,
these new families have to travel a very long way to transport their children to school each day. The bridge is a natural
connector to help traffic flow around our town. I sure hope that the bridge can proceed as planned.
I would also love to access Mountain street from Nevada St to access the park and other attractions. I am sorry to miss
this important meeting but hope my support can help the process move forward.
Sincerely,
Nora Wehmeyer‐Knox
485 W Nevada St
Sent from my iPad
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Robb Collins <robbned@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 4:57 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
Kendra,
As a resident of Ashland for almost 30 years, and an avid cyclist, I think that the Nevada Street bridge would be a great
addition to traffic flow in town.
My wife and I live off of Fordyce, it would gave us an optional route in and out.
I recognize there is a vocal opposition to bridge, much of it from the NIMBY folk, while I understand their objection, I
don't think it trumps the greater good the bridge could serve.
I would opt for vehicle ‐ pedestrian type, but as second choice would settle for bike ‐ ped.
Thanks,
Just wanted to add my voice in debate.
Robb Collins
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Stephany Smith-Pearson <stephanysp@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:39 AM
To:danielle@commonblockbrewing.com; dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com; Mike
Faught; Scott Fleury; Brandon Goldman; jlgtrans15@gmail.com; Kyndra Irigoyen;
sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; Stefani Seffinger; corinne@mind.net; dyoung@jeffnet.org
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge Project
To the Members of the City of Ashland Transportation Committee:
I write to express my strong opposition to the Nevada Street Bridge Project.
• The bridge will greatly increase automobile and large truck traffic on Oak Street. Oak Street is
residential neighborhood with no commercial activity and it already bears more than its fair share of
heavy traffic. Big rigs travel up and down the street, as do city utility vehicles and other large trucks.
Their rate of speed is alarming. Many children walk along Oak Street in the mornings, either traveling to
Helman School or waiting for buses. The kids who have to scamper across Oak to get to the sidewalk on
the west side of the street are already at great risk. Increasing traffic on Oak Street will increase the
likelihood of a serious accident.
• The bridge will direct heavy traffic into the East Nevada Street neighborhood, a subdivision with
narrow, winding streets, no sidewalks and no clearance along the verge for pedestrians or bicycles. If the
purpose of the bridge is to increase pedestrian and bike traffic, opening it up to automobile and truck
traffic on East Nevada will have the opposite effect.
• The bridge is being built to accommodate the so-called 100-year flood plain. If this winter has taught us
anything, old flood plain calculations no longer apply. After the floods of 2017 and in an era of global
climate change, flood plains will have to be recalculated. This will inevitably increase costs.
• The last cost estimates for this project were overly optimistic. We have heard estimates from ODOT that
the project could cost upwards of $10 million, not the <$5 million figure being circulated by the City. If
the project exceeds $5 million, as it inevitably will, where will the money come from?
City funds would be much better spent on repaving commercial roads such as Hersey Street and on buying
another snow plow. If this winter has taught us anything, it is that the City of Ashland is woefully unprepared
for snow storms.
The transportation committee has received a lot of feedback about this project and the vast majority has been
negative. Please reflect the will of your constituents and permanently cancel The Nevada Street Bridge.
Respectfully,
Stephany Smith-Pearson
1150 Oak Street
Ashland, Oregon
(541) 890-4652
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Russ Silbiger <russ@zintech.org>
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:00 AM
To:danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com; jlgtrans15@gmail.com; Kyndra Irigoyen;
sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; corinne@mind.net; dyoung@jeffnet.org; Stefani Seffinger
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
Transportation Commissioners:
I am writing in opposition to the Nevada Street Bridge project.
While we may all agree that connectivity is important, when one weighs the positive and negatives of this proposal, it
easily falls flat. Or hilly, since as connectivity goes, this one doesn't cut it.
The "need" for another access? E. Nevada to Eagle Mill. Hersey.
Simple. No need to spend, what? How much. Remember, Public Works estimate. So double it.
Look at the path traveled for connectivity. Up and down a hill, around a corner, through residential neighborhoods. Look
at the extra costs for sidewalks. Why? So a couple of folks that live on one side or the other can save a minute or two?
Seriously?
The proposal for a pedestrian/ emergency access? 90% of the cost with little benefit.
In the grand hierarchy of needs to the City, this one simply does not rise above the bottom rung. Look at your utility bill.
Look at your property tax bill. Look at the projects in the works and what they will cost us. Just because this got stuck in
the grand everything transportation wish list doesn't mean it's the right project for this time.
This is the wrong project at the wrong time. We have already wasted far too much money on this.
Don't throw good money after bad.Just say NO. Try it.
‐‐
Russ Silbiger 541‐227‐6606
In 1998, Nevada Street was a work in
process. It was possible then to draw a
straight line on a map along Nevada
connecting North Mountain to Highway 99.
This looked like a dandy route for a major
collector. But a bridge over Bear Creek
would be needed to complete the
connection. Thus the bridge became a
priority(?) item in the 1998 TSP.
Time passes. The 99 end of Nevada was
blocked permanently by development. On
the Mountain end, residential development
yielded a steep half-street with sharp
curves. Nevada no longer qualified as a
Major Collector. The bridge was no longer
needed, but it persisted like a virus in City
documents with justifiers twisted into knots
to make it seem important.
Today a bike/pedestrian bridge will provide
environmentally friendly and fiscally
responsible connectivity between the
neighborhoods on either side of the creek.
I have read Paula Brown’s letter in the
packet. To borrow a line from When Harry
Met Sally, I’ll have what she’s having.
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 24, 2017 5:06 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Fwd: WOW Very Impressive Commissioners
Fyi
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Hall <srhallrn@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:46 PM
Subject: WOW Very Impressive Commissioners
To: Dave Young Tc commissioner <dyoung@jeffnet.org>, Danielle Amarotico TC Commissioner
<Danielle@commonblockbrewing.com>, Joe Graf TC Commissioner (Chair) <jlgtrans15@gmail.com>,
Dominic Barth TC Commissioner <dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com>, Corinne Vieville TC Commissioner
<corrine@mind.net>, Sue Newberry TC Commissioner <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>
Cc: Susan Hall <srhallrn@comcast.net>
2/24/17
Commissioners,
I want to send over my compliments on the hard work you have done in evaluating the E. Nevada Bridge
project. It was evident last night you had spent considerable time and energy to read and study all the materials
sent to you. And the maps were a challenge! Your questions and queries to Staff and the SJC consultant to
provide needed clarification were probing and comprehensive. You were persistent in trying to get answers
especially if you had conflicting data in front of you & you did a lot of math to try and figure out traffic counts.
It was clear that you could spot data that lacked credibility. For Example: Calling E.Nevada an Avenue when
the maximum grade for an Avenue is 7%??
Really? (E. Nevada +/- 19% ?)
Thanks so much for listening patiently to all the public comments, especially comments from folks with
professional expertise in Transportation and Planning. They had invaluable information on the steps that are
required to initiate a project of this size. Steps that have not been followed. It can't be easy for you to try and
get answers from the Ashland PW department without an Engineer PE as Director. ( Maybe we can BEAM
Admiral Paula Brown PE back?)
There were multiple direct questions by the Commission & public to the City regarding the $$ for the Auto
bridge.....none of which were clearly answered. We just heard a lot of "hoping for" statements regarding where
the needed $$ will appear from.
While it may be premature to comment on this....I believe the decision to reexamine this Project's HIGH priority
status will be a wise one if that is your decision. Ashland has over $8 million in unfunded projects for bike,
ped, ADA , transit and accessibility already on the TSP ....it is a challenge to decide where to spend $$.
We didn't hear a clear answer from the City as to how the "fund exchange" $$ could be redirected or if it could
be redirected. It seems the City PW dept. should be responsible to give the TC clear answers on this. Since it is
crystal clear the auto bridge is not needed, surely the $$ can be used for a 12 foot Bear Creek
ped/bike/emergency vehicle bridge.?? (Built to Oregon Design Standards for Bike/Ped Bridges. )**
2
Again, thanks for your time and hard work. It was very impressive to listen to you last night. Your volunteer
work is much appreciated.
Susan Hall RN
**
I will look these up for you and send them to D. Young to forward.
Sent from my iPad
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:29 PM
To:Georgeanne Hislop; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Re: The Bridge
Thank you for your input. Your letter will be included in the public comments.
Sue Newberry
Transportation Commissioner
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Georgeanne Hislop <georgienurse1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Miss: I live at 275 E. Nevada st. and my house would be right next to the proposed bridge. Just for the
record, I am opposed to the vehicle bridge but could live with a pedestrian bridge. Thank you. Georgie Hislop.
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:danielle@commonblockbrewing.com
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2017 3:04 PM
To:Denise Daehler
Cc:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Re: Nevada bridge project
Hi Denise,
Thanks for your comments. See you tomorrow!
Danielle
Quoting Denise Daehler <denise@liquidassetswinebar.com>:
> Hi Danielle,
> Hope you are doing well. I've been having fun in the kids classroom,
> helping out once a week. It's been fun getting to know Lucas. He's a
> sweet kid and funny.
>
> I wanted to drop you a quick note about the Nevada St bridge. I live
> in that neighborhood and have great concerns about the proposed
> project. It is a nice quiet neighborhood with a lot of kids which is
> rare in Ashland with so many retirees. A through road would really
> change the neighborhood, decrease real estate values and make an
> unsafe place for the kids. It would be very disappointing to see this
> happen. I also believe it would take the community feel away which is
> very strong in the neighborhood. People walk and are out playing with
> their kids and we know each other well. A change to the traffic flow
> would make this area much more transient with people moving in and out
> of the neighborhood more often and that would be a travesty to such a
> close knit community. I know all my neighbors and most of them I know
> very very well. Most say they would move if this goes through. It also
> is an area which has enough traffic noise from the freeway, adding a through road would make the noise increase
tremendously.
>
> I do think the neighborhood would be amenable to a driving bridge that
> was only used as an emergency vehicle pass through that had gates or
> posts to prevent traffic flow.
>
> Thank you for listening.
> Denise
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 26, 2017 2:50 PM
To:Ruth Sloan; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Re: Nevada Bridge
Ruth: Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I forwarded them to Public Works to ensure they become part of
our public input records.
Sue Newberry
Transportation Commissioner
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Ruth Sloan <risible305@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been following the discussions regarding the bridge across Bear Creek at Nevada. I drive and walk
around Ashland a lot, looking for gardens to be honored as the Ashland Garden Club’s Garden of the
Month. A regular automotive bridge at this location doesn’t make much sense to me, especially because the
roads on the east side don’t connect well. The time to realign them would have been before there was so much
development there.
Admittedly the proposed bridge doesn’t have much impact on me and, while a pedestrian/bike bridge might be
fun, it doesn’t appear to warrant the huge cost. I’d hate for the City of Ashland to be responsible for any
further degradation of Bear Creek and its environment for what does not appear to be of a great deal of benefit
to its citizens.
Ruth Sloan
733 Elkader Street
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Scott Fleury
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:33 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:FW: website user
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland, Public Works
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
(541) 552‐2412, TTY 800‐735‐2900
Fax: (541) 488‐6006
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552‐2412. Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Ann Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:32 AM
To: Scott Fleury
Subject: FW: website user
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: christy@whoishere.com [mailto:christy@whoishere.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 4:12 PM
To: Ann Seltzer
Subject: website user
Contact Us Reply Form
From: Chrsty Frenzen
EmailAddress: christy@whoishere.com
Phone: 720‐252‐2747
Subject: Nevada St Bridge Project
Nature of Suggestion: Comments
I would like an email response: no
Message:
I was unable to attend the 2/23 meeting. I do not live in the neighborhood where the bridge is proposed. (I live near
Garfield Park.) Despite the large amount of federal funding the city would likely receive for the project, I strongly oppose
this bridge. Designing our urban environment for the convenience of the automobile over all other values is short‐sided.
As a city that aspires to address climate change with real, tangible actions, we need to rethink transportation
2
infrastructure. Thank you to all on the Transportation Commission who have encouraged community input through
meeting announcements and availability of documents.
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Joseph Graf <jlgtrans15@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 27, 2017 12:30 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Fwd: automobile bridge over Bear Creek at East Nevada
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kim Larson <kimldavem@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:10 AM
Subject: automobile bridge over Bear Creek at East Nevada
To: "jlgtrans15@gmail.com" <jlgtrans15@gmail.com>, Danielle Amarotico
<danielle@commonblockbrewing.com>, "dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com"
<dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com>, "sue.j.newberry@gmail.com" <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>,
"corinne@mind.net" <corinne@mind.net>, "dyoung@jeffnett.org" <dyoung@jeffnett.org>
Hello,
I was unable to attend the meeting of the Transportation Commission on February 23rd but I wanted
to express my opinion.
I object to the automobile bridge. We have lived on East Nevada between Oak and Helman for 14
years. We have continued to watch the traffic on our street increase during this time. As more homes
have been and continue to be constructed this issue will only get worse. There are small children and
animals who are threatened by the increase in traffic. Adding an automobile bridge will only increase
the traffic here. In addition the corner of Oak and Helman is an already busy intersection that will
probably need to be reworked if the automobile bridge goes in.
I would love to see a bike and pedestrian bridge in that area that area for people to enjoy the creek
and natural beauty and connect the neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Kim Larson
128 East Nevada St
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Bill Hernon <bhernon1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:36 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada/Bear Creek Bridge Project
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I appose this project. It is a wasteful use of city funds on an unwanted bridge. This proposed new traffic pattern would
be harmful to family friendly neighborhoods and the money would be better spent on repairing existing infrastructure.
Ex. Hersey st. Sincerely, Bill Hernon
Sent from my iPhone
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Kate & Jim Wolf-Pizor <Wolf-Pizor@ashlandhome.net>
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:52 PM
To:jlgtrans15@gmail.com; dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com;
danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com; sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; corinne@mind.net;
dyoung@jeffnet.org
Cc:Mike Faught; Brandon Goldman; Scott Fleury; Kyndra Irigoyen; Stefani Seffinger
Subject:Proposed Nevada Street Bridge over Bear Creek
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
To the City of Ashland Transportation Commission and staff and Liaisons:
Greetings. My name is James Pizor, I am a homeowner residing at 251 Otis Street in Ashland. I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the proposed Nevada Street vehicular bridge over Bear Creek.
My mother-in-law is a resident of the assisted care facility Skylark, at Mountain Meadows. Hence, I am one of the very few persons in
the Ashland Community who would actually obtain benefit from the proposed bridge. At present I have to take a reasonable route
south to Hersey Street, then east to Mountain and finally north to Skylark. I am not severely inconvenienced and have no desire to see
the bridge built, which might shave at most 3.5 minutes off my travel time.
As to greater Ashland, what benefits are there?
• Neither Firehouse would gain meaningful access time to address an emergency in the City
• I-5 access is readily had by using Eagle Mill Road between Mountain and Valley View (and keeps through traffic out of
residential neighborhoods)
• Elementary School boundaries do not necessitate crossing the creek
Further there are clear disadvantages to the Ashland Community
• Funds spent on the bridge cannot be used for truly urgent problems like Downtown Parking relief
• Risk of Flood Hazard creation by interfering with the Bear Creek drainage flow
• Reduction of wildlife habitat in the Bear Creek ecosystem
• an unnecessary in automobile traffic in the vicinity of the Helman School
Please focus on true problems, like the deteriorating roads throughout Ashland instead of wasting our precious City Resources on a
"bridge to nowhere".
Sincerely,
James C Pizor
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Mallory Loch <malloryloch@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:16 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Kyndra,
I am writing to let you know I oppose the East Nevada Street Bridge project. I feel it is an unnecessary expense
to our neighbors as well as will significantly increase traffic on my quiet street which was definitely a reason we
chose our home there. I would appreciate if you would please take my opposition into consideration with other
comments for the next meeting.
Thank you,
Mallory Loch
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:friedmanneal@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:18 PM
To:kathyandneal@aol.com
Cc:corinne@mind.net; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Proposed Nevada Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Mr. Joe Graf ( Chair) Transportation Commission Ashland, Oregon
c/o Kyndra Irigoyen, City of Ashland Public Works.
Public Works Dept: 51 Windburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
March 2, 2017
Dear Mr Graf:
I am writing to you as a very concerned citizen who resides in Quiet Village.
It strikes me that the concept to build a vehicle bridge over Bear Creek is totally unwarranted. It is difficult to understand
the impetus for this major project, as it doesn't appear that the existing traffic flow is a problem for the residents who
reside in the affected neighborhoods, or the Town's overall traffic patterns. On the other hand, there are any number of
logical reasons to oppose the project.
Most importantly, it seems evident that the resulting increased traffic that would arise as a result of this bridge would
create a much more challenging environment for the many children who attend the Helman Elementary School, who
currently enjoy a delightfully safe and bucolic setting without very much vehicular traffic that is not associated with the
school itself. Obviously those driving to and from the school have a heightened awareness about the inherent safety
issues in this particular area. Absent any overwhelming compelling reason to build this bridge, which
doesn't seem to be the case, the Town should certainly prioritize the safety of the young children who
will attend this school for many years to come, as well as the other children residing in the
neighborhood, over the potential for a slight increase of convenience for relatively few citizens.
In addition, I understand that the cost of this endeavor would be very significant. Once again, without any
overwhelming compelling reason to build this bridge, taking on such a considerable expenditure for
the potential benefit of a relative few seems without merit. No doubt these funds could be dedicated
for infrastructure projects in Ashland that would be of equal or greater benefit to a much larger
number of citizens.
Perhaps there is merit in constructing a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that could also accommodate
an emergency vehicle, provided the necessary steps to protect the Bear Creek environment were
taken. I would be interested in hearing more about the pros and cons of this possibility, including the
comparative cost of the two.
If the underlying rationale for this vehicular bridge is to benefit a few local land owners who wish to
develop their property, this clearly does not represent the common interests of the community at
2
large. I urge you to fight against the proposal to construct the Nevada Street Bridge and would be
happy to assist in this effort in whatever way I can.
Sincerely,
Neal Friedman
420 Willow Street
Ashland, OR 97520
919-632-5053
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Marty Breon <marty@breon.org>
Sent:Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:45 AM
To:Joseph Graf; dyoung@jeffnet.org; corinne@mind.net; Sue Newberry;
danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com; dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com; Mike
Faught; Kyndra Irigoyen; John Karns; John Stromberg
Subject:Final Nevada Street Bridge Community Input
To the Transportation Commission and Public Works:
There was no opportunity for the public to ask questions at the TC meeting in February.
First a couple of contradictions that require clarification.
On the one hand Public Works suggests that “a sharrow” (shared roadway) is safe enough for all travelers (bikers,
pedestrians, automobiles, and emergency vehicles) on the half street that meanders a quarter mile up and around severe
terrain. (This assumes there isn’t funding to acquire needed land and spend millions to fill and grade so Nevada complies with
Avenue standards of 7% grade and 33’ wide.)
On the other hand, Public Works suggests it is unsafe for pedestrians, bikes, and emergency vehicles to share a straight level
200 foot long bike emergency bridge once or twice per week.
Public Works's safety solution of adding a dedicated emergency lane and doubling the cost of a bridge won’t withstand a cost
benefit analysis.
There is a $200 smart phone app enabling EMT workers to monitor the bridge so they could warn pedestrians and bikers to
clear the way for emergency access.
Public Works has pressed the need for multi-modal connectivity on Nevada vigorously over the last year. Now data proves that
there is sufficient vehicular connectivity via existing routes, so an automobile bridge would be a waste of public
funds. Connectivity needs for bikers and pedestrians (the reason for the term multi-modal) at Nevada Street remains. Yet
suddenly Public Works suggests that they may not want to locate a bike pedestrian bridge at Nevada after all.
And Public Works is unsure if the granted funds can be used for a bike bridge.
The Federal Highway Administration states on its website, "Federal surface transportation law provides tremendous flexibility
to states and MPOs to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements from a wide variety of programs. Virtually all the major
transportation funds programs can be used for bicycle and pedestrian-related projects."
The local community supports a 12-14 foot bridge for bikes, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles.
The Fire Chief says that he is always looking for ways to cut response time for calls and he cares about access and not the style
of access.
Such a bridge does not overwhelm the environment, the site, the neighbors, nor public coffers.
Isn’t it time for Public Works, the Transportation Commission, the City Council and the mayor to move forward while we have
the funds? Why would we want to go through the process again only to find the cost has doubled? Public Works and the
Transportation Commission could achieve this by joining forces and making a vigorous recommendation to the City Council to
approve going forward with a bike pedestrian bridge not exceeding 14 feet that can accommodate emergency vehicles.
2
Thank you,
Marty Breon
295 East Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Sascha Meier <saschcpm@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:56 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge to Nowhere Project/Over Bear Creek: City of Ashland
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear All:
I am writing to express opposition to the proposed bridge project on Nevada Street in Ashland. I am amongst a majority
in our community that oppose the building of this proposed bridge as it will not be of positive benefit in any way. It is:
• A careless and unnecessary use of funds: the transportation commission should be looking at other projects to invest
in such as repairing and resurfacing existing roads, etc.
• Danger: Neighborhoods near Bear Creek which are residential locations would be negatively impacted by traffic and
potential accidents with a hazardous winding hill/narrow entry and exit from the proposed bridge. As well, these are not
highly traveled residential streets and access is not necessary for through‐traffic. In no way will it decrease the flow of
traffic on Main Street, for example.
• Engineering: Expert advice has shown severe potential issues in relation to flood regulations and preservation of our
environment with our treasured Bear Creek.
Let's not be the kind of City that uses funding in this matter or makes decisions that negate our values. It would be a
gross mistake for many generations to come.
Sincerely,
Sascha Meier
10 year Ashland, Oregon resident
Sascha Meier
(Cel) 323.376.0328
From:Mike Faught
To:Scott Fleury; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:FW: Nevada st bridge
Date:Thursday, March 02, 2017 2:53:20 PM
FYI
From: jrandbjo@mind.net [mailto:jrandbjo@mind.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:07 PM
To: City Council
Cc: John Stromberg
Subject: Nevada st bridge
It is my feeling and understanding that there is no need for a bridge over
Bear creek joining E. and W. Nevada streets. I am not sure who is pushing
for this construction project but it seems that it is ill-conceived, very
expensive whether for pedestrians, bicycles and or automobiles, and totally
unnecessary!
Even Ashland’s fire chief (and acting city manager) has been quoted that it
would save the emergency vehicles only 45 seconds. I believe that there
has been a needs assessment done which also showed no need. There
are many more important projects on which to spend money for this
community!.....Why is this project being pursued????
Betty Jo Reynolds
505 Helman Street
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Gail Gallaher <gail@mind.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:23 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:East Nevada Street Bridge
To Chairman JOE GRAF:
As a long time resident of Quiet Village, I am writing to oppose the Auto Bridge over Bear Creek.
While I live near the proposed bridge site, I find no need for an auto bridge to give me access to
Oak Street or Mountain Ave. There are already several perfectly acceptable routes available. I do
not want to pay additional taxes for a bridge that is not needed. I do not want to see the existing
neighborhood impacted by increased traffic.
However, I do support the Pedestrian Bridge option, with emergency vehicle use dimensions, paid
for by the city with funds it already has for this purpose.
Thank you for your attention.
Gail Gallaher
340 Cambridge Street
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Susan Sullivan <susansullivan34@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 02, 2017 10:44 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Bridge Public Input
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
To: Transportation Commission Chair, Jo Graf
I want to thank you and the rest of the Commissioners for your respectful reception of the large number of the
Ashland community that gave input at last Thursday's meeting. It was obvious that the large majority of those
who spoke had information and opinions that strongly indicated the inappropriateness of a vehicular bridge.
I and the majority who spoke last Thursday ask that a vehicular bridge be removed from the TSP. The goal of
"connectivity" that continues to be brought up as the motive for building an expensive, technically
inappropriate, and unwanted vehicular bridge could be accomplished with a pedestrian/bike bridge that would
meet the needs and desires of the vast majority of the larger community of Ashland.
Therefore, we ask the Transportation Commission and Public Works to robustly recommend to City Council that they move
forward on a 12-14 foot bike pedestrian emergency vehicle bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada.
Again, I thank you for your willingness to honestly and sincerely receive the input of the public in regards to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Susan Sullivan
305 Stoneridge Ave.
Ashland, OR
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Ted Hall <tedhall22@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 03, 2017 8:16 AM
To:Joe Graf; Sue Newberry; Dominic Barth; Danielle; dyoung@jeffnet.org;
corinne@mind.net; Stefani Seffinger; Kyndra Irigoyen
Cc:Srhallrn; Jennifer Hall; Marty Breon; Jim Flint; Greg Williams; Dave Helmich; Andrew
Kubik
Subject:TC Questions after Staff and public comments 2-23-17
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Commissioners:
I’m hearing impaired so didn’t hear every exchange regarding questions asked and answers given after staff
and public testimony ended last Thursday at the TC, so at the risk of being redundant I wanted to make sure that
the answers to questions governed by Engineering Standards were given to you accurately.
As I think I heard there were the following questions that rely on engineering criteria for an answer:
Thank you for your patience with me.
1. The proper width for a Ped/Bike/Emergency Vehicle bridge
2. Avenue engineering grade slope constraints
3. Effect of Speed limit, traffic calming measures on traffic volumes that might use a bridge at E. Nevada.
4. Where is the Environmental Impact Analysis
5. Eagle Mill Road is the East West connector North of Hersey.
6. Best location for a Ped/Bike/Emergency bridge over Bear Creek.
2
7. Sue Newberry spread sheet analysis correctly identified that a vehicle bridge at E. Nevada will not improve
downtown traffic.
8. Ped/Bike bridge projects funding flexibility and priority ranking when compared to vehicle projects.
9. Also, public comment that "decision should be based on Traffic Study facts not emotion"
Some Of what I did hear was painful to me as Engineering Standards that govern were not discussed.
There are basic engineering standards that dictate for some of the issues you are deliberating, I think were not
explained well to you from what I was able to hear.
Also Thank you for your energy in reviewing this bridge topic you are an impressive group.
In this first e-mail I will address the first issue listed above. And as I have time I will try to get to the others by
the March 8th comment period deadline.
1. Why does the Ped/Bike/Emergency bridge need to be 12-14 feet wide?:
The discussion that I could hear frustrated me a bit as Oregon State standards dictate here and
that was not provided to you by staff. The answer is that the width of a Ped/Bike bridge is
governed by State of Oregon design standards. Those engineering standards are referred to in the
briefing book I gave you at the January TC, under tab 6.
It was painful for me as an engineer to listen to Staff explain an incremental adhoc explanation
for a 28 foot made up width. A lane for an emergency vehicle, a bike lane, a pedestrian lane and
shoulders. The standards are clear, that the width of a Ped/Bike/emergency vehicle bridge varies
between 10 to 14 feet.
3
And a basic common cost criteria is that Pedestrians and bikes do not use the bridge at the time
of emergency! That discussion at the TC somehow inferring that during an emergency there
needed to be space for both public and emergency vehicles all at the same time of an emergency.
No. In an emergency, the yellow tape goes up. The State standard used by all west coast states
is that in an emergency the emergency vehicle uses the same space previously used by
pedestrians and bikes.
The discussion about how long it takes to clear the bridge of pedestrians in an emergency was
unnecessary as for this small of a bridge, is cleared in seconds. The SF Oakland Bay bridge
Ped/Bike path is 2.1 miles long, is 12.5 feet wide and is cleared in minutes as a clear example
that the idea of needing width to accommodate both pedestrians and emergency vehicle at the
same time is not done, and would be a waste of money.
Back to the width determination:
10 foot wide bridge attributes: Allows an emergency vehicle to cross but the vehicle can't stop
and open the doors. Just cross.
12 foot wide bridge attributes:
Allows an emergency vehicle to cross and to stop and open its doors. but costs about $400k more
than a 10 foot bridge.
14 foot wide bridge attributes:
Allows an emergency vehicle to to stop and open its doors and allows additional "clear space."
But again has a slightly higher cost.
4
Refer to the Oregon Ped/Bike/Emergency vehicle bridge inventory under tab 6, pages 31 and
32. There are 10 foot, 12foot and 14 foot bridge facilities in Oregon (and some narrower ones
that don't accommodate emergency vehicles). But note that no uncovered bridges wider than 14
feet are listed there.
Why? Fiscal cost responsibility.
The states quite often must mitigate ped/bike/emergency access through transportation corridors
(interchanges, rail transit, etc). So in order to be fair to communities impacted, many studies
have been done and AASHTO has developed standards so reimbursement mitigations are fair to
all and the same to all communities.
So our Ped/Bike/Emergency Bridge can't be 28 Feet wide. It would be a double waste of money.
A 14 foot wide bridge max built to state standards (see tab 6, table 2, page 21) will be
approximately $2 million. This is what the community asked PWD to study and they came back
with 28 feet, ignoring state standards.
I hope this has helped you to understand what governs the width of Ped/Bike bridges.
Question 2 in the next e-mail will cover the engineering max slope for Boulevards and Avenues.
Regards
Ted Hall
210 E. Nevada
(408)839-3230
Sent from my iPhone
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Dianne Cooper <dcooperld@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 04, 2017 9:48 PM
To:jlgtrans15@gmail.com
Cc:Mike Faught; danielle@commonblockbrewing.com;
dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com; Brandon Goldman; Kyndra Irigoyen;
sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; Stefani Seffinger; corinne@mind.net; dyoung@jeffnet.org
Subject:Proposed East Nevada Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
March 4, 2017
Joe Graf
Chair
Transportation Commission
City of Ashland
Dear Mr. Graf,
My husband and I recently moved to Ashland from the Bay Area. We rented a house on Holly Street
while our house was being built on East Hersey Street. We love Ashland and are very glad we made
the decision to move to this community.
I have been following the discussion about the proposed bridge on E. Nevada Street and while my
first inclination was to be relieved that there might be relief from some of the traffic on E. Hersey, I
have since changed my mind about a vehicle bridge on E. Nevada.
We drove over to Nevada Street and what we found was a quiet, human-scale neighborhood. We
observed neighbors chatting and children playing. It was clearly what we all would identify as “a
neighborhood.” There is no possibility that the qualities that people want in their neighborhood would
be enhanced or preserved by building a through vehicle bridge on E. Nevada.
While we would like to have less truck traffic on E. Hersey, I do not think that the community is well-served by
reducing the quality of life on East. Nevada Street.
2
Sincerely,
Dianne Cooper
183 East Hersey Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
dcooperld@gmail.com
--
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Joseph Friedman <jfriedman1945@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 04, 2017 12:23 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada St. Bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Transportation Commission,
This is not a wise use of tax payer money. There is no compelling reason to build it and there are many better
uses of $6.5million dollars to repair other city streets in dire need of work.
Joseph Friedman
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Joseph Graf <jlgtrans15@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 10:51 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Fwd: E. Nevada bridge public comment
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kyndra,
Here is another e-mail that came to me. A couple more to come.
Joe
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maureen Hicks <mhicks@mind.net>
Date: Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:44 PM
Subject: E. Nevada bridge public comment
To: jlgtrans15@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Graf—
As a resident of Oak Street, I think it would be lovely to be able to walk across a pedestrian bridge from my
neighborhood, over Bear Creek into the Mountain Meadows neighborhood. Lovely, but certainly not essential.
And as for a vehicular bridge? It seems absurd and unnecessary to me, and I’ve read many reports about what
would be involved in the Daily Tidings and elsewhere. In fact, I thought that since almost all of the opinions
expressed were negative about that idea, that it was a settled issue.
But then I just read in the Sneak Preview that Public Works director Mike Faught is STILL advocating for this
bridge?? I felt I’d better write and express MY opinion, since I haven’t done so before. May the scales fall from
the eyes of those who persist in longing for an enormous bridge that would accomplish nothing and create an
oversize, unnecessary structure in a quiet, sleepy neighborhood. And waste a lot of money, to boot! I’m sure
there are many projects in the city that would serve residents’ convenience and safety, but this is not one of
them.
I hope you will convey this opinion to the rest of the Transportation Commission.
Thank you—
Maureen Hicks
755 Oak Street
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Mike Bahr <budcat425@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 05, 2017 4:03 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada St. Bridge Project
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
To: Joe Graf (Transportation Chair)
From: Mike Bahr (73 Nevada St.)
I am writing in opposition to the proposed vehicle bridge for a number of reasons:
1. The project will result in substantial expense. Money could be used elsewhere such as upgrading and
maintaining Hersey St.
2. This connection will route more traffic through the Helman School zone. The development to the north of the
school will already result in more traffic that is not coming to or from the school.
3. The connection will also route more traffic to the south on Oak St. Oak St. is busy enough without the
increased traffic load.
4. The amount of traffic on the segment of Mountain Ave. between the freeway and Hersey is not substantial
now. This indicates to me that a multi-million dollar bridge project is not required.
I do support a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that would be a much smaller expenditure and would not cause the
disruption to this area that a vehicle bridge would. The project as proposed is a solution to a problem that does
not exist in my opinion.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Mike Bahr
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Richard Marak <RMarak@mind.net>
Sent:Sunday, March 05, 2017 7:34 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Chairman Joe Graf,
I live on Cambridge Street in Quiet Village and have had clients at Skylark for 6 years. There are two routs for
me to access the facility which take me around 5 minutes to complete. I have walked on lower Nevada, near the
creek, and find it peaceful and quiet. I don't see the need for increased access in a quiet neighborhood and feel it
would be detrimental to the quality of life for many and because of the increased, cost, traffic and noise in our
city. All this for a minimal increase in convenience for a few. Please do not let this project go ahead.
Wishing you well,
Richard Marak
Elder Support Services, LLC
3-6-17
Phone message received by Public Works department from Anne Barton, 361 Patterson St:
Opposed to E Nevada St bridge project. Would cause too much traffic. Walking bridge would be
fine. Vehicle bridge is a waste of money.
-end-
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Carol Bue <cabue33@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 2:43 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:the bridge being discussed for E Nevada
I'm totally opposed to an auto bridge. The cost is too high and it's not necessary.
Carol Bue
812 Clarance Ln, Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Carol Starr <carol@carolannestarr.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 4:28 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Joe Graf, Chair Transportation Committee
Dear Joe Graf,
I am not in favor of a vehicle bridge connecting East and West Nevada Street. I am sure that you are aware of
the reasons against the bridge.
To expensive
Environmentally unsound
Will not reduce traffic on Main St.
Unsafe for Children
Grade is too steep
Bad Carbon footprint
and more
What is more, I can see that it would cause more congestion at the intersection of Nevada and Oak Streets,
possibly necessitating a traffic light there, causing even more expense for the city.
Such a bridge might favor those few who own development property in the area. That certainly does not seem to
be a good reason to build a bridge that so many others oppose for very good reasons.
Thank you,
Carol Starr
546 N. Laurel St.
Ashland, OR
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Christine Ashrow <csplash3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 9:29 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Chairman Joe Graf # Nevada st. bridge
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Chairman Graf,
My name is Christine Ashrow. I live on Drager St. In the Quiet Village Neighborhood. I would like to voice
my opposition to the East Nevada Street bridge over Bear Creek.
Our neighborhood is very family oriented. Lots of kids playing, an elementary school, and many people feel
safe walking, and biking here at all hours. Our neighborhood has already experienced dramatic development in
just a few years. Two biologically productive wetlands have been bulldozed and developed into large, highly
compact multi family subdivisions. Billings Ranch and the original Jackson Hot Springs. Jewels now lost
forever. As a bonus result, traffic has increased and air quality is often poor. Our Neighborhood lies in a
foothill level land/air cul du sac. In addition, our lots are sectioned by fences and air can become stagnant. We
already have been experiencing some poor air quality due to the backup of emissions from the highway below
and Main street above. If you add an additional exhaust burden piped directly into this populated air pocket, our
way of life will be adversely affected. We home owners live in this long time residential neighborhood. The
majority do not favor loosing both our health or monetary value in our property, especially as this bridge is
completely unnecessary and unwelcome. There is already a county road that services the area you propose to
affect with your SIX MILLION DOLLAR BRIDGE. Surly there is a better use for this vast resource. Such as
updating the city septic system. There is many a warm summer day that we have to smell the city’s septic
stench as it wafts through our yards. Not the nicest atmosphere for a summer afternoon outdoors. Lets update
that : ) There is also the popular idea of a foot/bike, and emergency access bridge of 14 feet. This would add
value and clean access to the existing populations inhabiting all the surrounding neighborhoods. Please rethink
this! You cad do good things with this money.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Christine Ashrow
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:John Engelhardt <jje@jeffnet.org>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 5:27 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada St. Bridge
Joe Graf
Transportation Chair
Ashland Public Works Dept.
Dear Commissioners,
I live across from the Helman School playground, having built our house in 1983. I was involved with the petition
initiative to pave Helman Street back in the mid 80's when it was a rut‐filled, pot‐hole laden street. We've come a long
way since then with street and sidewalk improvements, but in my estimation there is NO NEED for a vehicle bridge on
Nevada across Bear Creek.
I would support a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Bear Creek and think that would be a neighborhood‐friendly way to
encourage non‐polluting transportation. It would make it easy for elementary students in the North Mountain area to
bike or walk to school, whereas now they likely take the bus or are driven by parents. There are enough access streets to
get to areas in town (Oak, Mountain for instance) with Hersey or Eagle Mill/East Nevada connecting them. Putting in a
motor vehicle bridge at the proposed location seems like environmental degradation and vehicular overkill.
Sincerely,
John Engelhardt
‐‐
John Engelhardt
656 Helman St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Home: 541‐482‐8222
Cell: 541‐324‐9541
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Karen Hiller <khiller@nwlink.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 2:41 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada St Bridge
HI Kyndra,
We are in favor of a cost effective Ped/Bike bridge over Bear Creek(at Nevada) and not an automobile bridge.
There are enough automobile bridges in Ashland, we don't need another one.
I understand you will be able to pass comments along to Joe Graf. Thanks….
Sincerely,
Karen Hiller
Mike Bielec
Shirley McDaniel
980 Ivy Lane
Ashland, Oregon
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:kj <stitchintimebykj@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 5:54 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:chairman Joe Graf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
I oppose the proposed auto bridge over bear creek.. would support a walking/biking bridge..
thanks, karen a jones~~ ashland resident for > 30 years
City of Ashland
Engineering and Traffic Commission
City Counselors
Mayor Stromberg
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
March 6, 2017
RE: OPPOSITION OF NEVADA STREET BRIDGE
Dear City Officials,
This letter serves to stridently oppose the Nevada Street Bridge Project Proposal.
The bridge is a grievous waste and misallocation of city finances, resources, places a harmful impact on
neighborhood and environmental populations, and serves little or no benefit to the community. The project is
only partially and minimally funded by federal monies. The remaining multi-million dollar burden on our city is far
better spent on other, more critical problems.
The single biggest issue the city of Ashland faces is the huge increase in the panhandler/street population at the
downtown city center location. I have many friends who visit Ashland for its recreation, entertainment, and dining
options. They have stopped coming to our city because of the intimidating nature and proximity of these groups.
This is a well known problem and its financial impact to our tourism based community takes far higher priority
than this bridge. Every person has the right to use the streets and walkways to come and go, but to campout at
the walkways in large groups for the purpose of begging for money or a place to stay is a breach of this right. Our
funding should go toward building or providing a location for these people to stay, and law enforcement should be
hired to move these loiterers along.
The city also faces other higher priority issues such as seismic retrofit of City Hall and severely deteriorated street
conditions such as at Hersey and Mountain Avenues.
Any suggestion that a bridge would serve to improve EMS response is hugely over exaggerated and would be far
better served, for FAR less money, by other means such as a fire/paramedic station near the I-5/Mountain
location. The area is already accessed by Mountain and Hersey Avenues, and Eagle Mill Road which show no signs
of being over burdened by traffic. Ashland is transected by many ravines and waterways that lend to its charm and
natural beauty. These are not all, and should not be traversed by manmade bridges. The marshland and creek
provide a beautiful habitat and an extremely expensive substrate to build upon. They are also part of a designated
flood plain.
I do not understand the persistence with this issue. If it is served by special interest or local land owners who
would financially benefit from a bridge that would explain this. But a Nevada Street Bridge is NOT supported by
logic, or by the city official’s financial responsibilities to the residents of Ashland.
Sincerely,
Randy Krant
994 Stone Ridge Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Susan Hall <srhallrn@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 8:42 PM
To:Joe Graf TC Commissioner (Chair); corinne@mind.net; Danielle Amarotico TC
Commissioner; Dominic Barth TC Commissioner; Sue Newberry TC Commissioner;
dyoung@jeffnet.org; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Photo mockup of a Bike/Ped Bridge over Bear Creek
3/7/17
Commissioners
Please enjoy this photo view simulation (view-sim) of a E. Nevada ped/bike bridge passing over Bear Creek. A transportation
specialist did this view-sim to show how it might look. While this bridge is only 8 feet wide, you can imagine how it will look at 14
feet wide to accommodate an emergency vehicle and not overwhelm the site.
Kyndra, please put this in the TC Agenda packet for 3/23/17.
We ask this to be entered into the record.
Thanks
Ted & Susan Hall
Sent from my iPad
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Robert Rawlings <bobsax@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 1:34 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Cc:amy titus
Subject:Bridge
Hello
I’ve done a little reading (some between the lines) on the E.Navada bridge.
I gather this is to help with traffic flow on the the north side os town?
I live on N. Main and it handles the traffic ok so I don’t think this is a priority.
If the people don’t want it then I would rather see the money spent on figuring out a way to bypass Lthia when coming
from the south side. Mountain to Hersey just seems way out of the way.
So I recommend build nothing. Spending a lot on a bike bridge is not a good Idea. Only build it if it could be adapted
with minimum upgrade into a car bridge in the future.
bob rawlings
326 N Main
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:ccarlson@jeffnet.org
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:43 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada bridge
To Chairman Joe Graf, Transportation Commission,
As a Mountain Ave neighbor and having attended the last Transportation Commission meeting, I would
like to add my vote for a pedestrian/ bike bridge with emergency vehicle access. Let us spend the lesser
money for connection. The future holds many other needs we don't even see yet. I can barely afford my
property taxes. Let us spend wisely.
Carol Carlson
509 N Mountain Ave, Ashland OR 97520
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Jim Flint <pubathome@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:44 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Joe Graf, TC chair, Nevada Bridge comment
Public Works director Mike Faught thinks Nevada should be a major east/west route in the city,
classified as an “avenue.” The maximum avenue grade is 7%, according to the city’s own guidelines.
On both sides of Bear Creek, there are grades of more than 15%.
Ashland already has east/west routes— North Main , East Main , Lithia Way , Siskiyou Blvd.,
Hersey, and the county’s Eagle Mill Road . Even if traffic were diverted to a connected Nevada ,
where would it go? On the east side, four blocks up a steep hill to a dead-end at North Mountain . On
the west side, to a dead-end at Billings Ranch. Nevada can never connect to Highways 99 or 66.
A prominent “need” cited by Faught is to reduce traffic on some of the existing east/west routes.
Even SCJ’s report indicates that won’t happen. It estimates that by the year 2038 there will be little or
no difference in traffic on those streets if a Nevada bridge is built. The biggest impact on a couple of
routes is one car fewer every two to three minutes during a peak hour.
Most opponents of an unneeded. expensive ($6 million plus) vehicular bridge are not opposed to a
less expensive (perhaps $2 million) bike/pedestrian bridge with provision for emergency vehicle
access in the rare instance it would be needed..
“Connectivity” is the buzzword Faught is using now, with his previous rationales rebutted. Isn’t
connectivity with an environmentally friendly bike/pedestrian bridge better than one that encourages
gas guzzling vehicles down a hole on Nevada?
In 1998, a Nevada vehicular bridge was given high priority. Many feel that was based on faulty
information. There would be nothing wrong in the city correcting an error rather than being married to
it for all time.
Jim Flint
355 Fair Oaks Ave.
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:john burns <jmbjeb@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:10 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:for Joe Graf
Chairman Graf:
I live on the corner of Nevada and Helman Streets, a block away from Helman School. Traffic in the area will
soon increase as Verde Village comes on line. I am already concerned by the speed at which traffic comes
along Nevada Street over its limited run, particularly while school is starting or letting out. I think some traffic
calming is already called for without adding further traffic and a longer run from East Nevada. For this and
other reasons, I support only a bicycle/foot bridge connecting East and West Nevada with, at most, allowance
for emergency vehicles, if that is warranted.
Thank you,
John M Burns
To: Joe Graf and the other commissioners March 5, 2017
From: Sue Kurth
Nevada Street Bridge
I am grateful and optimistic our process works. The interest and the questions the commissioners
asked at the February 23 meeting, gave me hope you would not just rubber stamp Mike Faught’s
Nevada Bridge project.
I am asking you to reject the Nevada Street project.
I am surprised the issue is back this year. At a 2016 meeting, after a number of discussions at the
Transportation meetings, the community showed up and Mike Faught heard we were not
interested in the Nevada Street Bridge. His response was something to the effect, “well, you
should have come forward much sooner. This would have saved a great deal of time.” With that
general comment, I erroneously made the assumption the Nevada Street Bridge was a dead issue.
I support a foot/bike/horse bridge.
I oppose a vehicular bridge for the following reasons:
(1) The value added for the building the bridge is insignificant compared to the cost! The
expense of the bridge vs. the return on the investment is non-proportionate. Faught
mentioned at the Feb. 23 meeting a number of possible vehicle bridge scenarios, with a
variety of costs. The end result is the same--building a bridge is expensive. It will cost
millions while only benefiting a small number, with less than a 3 minute savings in their
commute (vs. using Eagle Mill Road). I have tested it three times.
(a) Faught has a small amount of money committed for the bridge. Faught states if he
cannot find other grant money, then the community would be responsible for paying
for the bridge. I am opposed to asking the community for the money. I am a widow.
My husband died unexpectedly, and I am struggling financially. It would be a
financial impact if the city charged me for such a project.
(b) Will the City assume responsibility for financially supporting the maintenance of a
bridge, assuming a vehicular bridge is built?
(2) It was acknowledged the Nevada Street (on the Mountain St. side) would need to be
physically changed. I am not sure the cost estimates reflect the accurate cost.
(3) There was no mention of the safety concern at the Mountain/Fair Oaks intersection. With
increased road traffic on Mountain, it will be harder for the aging Mt. Meadows
population to make left turns on to Mountain. There are more left turns made from Mt.
Meadows onto Mountain than right turns. If a person is making a left onto Mountain at
the Fair Oaks intersection, there are inclines on both sides of Mountain. “Cars driving
south on N. Mountain are already hard to see (at the Fair Oaks intersection) as they come
up over the rise,” said a 70+ year old woman living in Mountain Meadows who asked
that her name not be used.
(4) The devil is in the details. Neither Faught nor anyone else presented the potential impact
to the Meadowbrook Park area. Thinking all the vehicles will ALWAYS use E. Nevada
is naive. Commuters could easily use Fair Oaks Ave (which runs parallel to E. Nevada
St) then use Kestrel Parkway, Overlook Dr., Patton Lane, or Camelot Dr to get to E.
Nevada--all narrow streets and were not designed for a large amounts of traffic.
Thank you,
Sue Kurth
965 Camelot Drive
650 279-0575 (cell)
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Terry Toth <terry@ronkurtz.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:19 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Bridge
To Chairman Joe Graf,
I would like to give my opinion on a new bridge over Bear Creek. I am opposed to an auto bridge. I think the alternative
of a walking/biking bridge will serve the community in a more supportive way. This area of town has many seniors and
has a peaceful feeling presently with less car traffic.
I think we should support the community in less driving and make biking and walking look more attractive. The cost
would also be much less, so no tax increases to pay for an unneeded bridge.
Thank you,
Terry Toth
976 Linda Ave
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Tom Marr <treemarr@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:37 AM
To:danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com; dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com; Scott
Fleury; Scott Fleury; Scott Fleury; Brandon Goldman; jlgtrans15@gmail.com; Kyndra
Irigoyen; sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; Stefani Seffinger; corinne@mind.net;
dyoung@jeffnet.org
Cc:Matthew Marr
Subject:No Nevada Bridge
Dear Ashland Transportation Commissioners,
I am asking that you reject the proposal to build a bridge on Nevada St.
This is a bad idea for my city and my neighborhood.
My family has lived at Nevada St. and N. Mountain Ave for twenty five years. We are the last original residents
who were involved in the North Mountain plan process.
We have seen many changes in that time, some positive and some disruptive to our lives.
This bridge would be by far the worst.
Our neighborhood transformed from cow pastures into a family area with bikes, skateboards and pedestrians
throughout.
It is also a retirement community with dog walkers, as well as some people with canes and wheelchairs. The
neighborhood has flourished without the Nevada bridge.
Increasing the through traffic volume in this residential neighborhood will create more accidents.
East Nevada was not designed for major traffic. It is narrow, steep and sharply curved.
Public works proposes moving Nevada and Mountain intersection north . It would create a number of issues.
It destroys a green corridor
Traffic would now point directly into Skylark.
The grade is too high.
It joins an existing overpass. (has ODOT been consulted? would they approve it?)
There is no sidewalk that far north on the west side of Mountain and no room to build one.
No sanctuary for pedestrians or bikes.
No line of sight from the North.
Last remaining wetlands near the freeway would be lost.
Numerous mature trees would be removed.
This does not solve the more pressing issue of the fair oaks intersection not being designed for this traffic load.
Several residents at Mountain Meadows indicated this was their biggest concern.
This intersection was already rebuilt before. Fundamentally the topography is just wrong for a major connection
between Nevada and Mountain.
Overall this intersection realignment would be even worse for our neighborhood than the bridge.
These band aid expensive fixes engineering proposes to the issues created by the bridge demonstrate how
flawed the bridge plan itself is. Fundamentally this neighborhood was not designed to be a major thoroughfare
across town.
The engineering department wants to remove street parking on the impacted streets. There is already a
parking shortage in the neighborhood.
The east side of the bridge would meet Nevada below Kestrel Parkway, which was constructed in the
floodplain with special permission.
2
This street will and has at least twice in the past flooded.
Introducing more traffic creates bigger and more expensive problems. It would not create emergency access in
times of flood, but rather risk being another place where people need to be rescued.
Environmentally this bridge comprises a key wildlife corridor along bear creek. Has there been an EIP? That is
key information before moving further in the process.
The city is trying to reduce car usage. This bridge takes us in the wrong direction. It would create more costs
now and for years including Secondary traffic issues on both sides of the bridge.
Most of the people you are hearing from are opposed to this project. Even at Mountain Meadows,
which Mike said was the place which would benefit most from the bridge, opinion is mixed. Please do
not think that you are helping our neighborhood in any way by forcing this project on us.
The original plan for our neighborhood was a foot bridge. Everything else, streets, parks, density etc. was
designed with that in mind. Only in the final meeting before the neighborhood plan was approved in 1997 was
the idea of a driving bridge first floated.
Please keep our city's focus on moving away from heavy reliance on cars and do not recommend a bridge
across Nevada street.
Thank you Tom and Isaac Marr.
955 N. Mountain Ave.
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Ann Barton <annbarton56@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 12:10 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:E Nevada bridge proposal
Dear Transportation Commission Chair Joe Graf,
I don't support a automobile bridge. I live at 361 Patterson st. One of my favorite walks is down to the park along Bear
Creek right where you are proposing a bridge. It's peaceful and very few cars in that neighborhood. I walk and drive
along N Mt. and am always surprised how many cars there are and how fast they fly down the hill past Mt Meadows.
I do NOT want more traffic on N. Mt or in that quiet neighborhood! I do NOT I see the need for a automobile bridge, it's
not like we have any serious traffic problems in Ashland! (I used to live in Seattle!).
I don't understand spending this kind of money when there are so many other projects that would benefit many more
people. For instance: electric buses with an expanded bus route (let's get cars off the roads!), more bike lanes into town,
subsidies for buying electric cars or subsidies for biking rather than driving.....
If you absolutely have to build a bridge, an 8ft much less expensive bike and walking bridge. My understanding is you
have been asked to create a plan for a simple 8‐12ft bridge but have not done that. Sounds like people don't feel heard.
It always upsets me when government gets obsessed with an idea even when citizens don't want it. Seems to me, the
residents of Ashland don't want an expensive automobile bridge or even an expensive bike and walking bridge.
Sincerely,
Ann Barton
Sent from my iPhone
March 8, 2017
RE: Nevada Street Bridge Proposal
Dear Members of the Transportation Commission,
Thank you for your review and consideration of this issue. I attended the hearing of February 23rd and
made a few comments about the proposed bridge over E. Nevada. These comments are intended to
supplement those.
As I mentioned at the February 23rd hearing, my property will not be affected by the city’s proposed
bridge project. And, though I am concerned about how the proposed project may adversely affect
residents of the area, this is not my reason for opposing the city’s selected project.
First off, it’s not clear what the city wants out of this hearing process. Under the city’s municipal code,
the Transportation Commission (TC) is not empowered to make recommendations to the city council on
projects such as this. Rather, they are specifically empowered to “review and forward all traffic
implementation regulations to the Public Works Director for final approval and implementation of
official traffic safety and functional activities.” [AMC 2.13.040] This code language makes it clear that the
city council never intended to take direction from the TC on project selection or prioritization, and past
actions of the city council with respect to this and other projects are reflective of this intention.
The past actions of the city with respect to this project include: 1) Paying for a Public Works Director to
zealously pursue this project; 2) Submitting a grant application (with a subsequent award of $2M) for
this project three years ago without any input from the TC or the public; 3) The hiring of a lobbyist to
find more money to build this project and; 4) The hiring of engineers to promote and rationalize this
project from a technical perspective.
In consideration of these and other facts concerning this project, such as the Public Works Director’s
intransigent refusal to provide a bike/ped/emergency bridge option as directed, one is left to wonder
whether this hearing process is simply a cynical ploy to deflect criticism and anger away from our
elected representatives – who have already decided which project they want without any significant
public involvement - and towards a powerless and ineffectual committee.
Be that as it may, the city’s selected project should never have been identified as a “high-priority”
project in the TSP for reasons that I described over three years ago in a letter to the Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) (see attached). Many of the opinions I expressed in that
letter have now been echoed by two Professional Engineers, including the City’s former Public Works
Director, Paula Brown. But no technical background is needed to see what this project represents - a
publicly-financed gift to developers of the N. Mountain Plan area masquerading as a critical link in an
“alternative route” (Policy #26 in TSP) around downtown.
In a February 2014 email I sent to the Public Works Director (attached) I asked about the cost to
construct E. Nevada from Kestrel Pkwy up to N. Mountain, since: 1) Construction of this roadway to an
avenue standard is clearly implied by the STP grant application filed by the city with the RVMPO; 2) This
stretch of roadway, although relatively newly-built, is way below any reasonable standard for a city
avenue given its 15mph curves, 15+% grades, 24’ width and poor intersection with N. Mountain; and 3)
There is no such project in the city’s TSP. He said he didn’t know.
I asked him about the main rationale used in the city’s grant application in order to be eligible for the
$2M in STP funds, i.e., the “alternative route” using N. Mountain, E. Nevada, Oak and Eagle Mill. How
many people had ever contacted him about the need for such an alternative route? He said nobody.
Fast forward to page 53 of this month’s The Sneak Preview where we learn that, according to our Public
Works Director, E. Nevada Street was classified as an avenue “in order to secure funding.”
So, our Public Works Director admits that the city classified a street as an “avenue” in order to be
eligible for $2M in federal STP funds to help pay for this bridge. Last time I checked, that was called
fraud. The truth is, the city also concocted the “alternative route” – a scheme that relies on sub-
standard streets with no money and no plans to fix them from beginning (E. Main/N. Mountain) to end
(Eagle Mill/S. Valley View) - for the same purpose. RVTD’s Route 8? Same deal.
The reality is that the city knows that virtually all of the traffic that will cross this bridge will have an
origin and destination in the N. Mountain Plan area and they don’t seriously plan to do anything about E.
Nevada east of Kestrel Pkwy. The developers of that plan specifically designed their internal street
network to take the traffic off the bridge, run it down Kestrel Parkway, and disperse it internal to their
development. It’s a nifty way for developers to take millions of dollars out of the public coffers and use it
for their own profit, while providing no benefit to the vast majority of city residents – the ones who are
paying for it. A virtually identical scheme is playing out across town with the Normal Avenue Plan.
In fact, out of the eight projects listed in the Regional Transportation Plan – projects that are estimated
to consume all the funding for transportation projects in the city out to 20381 - half of them are needed
only as result of new or future development (E. Nevada, Washington Street, Normal Ave., and Clear
Creek) and these four projects are estimated to consume 83% of all transportation dollars through that
timeframe. The Normal Avenue Extension project (TSP #R19), a project that has been planned for over
20 years to connect directly from Ashland Street to East Main but is now planned to meander around
the planned development in a fashion that will make this street useful only to internal traffic, has gone
from an estimated cost in the TSP of $2.7M to $5.9M in the RTP. What a deal for city residents! We get
to pay more than twice as much for a project that provides none of the benefits! The Clear Creek Drive
Extension project (TSP #R24) has gone from $2.5M to $4.6M. What about all the rest of the projects
listed in the city’s TSP? Well, we all knew that was a pipe dream, right?
In actuality, the issue you’re dealing with is not just a bridge over Bear Creek. This is about
incompetence, greed and corruption. It’s past time to chase the foxes out of the henhouse and start
building the kind of infrastructure that the TSP calls for – one that promotes bicycling, walking and
transit and discourages further auto-dependency. In the case of E. Nevada Street, that would be a 12’-
14’ bike/ped/emergency bridge – a project that will be a critical lynchpin to building the Bear Creek
Greenway out to Emigrant Lake.
Thank you for your consideration.
Craig Anderson
575 Elizabeth Avenue
1 https://www.rvmpo.org/images/plans-and-programs/RTP/Amended_Project_Lists/_Combined_List.pdf
February 25, 2014
Dear Members of the Rogue Valley MPO Policy Committee,
I write concerning a project on your agenda for today's meeting - the City of Ashland's request
for $1.962M in federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the E. Nevada Street
Bridge project. If awarded, these funds, in addition to over $3.5M of the City's funds, would be
used for a 0.12 mile extension of E. Nevada Street across Bear Creek to Kestrel Parkway.
As a member of Ashland's Transportation Commission, I am greatly reluctant to take a position
on a project that is not supportive of the staff that serves our Commission. However, as
someone who has been charged with the responsibility of helping to determine how best to use
the City's limited transportation funds in order to best serve its population, I feel that I'm left
with no choice.
To put it succinctly, the project under your consideration should not be paid for with federal
funds and, in fact, should not be paid for with funds intended for City-wide use either. Contrary
to what has been presented to you, this project has not been conceived to serve a broad swath
of the MPO region or even a broad swath of Ashland's population. The need for this project has
come about entirely as a result of residential development that has occurred in the recent past
or will occur in the near future. As such, the appropriate funding mechanism is through either
System Development Charges, a Local Improvement District, or some combination of these
two.
I fully understand the challenge of paying for such an expensive project through these sources.
However, if the Policy Committee were to grant Ashland the STP funds that have been
requested, it would be rewarding grossly irresponsible financial oversight and simply encourage
more of the same for years to come.
To specifically address the merits of this project: I have attached a pdf that includes several
slides that show the absurdity of the idea that East Nevada Street will ever be an "alternative
bypass" route for any travelers beyond those living within close proximity of the proposed
project. Although at one point in time - given a different alignment of this street and thoughtful
consideration of its intersection with North Mountain Avenue - this may have been a possibility,
the development of the North Mountain Plan area has now closed the door to this outcome.
The project description in the City's application packet reads as follows:
The E. Nevada St. extension project involves construction of a new 0.12 mile paved roadway,
including a bridge, which links the existing terminus of E. Nevada St. and N. Mountain Ave.,
providing balance and mobility to the transportation system. Nevada St. is classified as an
avenue in the City’s Transportation System Plan.
The project provides an additional route for local and regional multimodal east-west travel. The
new project will include bicycle lanes, sidewalks, parkrow, provide connectivity to the Bear Creek
Greenway and allow for a future transit route.
The public right of way on the west side of Bear Creek is 53.5’ and 60’ on the east side. The City
of Ashland owns property on each side of Bear Creek directly adjacent to the creek. The City has
been has the potential to mitigate any flood plain issues with regards to bridge placement and
length on its existing property. The cross sectional road detail is a typical section in the city’s
street design standards manual and the final design will follow these guidelines to the extent
allowable within current right of way restrictions and tie into existing features outside of
proposed project limits.
From reading the above description, one would reasonably presume that East Nevada Street
will be constructed to Avenue standards, not just for the section proposed for funding, but
along the remainder of its length to N. Mountain Avenue. Although the right-of-way may exist
for this to be theoretically possible, for E. Nevada to be built to Avenue standards (including
two 10' travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks and a parkrow on each side) to N. Mountain Ave. is,
for all practical purposes, not going to happen. The attached pdf slides illustrate why.
E. Nevada Street east of the project area has been rebuilt from the gravel track it was only
seven years ago. This newly-constructed street, complete with storm drains on both sides, has a
curb-to-curb width of 20'. There is a 15% gradient along a portion of this segment.
Approximately 300' of this segment includes a very steep bank cut that would render future
widening prohibitively expensive. Parking is allowed on the south side of this street and is
regularly used by existing residents. Utilities (including power poles) are located within the
right- of-way on the north side. There are two 15 mph curves (one blind) near its terminus with
N. Mountain. There is a driveway located within 30' of its intersection with N. Mountain. In
appearance and function, it is typical of Ashland's "skinny streets," and is, in no way, usable as a
collector street or "Avenue."
According to City staff with whom I spoke, it is anticipated that new development occurring on
the north side of E. Nevada will pay for future widening of this street between Kestrel Pkwy and
N. Mountain Ave. However, if one considers the City's current zoning and comprehensive plan
designation for this land (low-density residential), the developable acreage involved
(approximately 3.2 acres) and the above-mentioned physical constraints, there is no reasonably
conceivable way that E. Nevada Street will ever be widened beyond its current 20' width and
the city has no plans (nor any funding allocated) for doing so.
Although the City's application packet mentions the need for multi-modal connectivity on E.
Nevada, there is also no funding allocated for providing transit service here either. And even if
there were, the viability of running buses along this street, given its geometrics, is suspect at
best. A typical recreational bicyclist will also be unlikely to travel this segment of E. Nevada
given its severe gradient. This is particularly true if the planned Bear Creek Greenway is
eventually extended just south and west of this location.
The above facts beg the question: who is the proposed bridge project really designed to serve?
This project has been described by the City's consultant (OBEC), as needed to "better connect
neighborhoods along Mountain Avenue with the north end of Ashland." Kestrel Pkwy is at the
eastern terminus of the city's proposed project. With a 27' curb to curb width, this street could
carry a reasonable flow of traffic. However, Kestrel Pkwy has been designed to serve only traffic
internal to the N. Mountain Plan and Mountain Meadows areas through its connection to Fair
Oaks Avenue. Which brings us to our answer: the proposed project will serve the residents of
the North Mountain Plan area, the residents of Mountain Meadows and few others.
Although the project has been ranked as a "high-priority" project in the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP) (funding anticipated within first 5 years of plan) it shares this distinction with
5 other roadway projects and 45 other non-roadway projects. Nowhere in the City's TSP is this
project ranked above any other high-priority project and nowhere is there a need identified for
an "alternative bypass route. " At an original cost estimate of $2.261M (from October of 2012),
representing 12.5% of the City's short-term funding commitment, the project cost has now
inexplicably ballooned to $5.489M - an amount that would consume nearly 30% of the City's
high-priority project funds.
The City claims that the project is needed (and federal funds are warranted) because
transportation modeling performed by ODOT's TPAU (for the year 2038) shows its viability as a
regionally-significant bypass route. Of the many problems with this argument is the fact that
the MPO's regional travel demand model is not sensitive to the street geometric limitations (15
mph curves, steep gradients, narrrow widths, etc.) described above. If it were, it's likely that the
Hersey/Oak Street corridor would have been much more attractive to north-bound traffic
approaching the Hersey/Mountain intersection from the south. The Hersey/Oak alternative is a
negligibly longer route (370' over a 1.14 mile distance) than the Mountain/E. Nevada route but
follows streets with none of the geometric design limitations presented above.
In terms of local support for this project, I challenge the Policy Committee to find anyone who
lives outside the N. Mountain Plan or Mountain Meadows area or who doesn't stand to profit
directly or politically from the windfall of public monies being used to fund private
development. Simply put, this project is before you because inadequate funds were collected
by the City from developers of the North Mountain Plan and Mountain Meadows properties. It
may be justified for emergency access and other connectivity benefits that would accrue to a
small pocket of the City, but it is not needed by the vast majority of the City's residents and it is
certainly not needed for other travelers in the MPO region. Thank you for your consideration of
these comments during your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Craig Anderson
575 Elizabeth Ave.
Ashland
North
Mountain Plan
Area
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
Location
Map #1
Showing
North
Mountain
Plan and
Mountain
Meadows
Areas
Proposed Bridge
Location
Map #2
Showing
North
Mountain
Plan and
Mountain
Meadows
Areas
Zoning and
Taxlot Map
of N.
Mountain
Plan Area
Proposed
Bridge
5’ Contours
N. Mountain
Plan Area
Excerpt of Figure 8-1
Ashland TSP
Figure shows planned
extension of Bear Creek
Greenway adjacent to
North Mountain Plan
Area and bike lanes on E.
Nevada Street
Proposed
Bridge 2
1
3
6
5
4
15 8
7109
11131412
Key to
Photo
Locations
Photo 1
Intersection
of N.
Mountain
and E.
Nevada
Photo 2
Intersection
of N.
Mountain
and E.
Nevada
Photo 3
E. Nevada
looking
North
Photo 4
E. Nevada
looking East
Photo 5
E. Nevada
looking
South
Photo 6
E. Nevada
looking
South
Photo 7
E. Nevada
looking
North
Photo 8
E. Nevada
looking
West
Photo 9
Corner of E.
Nevada and
Overlook
looking
West
Photo 10
Corner of E.
Nevada and
Overlook
looking East
Photo 11
E. Nevada
looking
West
Photo 12
E. Nevada
looking
North at
Schultz
residence
Photo 13
E. Nevada
looking
West
(note parking
allowed on
South side)
Photo 14
E. Nevada
looking East
(note utilities
on North side)
Photo 15
Corner of E.
Nevada and
Kestrel Pkwy
(note Kestrel
Pkwy pavement
width is approx.
7’ wider than E.
Nevada)
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Accounting <ellen.alphonso@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 8:16 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:To transportation chair Joe Graf
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for asking for input for the E. Nevada Bridge Project across Bear Creek. I am in favor of a pedestrian/bike
bridge over Bear Creek. There does not seem to be any true advantage to another automotive bridge in Ashland.
Thank you,
Ellen Alphonso
185 East Nevada St
Ashland, OR
3/8/17
Sent from my iPhone
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Joan and Wayne Brown <wjbrown@jeffnet.org>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:51 AM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street bridge
Mr. Graf,
My husband and I want to express our opposition to the proposed vehicular bridge on Nevada Street over Bear Creek.
We are in favor of a pedestrian/bike bridge. We don’t think it is necessary for it to have the capacity for emergency
vehicles as Mountain Ave. seems adequate for that need but we have no objection to that particular provision.
We have attended both meetings of the transportation committee but did not speak. We supported the comments and
arguments of our neighbors that oppose the vehicular bridge. Many of our neighbors have done extensive research into
the issue and the justifications for building such a huge bridge do not stand up under scrutiny. The public works
director, Mr. Fought, does not seem to take our objections seriously as he continues to promote the larger, very
expensive, disruptive vehicular bridge. There is no need. He has continually ignored our pleas for a 12 ft. pedestrian
bridge plan. Why is that?
Joan and Wayne Brown
934 Kestrel Pkwy
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Nitsa Marcandonatou <nitsamar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:07 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:E Nevada bridge proposal
Dear Transportation Commission Chair Joe Graf,
I hope that this finds you well. I would like to comment on the bridge proposal at E Nevada Street. I just bought a condo
on 592 Fair Oaks Court, which is in the area of the Mountain Meadows complex. I bought it because of its quiet sense of
less traffic in the area, the open space and the community essence of the place. Although we do have the freeway next
door, we do not need any more added noise and pollution in the neighborhood.
I hope with all of my heart that you are listening really closely to all of whom live there, and in a month I’ll be living there
as well. Right now I am living in a rented studio, on 537 Phelps street. My favorite hike is on North Mountain Rd, over
the bridge to the Mountain Meadows complex and going down to the creek. If you are going to build a bridge over to
Nevada street then it becomes a real hazard and dangerous place for older people to live in ‐ because those are the
people who mostly live there. Old. Not a good idea for added car traffic in the area.
I feel that instead of a car bridge, it would make more sense to build a simple pedestrian and bike bridge, which will be
cheaper and will benefit the people who want to enjoy what we do enjoy in the area ‐ and also support the bikers who
want to use a short cut rather than cars. In that way you are taking a stand for supporting a sustainable Ashland and we
become examples for other communities in the US.
Please vote against an E Nevada bridge for cars.
Thank you for listening.
Respectfully,
Ourania Marcandonatou
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:25 PM
To:Spike Breon; Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Re: 1998 TSP chapter 3
Thank you for this information. It clearly supports letters and testimony indicating the 1998 TC project was a
bike/pedestrian bridge.
Sue Newberry
Transportation Commission
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Spike Breon <spike@breon.org> wrote:
Commissioners,
Below is the only Nevada Street bridge mentioned in the body of the 1998 TSP. There is no mention of an
automobile bridge.
2
And below is the only Nevada Street (non) bridge mentioned in the 2012 TSP. There is no mention of an
automobile bridge.
Spike Breon
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Susan Sullivan <susansullivan34@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 9:50 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge
To: Transportation Commission Chair, Jo Graf
I was alarmed to read and then hear about details of Mr. Faught's meeting with the Mountain Meadows
community on Monday, March 6. Something that concerned me in particular was the inference that by building
a vehicular bridge at Nevada the RVTD would add a direct route that would provide daily transportation for
Mountain Meadows residents. As one might expect many residents of Mountain Meadows would like bus
transportation available to their door but to offer this as a possibility by signing on in support of a vehicular
bridge is false advertising.
To begin with, it is not within the authority or power of City staff to offer a new bus route. Secondly, funds for
such a venture are doubtful indeed. Only last fall did we vote for a levy that added one day to the RVTD Route
10 ( the only route in Ashland) in order to provide Saturday service. That route is a fraction of the Monday to
Friday route and was funded by Ashland citizens to support the strained RVTD budget. To say that misleading
the senior citizens in our neighborhood is disingenuous is an understatement. Cruel is perhaps more to the point.
What I have heard over and over from my elder neighbor friends is that they frequently fear for their lives trying
to cross Mountain Ave. by drivers that do not heed the posted speed signs or stop at the marked crosswalks. But
were they made aware of the danger of significant increase in traffic with a vehicular bridge that projects 3000
plus cars daily? Ignoring the realities and relying on false promises is not in the interest of any of the citizens of
our neighborhoods or town.
Again, I urgently ask that the Commission consider a modest ped/bike/emergency bridge that meets the real
needs and desires of the people who will pay for it and live with it.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Sullivan
305 Stoneridge Ave.
Ashland
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Vince <vpmazzi@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 10:18 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada street bridge
Dear TC,
I listened to both the for and against arguments concerning the Nevada st bridge, and I am strongly against the city
building the bridge.
Thanks for taking input,
Vince Mazzi
Ashland Oregon
My name is Jennifer Hall.
My address is 440 Drager Street
Thank you so much for allowing public input for the pedestrian/bike bridge over
Bear Creek. In the heat of summer my boys go down with their friends to Bear Creek
to build things such as bridges and forts while reenacting major naval battles. But
mostly they go to cool off with friends in a safe and creative way that we want all of
our children to do.
The problem with building a vehicular bridge is that it will make cars and kids
collide more often, at the bottom of 2 steep hills.
I have been an Emergency Room doctor for over a decade and while I love my job,
one of the worst things I see is a child hit by a car. It most commonly involves a kid
making a common mistake like swerving in the street and colliding with a driver on
a cell phone.
I see the broken body, I see the swollen face, I see the lifeless hands, I hear the howl
of their parents when I tell them their child is dead.
Because that is the way you can say it. You can’t say they have passed on, you can’t
say they are gone, if you give them one sliver of hope with ambiguity they will take
it.
My first attending physician said to me “you have to say the words they are dead or
else they will not believe what you are telling them.”
As the stewards of safety in Ashland, you have an opportunity to further the dream
of this beautiful community: a town of tolerance, love and the best place to raise a
kid in America.
There is an alternative to a vehicle bridge; build one that is environmentally
friendly, promotes activity through exercise, and gives an alternate form of
transportation at a reduced cost to taxpayers.
Putting a vehicle bridge in this area jeopardizes the safety of our neighborhood and
brings no increased quality of life to Ashland while spending millions of dollars that
will be taken from other projects or cost more tax dollars to build.
We respect our obligation to pay taxes and urge you to understand your obligation
in spending them in the most judicious, honest and fair way possible.
Thank you
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Joanna Wheeler-Niemann <joanna@joannaniemann.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:57 AM
To:danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com; dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com;
pcue@mind.net; Mike Faught; Scott Fleury; Brandon Goldman; jlgtrans15@gmail.com;
Kyndra Irigoyen; sue.j.newberry@gmail.com; Stefani Seffinger; dyoung@jeffnet.org;
corinne@mind.net
Subject:our opinions about the Nevada St bridge
Dear Transportation Commissioners,
We urge you to commit to and move forward with construction of the Nevada Street Bridge.
We are dismayed by what opponents claim, kids being hurt, neighborhoods destroyed, money wasted, and so on.
In our experience as 10‐year residents of the area, it makes so much sense to create an additional vehicular connection
between Mountain Meadows and Exit 19. We would love to be able to walk and bike across, too!
We are committed to different event tonight, or we would be there. A while back I (Joanna) wrote a letter to the Tidings
editor, which was printed, saying that those who protest loudest ought not sway opinions, but that all of us, and the
future of our town be considered, even more than the protesting voices.
Thanks for hearing,
Joanna and Michael Niemann
(previously at Oak Meadows Pl, now on West Hersey)
1
Kyndra Irigoyen
From:Nils Ohlson <nilsohls@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:22 PM
To:Kyndra Irigoyen
Subject:Nevada Street Bridge project comment- no auto bridge please
To the honorable Joe Graf, c/o Kyndra Irigoyen
Public Works Department, Transportation Commission
City of Ashland
I recommend to the TC that any new bridge connecting the two halves Nevada Street be a Pedestrian/Bicycle
bridge, not a vehicle bridge. Traffic studies show no need for more car bridges.
If the wish is to give slightly faster access from Mountain Meadows to the hospital, to save lives, please consider
that children now play safely on East Nevada and Kestrel because they are cul-de-sacs. Their safety would be put
at great risk to achieve minimal added safety for Mountain Meadows residents.
Thank you for consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Nils Ohlson
514 Clinton Street, Ashland OR 97520
(541) 482-2656 (please call if you have any questions)
R E S I D E N T I A L
P R O P E R T Y
M A I N T E N A N C E &
O W N E R
R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S
A S H L A N D M U N I C I PAL C O DE
1 3 .04 .0 20
D UTY TO R E PA IR & CLE A R S ID EWALK S
It is the duty of the owners of land adjoining
any street to maintain in good repair and to
remove obstructions from the adjacent sidewalk.
A. The owner of real property responsible for
maintaining the adjacent sidewalk shall be
primarily liable to any person injured because of
any negligence of such person in failing to
maintain the sidewalk in good condition.
B. If the City is required to pay damages for the
injury to persons or property caused by the
failure of the owner to perform the duty which
this section imposes, such owner shall
compensate the City for the amount of the
damages thus paid, plus court costs and fees
incurred by the City. The City may maintain an
action in any court of competent jurisdiction to
enforce the provisions of this Section.
C I T Y O F A S H L A N D
A S HLAND M UNI CI PA L CO D E
9.0 8 .09 0
S N OW A N D IC E R EM O V A L
A. No owner or person in charge of property,
improved or unimproved, abutting on a public
sidewalk shall permit:
1. Snow to remain on the sidewalk for a period
longer than the first two (2) hours of daylight
after the snow has fallen.
2. Ice to remain on the sidewalk for more than
two (2) hours of daylight after the ice has
formed unless the ice is covered with sand,
ashes, or other suitable material to assure safe
travel.
B. Snow and ice removal is a Class IV violation.
Snow doesn't happen very often in Ashland, but
when it does it is the responsibility of the
adjacent property owner to clear their sidewalk
of ice and snow. This includes occupants of the
Downtown Business District. Please feel free to
contact the city code compliance specialist if
you have any questions.
UTI L I T IE S
LA N DS CA P I N G & P R O P ER T Y U PK EE P
SID EW ALKS
It is the responsibility of the property owner to
maintain and repair the water supply line and
the lateral sewer line connected to the home. A
good rule of thumb is that any utility line
extending from the water meter to the home is
the responsibility of the property owner and any
utility line extending from the water meter into
the public right of way is the responsibility of
the City.
Property owners should keep their properties in
good repair. The maintenance of fencing,
noxious weeds, and tow away junk vehicles
should be cared for on a continual basis.
Promoting a safe, clean, and attractive
neighborhood is your job as a homeowner.
Any tree or shrub growing on private property or
in a planting strip abutting public property that
is endangering the use of any public street,
sewer, sidewalk or utility, should be trimmed.
Any tree or shrub extending into the public
street should be trimmed to provide a minimum
of 14 feet vertical clearance or a minimum of 12
feet vertical clearance for an alley used by
vehicles.
It is the responsibility of the property owner to
maintain the planting strips and sidewalks
adjacent to their property. Sidewalks should be
clear of leaves, ice, snow, litter, and any other
hazard that may block the pathway. Overgrown
vegetation that goes beyond the property
owner's property line should be trimmed.
Plants, tree branches, or hedges should not be
an obstruction to anyone accessing the
sidewalk.
The property owner is also responsible for
repairing or replacing the sidewalk adjacent to
their property. Property owners are liable for
any person injured as a result of a neglected
sidewalk. The City may deem a sidewalk unsafe
and require the resident to repair the issue. If
the property owner fails to repair the sidewalk,
the City may repair and the costs will be
assessed to the property owner.
The sidewalk should be clear of any permanent
obstructions including utilities, mail boxes,
traffic control devices, trees, and furniture.
When reconstructing sidewalks and relocating
utilities, all utility access points and
obstructions should be relocated in an area that
will not obstruct the pedestrian right of way.
Placing sidewalk dining, seating, or any
permanent fixtures in front of businesses
require a permit from the City.
TE MP OR A RY I T EM S
TR EE S & S HR U B S
Temporary items such as “free” goods shall not
be places on the public street or sidewalk. Free
goods displayed on private residential property
for short periods does not require a permit or
approval.
S ID EWALK FU RNI T UR E
All intersections should be cleared of over-
hanging tree branches, shrubs, or any vegetation
that may obstruct the line of sight for a driver in
the public right of way. The property owner is
responsible for the trimming of any vegetation
that obstructs traffic lights, traffic signs, or
street signs. It is imperative that the property
owner maintain vision clearance for users
accessing the public rights of way.
INTE RS EC T ION VISI ON CLE A RANC E
Please visit our website for more information
regarding the City of Ashland municipal code at
www.ashland.or.us or contact Public Works at
541-488-5587.
Ashland City Council
20 East Main St
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Mayor and Ashland City Council, February 20, 2017
With the recent passage of Measure 15-156 the City will “issue $10.5 million in street-
repair bonds, pay them off between now and 2030, when the meals tax sunsets, and use
the money for badly needed street work.” (Daily Tidings) These funds should be used to
both repair and rebuild street pavements, and to improve the transportation network used
by pedestrians and people riding bikes. There are too many locations where sidewalks are
missing, curb ramps not installed, or bike lanes not built/designated.
The Council, if it hasn’t already done so, should direct the Transportation Commission
and through them to the Public Works Department to ensure that every all aspects of
Measure 15-156 projects conforms to the “complete streets” standard. Complete Streets
are “streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and
abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to
work.” (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-
coalition/what-are-complete-streets/)
The City, as with every other roadway jurisdiction in the nation, has historically spent
most of its transportation funding on maintenance rather than on constructing new
facilities. The street-repair bond will further shift the emphasis to maintenance. It is vital,
therefore, that the City “find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and
bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects.” (United States Department
of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations -
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/policy_accom.cfm ,
Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010, Ray LaHood, United States
Secretary of Transportation)
The City is at a critical juncture. If the City doesn’t work to make improvements
consistent with the “complete streets” concept using the meal tax wind-fall, then missing
sidewalks, bike lanes, and curb ramps will never be constructed.
Thank you for your contributions to making the City of Ashland a better place to live.
Gary Shaff
541.482.4537
Cc: David Young, Transportation Commission (electronic distribution)