HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-24 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning 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 that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. PUBLIC FORUM
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan - Final Draft Update
*Please retain packet materials for October 8th meeting.
V. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
S L A AW&I
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 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 1).
CITY of
ASHLAND
Memo
Planning Commission 912412013
TO: Ashland Planning Commission
FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Brandon. Goldman@ ashland. or.us
RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Final Draft Plan
Summary
The City of Ashland is in the process of completing the neighborhood plan for the 94 acre north
Normal Avenue area. This neighborhood planning project was funded in part by the Oregon
Transportation Growth Management Program to assist the City in developing a detailed vision for the
area which efficiently accommodates future growth, provides for a system of greenways, protects and
integrates existing stream corridors and natural wetlands, provides for a variety of housing types, and
enhances overall mobility by planning for safe walking, bicycle, and automobile routes while
providing convenient access to future bus service. Neighborhood planning represents an opportunity to
collectively think ahead, determine a vision, and instill a degree of confidence about being prepared for
changes, rather than merely being put in a position to react to change.
The neighborhood plan presented at this evenings' study session includes two major components:
• Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan (Deliverable 7.4 final Draft)
o Land Use Zones map
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
o Street and Openspace Network
• Draft Chapter 18 Code Amendments
The submission of these two plan components concludes the TGM funded portion of the project and
the design work to be completed by the project consultants (Parametrix Inc, UrbWorks, Joseph Readdy
Architect, Qamar Architecture and Town Planning, Leland Consulting and Nevue Ngan). As the Plan
continues through the public review process further amendments to the final plan are anticipated.
Collectively the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan and the Draft Land Use Ordinance Code
amendments provide the underlying framework for future area development through adoption of land
use standards for the overlay area, establishment of a multi-modal transportation circulation plan, and
the redistribution of housing concentrations through amended Comprehensive Plan designations.
Although future development of this area is expected to occur in an incremental way, as individual
parcels propose annexation for specific housing developments, with an adopted neighborhood plan in
place each individual development proposal can coordinate the provision of streets, pedestrian
connections, utilities, storm water management, and open space. Such an approach can ultimately help
reduce development costs through appropriate sizing of needed facilities, provision of easements, and
secured street access. Additionally a significant benefit of an adopted plan is that there is a clear
expectation and understanding regarding the level of development anticipated by both developers and
Page 1 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
neighboring residents. In this way the development and annexation process for all properties with the
plan area is streamlined while ensuring the City can accommodate its future growth in a systematic and
efficient manner.
Plan Revisions
Throughout the last year planning and design work has been undertaken in recognition that the project
area should be considered as a system where each development decision impacts each part of the
whole. For example, the placement of streets throughout the site will ultimately have a direct impact on
the function of the sites natural resources as well as the efficiency of the development pattern. Housing
types and concentrations have been examined in an effort to meet overall city and regional housing
goals while balancing the design needs of the site and need to protect sensitive natural areas.
Early in the planning process commissioners, property owners, and neighborhood residents were active
in the design of the concept plan itself through participation in a two part public workshop, or "design
charrette" from October 23-25, 2012. Following the charrette the design team has been developing a
more refined layout for the street networks in careful consideration of the natural features, topography,
property lines, existing development within the area, and the short and long term phasing of the plan.
Over the planning period the Planning Commission, Housing Commission, and Transportation
Commission have each had the opportunity to review the plan during the course of its ongoing
development. The Planning Commission specifically has held five study sessions to take public
feedback and provide direction to Staff and the design team as versions of the plan have been further
refined. To provide opportunities for effected residents and stakeholders to become familiar with the
plan, and make informed contributions to the community discussion regarding the area's future
development, the City held two well attended neighborhood meetings, two open-houses, and
conducted two site visits open to the public. Additionally, City Staff solicited input from property
owners within the plan area through a questionnaire, and has attended numerous stakeholder meetings
with property owners, neighboring residents, and Homeowner Associations to answer questions and
hear concerns about the various drafts of the neighborhood plan.
The Draft Final Plan as presented incorporates a number of revisions to address issues raised by the
public, the Planning Commission, and the Draft Future Traffic Conditions Report evaluation of the
previous draft plan presented to the Planning Commission on June 25th, 2013. Notable changes in the
Draft Final Plan and Draft Chapter 18 Code Amendments include:
• Redistribution of the concentration of housing through establishments of land use designations
within the plan area:
o Concern was raised that locating the NA-03 Zone (multi-family high density
residential) along the entirety of East Main Street would create a homogenous large
scale housing development pattern immediately across from the rural area outside the
Urban Growth Boundary. As revised the plan proposes a mix of zoning types along
East Main St. with a significant portion retained as Single Family (NA-01).
Page 2 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
o The amount of NA-03 (multi-family high density residential) has been reduced both
along East Main and adjacent to Creek Drive and Clay Street. Correspondingly the
amount of NA-02 (multi-family low density residential) has been increased to maintain
the aggregate development potential for the plan area.
o The 2 acre "Greene Property" previously identified as NA-01 (single family residential)
has been reclassified as NA-02 to provide more flexibility in its future development and
enhance opportunities for cluster cottage housing or pocket neighborhoods along the
Cemetery Creek corridor.
• Transitional standards relating future housing development to existing neighborhoods:
o The dimensional regulations presented in the Draft Chapter 18 Code Amendments (18-
3-x.050) set forth site design and building standards including:
■ Establishment of base densities for each zoning designation
• 5 units per acre in NA-01
• 10 units per acre in NA-03
• 15 units per acre in NA-03
■ Establishment of maximum building heights (35' or 2.5 stories) consistent with
existing residential standards throughout the City.
■ Establishment of minimum lot dimensional requirements
These provisions help ensure future developments in the plan area are held to
requirements that are similar in nature to comparable developments within the City.
o As stated previously the redistribution of the NA-02, and NA-03 zones within the plan
area functions to locate similar densities of development across from established
neighborhoods.
• Use of open space corridors to provide pedestrian connectivity
o The newly proposed woonerf'road type designed for the plan area along open space
corridors provides a "living street" where pedestrians and cyclists have legal priority
over motorists with a goal of calming and reducing speeds (woonerfs are more fully
described in the transportation section below).
o A proposed multi-use path system provides necessary creek crossings and connections
to/from the schools located along Walker Avenue.
o This bicycle and pedestrian network will also connect to the larger network of regional
trails, paths, and streets beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood.
• Development standards that address retention of storm water to preserve the area's hydrology.
o The Draft Land Use Code would require the development plans to preserve water
quality, natural hydrology and habitat through protection of streams and wetlands.
o The requirements of 18-3.10 Water Resources will apply to future developments within the
plan area following annexation.
Page 3 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
o The Site Development and Design Standards (18-3.x.060 133) provide regulatory
guidelines for storm water management practices intended to address environmental
effects of storm water run-off.
• Intersection spacing along East Main Street
o The Draft Final Plan relocates one of the initially proposed local street intersections to
the east to be adjacent to Clay Creek. This relocation essentially removes one leg of
the `U' shaped block pattern in the proposed NA-03 area. Relocation of this
intersection at East Main Street serves to provide a greater distance between the
intersections to address access management considerations as identified in the Draft
Future Traffic Conditions Report ( pg 10 of 21) and neighborhood concern raised
regarding sight distances.
• Inclusion of opportunities for Neighborhood Serving Commercial
o An overlay area within the NA-03 designation has been identified in which small scale
neighborhood serving commercial uses could be located.
o Special Permitted Use Standards for neighborhood serving commercial uses are
provided in the Draft Ch. 18 Code Amendments (18-3.x.0402) which restrict such
commercial uses to ensure they remain small scale and primarily serve the immediate
area.
The Planned Housing Types and Land Use Designations
The development standards for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan will create its
own neighborhood character by providing three different residential zones with different densities and
development standards. The use regulations and development standards are intended to provide a
significant degree of flexibility as to the form and character of individual developments. The land use
designation NA-O1 is intended to provide single family dwellings, accessory residential units, and
clustered housing. The NA-02 designation provides housing opportunities for individual households
through development of a mix of single-dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes, accessory residential
units, and clustered housing. Clustered housing, commonly referred to as "pocket neighborhoods", are
a new housing type envisioned for the plan area where multiple compact detached or attached
dwellings occupy a single lot. These dwellings are grouped around common open space and are
separated from one another by side yards to provide privacy and single family home-type scale and
character. Through the consolidation of common open space and or parking cluster housing
developments can often achieve a housing density comparable to attached row houses or low-rise
apartments, yet with a lower profile and the appearance of traditional single-family homes. The NA-03
land use designation is intended to address Ashland's housing needs through development of multi-
dwelling housing as well as allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such as a coffee
shop. Lastly the NA-OS "open-space" land use designation is intended to protect environmentally
Page 4 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
sensitive water resource lands and provide open space recreational opportunities for individual
households throughout the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan area.
Greenway and Open Space
The Plan's approach to the greenway and open space framework is to maximize protection of the
existing natural resource areas and provide usable, connected open space within the plan area. Natural
areas, including streams, wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive features contribute
significantly to the existing character of the Normal Avenue neighborhood study area and were most
cited by neighborhood residents as needing preservation to retain the rural character of the area. The
quality of the place is enhanced by these features and the wildlife that they attract. The objective for
the open space and greenway component of the plan is to protect and enhance these existing natural
areas while also providing connected open space throughout the plan area. Open space will help
maintain the neighborhood's distinctive character, promote environmental quality, and provide
opportunities for both scenic enjoyment and active recreation.
Protected riparian corridors and wetlands will support native vegetation, provide habitat for wildlife,
and promote environmental quality by absorbing, storing, and releasing stormwater. Streams and
wetlands will be maintained as amenities with access to all area residents due to the carefully
considered transportation network that ensures that these areas are not hidden in back yards.
Accommodation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation along the edges of the riparian
zones provides visual and physical access and increases the buffer zones between pockets of
development enhancing the character of openness within the plan area.
Transportation
Walking and cycling, or "active transportation", is fundamental to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
urban design plan. Designing the transportation network in consideration of the experience of a person
walking through the neighborhood allows for development and block patterns in which residents more
readily relate to their environment, feel safer, and are more comfortable on foot or bike, Despite the
inherent boundary conditions that limit connectivity, such as Ashland Middle School and the Central
Oregon & Pacific rail line, building the transportation network on a foundation of interconnected
streets and walkability makes all modes of travel more efficient and effective. Walkability is
supported in the plan by small blocks, however there have been some variations from these block
lengths in consideration of natural resource protection areas. Care has been taken to locate pedestrian
and bicycle paths adjacent to, or across, these natural areas to enhance the user experience and increase
access to these neighborhood amenities.
The Normal Avenue neighborhood's internal street network has largely been designed to keep travel
speeds in the range of 20 mph by introducing elements such as a planted median, a small traffic circle,
and subtle changes in direction at block intersections. The backbone of the street network is a re-routed
Normal Avenue that extends from the southern intersection at the railroad crossing, to East Main Street
between Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek. Given the anticipated traffic volumes on this new road
being approximately 1,000 average daily trips, it is not necessary that it be classified as an "Avenue"
Page 5 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
but rather a Neighborhood Collector designation would suffice. Neighborhood Collectors are expected
to accommodate 1,500 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day and as such this lesser classification would
adequately accommodate expected use.
The Normal Avenue Neighborhood plan also introduces a new street type into the range of Ashland
streets: the woonerf. A woonerf is a very low speed street where all of the functions of the
transportation system coexist in the same space. There are no individual sidewalks separated from the
street surface by curbs and planted medians. There are no bicycle lanes separated from the street by
painted lines. The low volumes, low-speeds, and narrow cross-section make it possible for all to safely
occupy the street surface by yielding to the slowest and most vulnerable present at a given moment.
The use of rear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paved areas, and will support a complete grid
of finely-grained urban blocks. These alleys will provide the primary access to garages and backyards.
Where cottage cluster housing occurs, alleys are critically important to their function. Elsewhere, as in
those areas zoned NA-03, specific locations for the alley locations within the designated blocks is left
to future development needs, subject to the maximum block length and parking access standards.
The proposed multi-use paths throughout the project provide the necessary connections to/from Walker
Elementary and Ashland Middle School while creating a more pleasant travel route than using East
Main Street. The presence of sidewalks and trails throughout the development are intended to provide
convenient and safe pedestrian movement, linking to destinations within the 94 acre plan area as well
as to the surrounding area.
The change in designation for the "Normal Avenue" future street to be considered a neighborhood
collector, and the codification of the proposed local street and bicycle network within the plan area
will require an amendment to the City's recently adopted Transportation System Plan Street
Dedication map. Once the final Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan is approved a TSP amendment
will be presented to the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council for
consideration.
Draft Future Conditions Report for Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
In support of this planning project the traffic engineering firm SO Alliance has completed future
traffic analysis to evaluate the anticipated traffic volumes and impacts based on the plan's
development projections and street layout. The technical memorandum dated September 18,
2013, included in the commissioner's packet provides a projection of the modeled traffic impacts
twenty-five years from now under two distinct scenarios:
• The built out of the area per the existing Comprehensive Plan with no changes is
considered the baseline scenario
• The build our of the area consistent with the draft Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan in
two phases over the course of 25 years.
Each of these scenarios were examined to determine what measure of future impacts can be
attributed to changes in the land use designations proposed.
Page 6 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The findings presented in the Draft Future Conditions Report indicate that of the intersections
examined for capacity and safety, all intersections are expected to meet their applicable mobility
standard under both scenarios. However in both the baseline and the future Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan build-out scenarios the report finds that the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street
and Tolman Creek Road will experience queuing problems as more fully described in the draft report.
Staff is still reviewing the Draft Future Conditions Report to evaluate the identified traffic impacts
internal and external to the project area. Prior to the next meeting of the Transportation Commission
on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan staff will have completed our evaluation and a staff report
will be provided.
Project Guiding Principles and Objective
Throughout the process of developing the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan over the course of the
last year the Planning Commission, design team, resident participants engaged in the process, and staff
have referenced the following objectives to help guide discussions about various plan elements:
• Increase efficiency in the use of land through concentration of housing in a centrally located
area within the City UGB planned for future urban development;
• Achieve a development pattern that results in a balanced, multi-modal transportation system
and that enhances opportunities for walking, bicycling or using transit in areas planned for
transit service;
• Delineate housing, neighborhood serving commercial, open space, public space, and green
infrastructure improvements, in a manner that provides for preservation and enhancement of
creeks and wetlands;
• Develop new illustrative conceptual architectural and site plans for the project area consistent
with Transportation and Growth Management objectives. Concepts will meet the City's and
the property owners' development goals and standards.
• Design a local street grid for the project area including connections to existing and planned
street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities outside the project area to more fully integrate the
project area into the City transportation system;
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the project area that
will provide safe access to local schools;
• Provide alternatives to, or delay the need for, expansion of the City UGB;
• Reduce emissions that contribute to climate change through changes to transportation or land
use plans that reduce expected automobile vehicle miles traveled;
• Provide an implementation strategy that includes supporting Comprehensive Plan and updated
TSP amendments, form based codes, and design standards; and
• Present the Plan and documentation necessary to support adoption to City's Planning
Commission (PC) and City Council (Council).
Page 7 of 8
~1,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Final Plan and the Draft Chapter 18
Code Amendments on October 8th, 2013. The Transportation Commission is scheduled to review the
Draft Final Plan on September 26th, 2013 and the plans transportation elements in advance of the
upcoming public hearing.
Staff anticipates following the October 8th Planning Commission review, and in consideration of public
and commission comments, subsequent reviews before the Planning and Transportation Commissions
may be needed to further review any final refinements prior to scheduling a public hearing for adoption
of a final plan by the City Council.
Ultimately adoption of a neighborhood plan for the area will require amendments to the Land Use
Ordinance, City's Transportation System Plan's Street Dedication, Existing and Planned Bicycle
Network, and Planned Pedestrian Network maps to incorporate the proposed multi-modal
transportation network and street classifications. Additionally the establishment of woonerfs as a new
street type within the City will necessitate amending the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation
Element to include a new functional classification.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
o Draft Final Plan
o Land Use Zoning Map
o Street and Open space Network
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
• Draft Chapter 18 Land Use Code Amendments
• Draft Future Traffic Conditions Report - Technical Memorandum (SCJ Alliance Consulting
• Transportation Existing Conditions Memo
Page 8 of 8
~1,
r, v rr r
'n
k i
0
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
r z
c
v
E z
v
a~
v -
3
0
c
Q
o Q
> v
o v
o Ln a olu v
°J v o a
E T -
c O v
c
o Q ~ v = ~ o QL~
o u o v o
v ° c c 2>~ T
c ~ o_ o o c a, c
c o v D `a p w E O
`a r p C > t6 Q 4EI (a O U Q w c
O ~ .O C- Q Q ° v
CL v _ `a O c v c Q O O
a m 1 a w
[2 Ln
f6 C U - 3 Q i+ N ff 'r u - N N
O IY p Q 2r Y a v u O a
c O 12 i .~O_'' Y O c v O v
w L N z w U v w O -6 Y
~ ~
i V y = C w 'r Q O w R
E CL r_ 0
d H N Y G! O 6l r U v c c r° c O Q
Q O i N O J Q
r C N O L Q V Z E
O 'p N v O
O
w CL
y O E H a c Q a Q L v Ov r
•O Y y tY6 H E C Q U
CL u O a M, d-i z o > v
C% rn rn rn p
N N N N M c
d
d
Of
R
C
R
s
3
0
c
0
R
0
a
N
Y
F
W
w H
V LU w
~ ~ Q Q
2
Z 0 H
Z c¢i~
N
LA p
r N M LM N ID M M N N {A N n ~ 00
c
d
C
O
V
w ~
O Q
d J
O
w
N_
H 2
IH Q
V O Z Ln
Ln a-
Z H a
V D w ~
N
_ Q
O N N Z 0 Q Q
Q Z O a
N Z Y o a O w p
> O Q N Q Q O Z Q
m Y J Y W Ln w
z LV O Z O D w Z Q O a Q V
z Q Z a Z Q LU Z zz -1 >
V m a LU Q v~ m Q Q O V w
H u a Q t7 Ln l7 a Q Q -1 } Z Q
0 Q Z H
p V Z w ac z Z O ¢ ~
O L V N O N w 0 Z D w > w w Z Z
z O Ln Z w = Z = > LL LY m aC aC - Q
Z a w OV U- _ Z O Q Z Ln Q Ln O 2 H
~ ( N ( M ~
Lr) ko n 00 m
N N N N N N
0
0
0
z Y
d
¢ 76
O
E O, E
o 2 m
z Q a)
a~+ n t6
n
N a E
O 0 O
t N
a)
0
H z Z z
y N M lp c
Q Q Q 9- Q z
W
LL H H H H -
w N N N O N ~ _
ar
;n vi vi Ln N N U
J
N M to to 1*l m m O O N qd- %0 n M O N M _
N N N N
.N
~j xs
Y Y -
O O " a
a) '
N E O
Q
N a)
a) a) +O+ > 3 3 N t%
w a) a) a) ^ -O -O
Q O O
4? 6 U 0) N M 0) N a) U O O -
m Q m Q Q Q O •F Q Q a) p p
V) a 0 a)
a) z z z a) a) r6 t6
E a, m > t6 2 D - m Ln E m 0
'Z- a) CO a) Q m 0
fl o o a) a)
Q Ln m ° 2- c a) z z can z z -
c :3 O a-+ : Q O N N
Y V; m o a) 0 0 o a) Y Q N m CL CL CL CL CL
s
W N a + -0 a) n n n H a) a) a) a) a) a) Q
c a) vi :3 t6 a) a) a) a) t6 a) t6
x V) V) V) a v -1 U w v w D D D D v O v N N N N N N °
t7 r
~ v
bj~
O a`3 b~A Of
bj~
Cl-
CS'
U u .S: cd cd U U 0
v _71 a bn ~'v" r
O cd bn U ai cd bA O A-i R
U pp
•L~. U U cUd 7 t U O cd O
o U ¢ d p y O U bA
8' ral rn - O U O aJ
bj~ C~l CL C'
bA aJ WA 0 ' y y cd O ~C y
d~A A" py tz sU.
7E E _71 E
U 4. y U . U bA s. O
t
bA O yy~ bA
G o °
U U by U U •U y U U U bA
a r-I
o o o 'o o
O
O 0 ~ ¢
Z a bUA 'h U a ~ v
U u o bbjA -s" ° o .v w
-fl bj~
fl
n w n u -fl
i~, a~ O U U O ° b7~C. 8 U-. O A. a~
bp U
O O' ° bA o' a~ y v a~ O . N
by SS+ ° b~yA •'U+ y 4
o 0 3 -'Zj
8 C7 U a .g Q~ a d
U ~
t A i ty;, ` ry 5 Y d
r
41 "'1
»A S A D
0
z _
y`
E ~cY o
z
_ SAAY''
W
L
3 v z
L ~ i..i. P VA m
C O p _ W
a
7~ °
(L) u 4F
o o
vu, U- U
o W o bA Q" ¢ > u
u
o$
o o w p o
14,
C, C, C,
o 71
LL -2~ 2 ° a3 O U U O ° '9 Z O v
O a~ cd G' a3 • m p -
u o °
b-0 u _71 b.0
C, ci
o o
'd bQ
o v o h bin o Q g x
.J-", O 4a m
C.) bQ
0 p q ° -71
P-I bA UO '71 ° A. C~) 7~ ~r- G'
Tom!
bj,
bp _0 bj~ Im
aJ bp -zi bA R
In,
p bin C Q
w° w° s
o w n. -0 ~q b D
bb D t7
o w r~
° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , mod, c~ ~ ~ ~ p •o ~ ~ ~ r t1o
-0 bj~
o o z > c
0
a a n. bn o a3 " o o o F
> bA C' o w r~
C
bj~ o ° v C - 15 u
n.
o
° v a3 Q O O p ai
O ty ¢r 0 O a3 O ¢r O LL `a3
u In, -5
-Izl
'u O O .=1 O
00 C~
r-- bQ
O u w O -0 O w C~ ~ C sJ ~ X 0 u,
_71 0
O '-'i.., O t, a3 O U O
b~A p O bA p m .
C b~bQ cd O C -0 00
2 Z-1 r- by w O O O O A. O O O O
v bA O ~C = .S - - ~ ~O m
bj~
'bin n°. cl,
fO.' lu,
O O O ~ ~ ~aans Feo
0 - C
C-A
CAC.
cad O.' G u u D
O Z 0 O0 a s = s
ct >
Im PI'll A
ryaai~ F~alaiiia~
N
'c I ~1 f I~aM
O
O T
~ anuani~ le. u»oN ~ _
Ol e =
z
6M ?~~PI:aM
N
Q
O
z }i
0
0
0
z
Q
o
z
Q
-a NO
a~ ~ O
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd Ati -
u O rn, u u
O 'II ANA u 'K
p
45 il, °
u
0 NO . _71
~ 4 q'
Lam' u O
Ui •i~ bA u
~ cam, a
OU u O NO
NO
3 " o
a N
7~
U J
'u O U v
o
0 T u U a
R
71
bb a NO
t
u '71 w
o
• C7 r
o
Ul
bA
7~ a
a, £
bA .si vS cNd c~ O ra
C', u
o ° n. u bA n. R
71 15, r-,
Z, o o U s
u In, -p
r-' bb o q5
..ti u U
o
bb -'Z' _71 -0 bQ bb
b
o _
O O G' p O ' a~ ~ ~ '~C O L~, m O p O ~ • ~ ~ O
A.. O cd Ate-. a~ ,s." ~C~".`n bA
bj~ bj~
YO
o Z w o _
r, _71 -0 to
x d U bn bin o d d aA r
-a 'd ° -a o o o -
a3 ° a3 o n. ' d p
~ U x o ° ° o
bb o
F~ w° F~ n. Q r- ° ° x o w° o v ' ~ n. . ~ v n.
v
laall5 APID o
a
v
~ v
o
YI p_ V
N
C O
M p o
C O o
m M 7
J ~ ~ T
Q Q N
~ Z Z Z
Im v
C V
%A
3
O
2
rv
0 0
anuany IewoN Q Q
z z
o N
Y
anuany [ewJaN
o ~
o ~
a ~
o ~
ra
J o
:tA}
t
_ U >
z p
1
Q
R
v
kl
f
Iy
C
pf
y
3
p
2
° .rl U O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
bj~ C.
p U ° u by
-,ZjO -'Zj
O°
It
sue. ° .s." O 'a L'" 4J .s." u y S'•
° 15
o v Z -71 Z o bn w°
to r, C! -,Zj -71 tz
0 -71
o d Z o o Z -45 bn ..o
v
7E O O sue. N ° O 11 'z
d O
ctl a-. by ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ° m f.' t
d n° Q N m
v
CS, 0
211 C~l (t
a~ ° Q S o ° bA
5 E u V VD 0 o 0 bA r-I is
E bA r-, ° U O s
N
4~7
75
bp d u d I
Q Q o
o o
.y
bj~
75- Q;
75 u C.
u Z> O Q 7
O on ° Q 7~ Z
V NO • ° °
bA -bb ~D
75 V L5
Q.) u
u L5
.5 -2~ c. 75 m
75- Q
o
bP o~n o n o w, o o Q c
bj~
bj~
V
M 5 7 v N Q a~ m a .5 O r- Q O I'd c
V U VD bp
on -a ° -a ° won on -C
o
U d o
m bo
v V M Q
:z V
to :z V V
Q Z° o o 3 Q w Q~ S o u 2 d d
'
~ I
J C fir, Z
~E
C L1.J , 4..
uU
y
1Y,
K
o Ot
z
Q
R
O
Z p11
0
0
z
Q
0
z
c
Q ~
c
U
C
v 0 ~ ~ ~ z
V
7~ b~A ~
y s
u
C N pp Q u y O-
l6 ~ O is sue. a3 ~ ~bA
3 U cV
y U u O
fy Q
Q; V
bA bA 'V ANA
y y U
m u -7~ V
C o
ct
o d o It o oA o
'44 cl
u y V
a
~D E m It
o o o
bp d
C, v o um m 7~ u ° °m' Q
'V
o o d 3 u o
C u u Q u u
75 p ~m. NO
-.6 u o 0 o o
E
u Q o n Q u° a
um J,- 0 5 C. C. u
a 7~ ° 7~
a ; on d o 7~
O
bjl 75 144 C. u C.
U h U ~
a bA O ~
U¢ o u- o u
Q 3 Q
u u u o a x¢
° I- 0 o u
'C U O u °u ON a~ w U O U cd O
o 8 d a o o n° v
-Do
w
NO
0
°
°A on x a+
¢ o _
a~n o o C7 o 'u ° R
'Ut
o u' o
0 Q ~ 0
~ r
O bA w
o o °
m r-,
C U-_71 0
o ti o U bj~ o a
o fan o ° o a"n U
bj~
>
° U o -Izl
u o ¢ -
-Izl
on o ° ° 3
y
3 L.' o oA w -71 _71 o a o 0
o a°i 3 0 ' 72 ° aA o ¢ i
C oon x aA on q
0 r, _71
C, ~bA U Q 0 bA
° m o
r-I a°n ° a~ u w U Q U
v
Vl u
O
-0
-0 _71
O ~ O
bA C. v
_ -a U - Q
N O
0 Q
Z
Q C
_ NC
C~ C
D
o
Q
0
o C
n
x
W
Q
E
0
z
Q
o N C
K
r s F ¢
0
.....Y . c
t
rr. s. " y~,;~ p '~ruM<s~ cui ~ C
= u cc
~ v
v
3 y ° v
x
c
;or _
N v " -
3 ~
+..n _
< cc
y~
Z „ lA
N O O O O
t ~Y {E N Z Z Z Z
w
164'
C f tlC ~ r
c:
a
a
R
R
s
3
0
0
R
0
a
N
R
F
d
N
N
0
x1l
z
0 a
V~
i
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
z
CL
bj~
CL by
by a -a a ~C v
0 _71
3 U O 45
c~ O O
bj~
U O u O~y
V.
y ~
L•'
U .r' h O A. U 14C.)
" U ~ ~ cad ~ cd ~
0 y O
U bp t
A ~ xs
yy
bj~ C,
by +`3
w ° r by O p 'v v -
° V bL a~
O 5 on ° Q
C., bb u
v b.0
b.0 0
co
U m w
u b.0 b.0 r, 7~
cl ' -
° o ~ ° -
-IZI S o o d d°
um It
-71 ° o u ° o -
_71' O N U
V U Q` u cd cd O ti
O U O O cd -Uy H
U . Od
-8 0
_71 C.
C. bjU
m
p ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ctl cd 'y, p O p rn y d
CS,
o ° o d o
• ~ uu ~ ~ ~ , "~i U ~ o
to
U x ° -71 ° O
° x o o ° o° o° u _
U °
u M _71 I-- ° M v
o U o o X 3 0 -
^a 5- v' sue. O" ,n ' bA COS,
U
u bA i' cd bA
IM:
7E Cl, .-0 E
U O
U 4-A
-71
v o
' ti O
of b~A O t p U U U f~ NO
o N U
u U o ¢
00
3 u a v U w o m
u
i O ° U ° U O U cud 'u-' cud
h E GG V5
~ J
O S~k { u j
O
z
Y
r~ ~Y
O
Z
-6
21:r
Q
z o p n ¢ o
c L"'i u ct u u LL
o h O c~ " u O O O O O
bjj v
-o c O O NO cad O r✓ ~c C '-C~ d
a~ .sy LL a~ .~I O .s7 ~ ~ ~ O
b~~A O a~ " cads x O 'ice
~ r✓
U O U O ~c v, bA u is
V~ 7; F~ C',
a z
CA
c -
CL
c
T
,L^
D ~
V a5'
" ~dd1~/~Id;d Uld~
C v
Q
L
anua,~y ~ew,o~i _ Ion _
V ~o
A~
i ~
o
a
c
s
w ' N
W Q.
V
rt^k
O O v~ O
• a~-"~'O~' vii aJ u U N
O O sue, s0, s0, £
Off' v, i O bA cd u N
on CX o o °o n R
_71 -C
3 w
02.
d o n ° o° ° o
r V)
-U cl,
u d Lt o p N u n o
_71 u cl, C.
-71 ° w o
O
Z o o w o -a ° o
U 't U 140.
14. C.
U sU w'' t
Q, u u y~ .5 F~
Z ° w on o ° `u
m
• ° O > o Ll "71 ° u °
O O u cd u O a~ O a~ O '7~
t0 O A~ U 't O O
ctl u
14- 0 m a A, O O O 0 '7~
bj~
u • `+'i' O h O U y O O O
'y O U cd cd
v w
W
F~ ° ° a~ D - i •o
O bA u u c~ O U
bj~
u -O
c- w u 'z~
h.Y ih y
~l
-a Y I
t ~ Y, c 1
lw
E
Q
~ i pia {
i
d ~ 'fir.,-rte ~
v, s ~c
L i
P ~
A -fir{ ~y'V ~i ; i
bn bn y z
bj~
-a " a° 0 3
~ ~ o ~ ~ w° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •y tai' ~ ~ _
'd ral
U w
-TJ
o x y ¢ y
o o olot
a, o O
CL g `o
bj~ 4d
o x
7, u, V
g¢ Z a u 7~ -0 o
• g w 8 o
U
oo f~ U ~
-CL, CL
bj~
cl-
bj~
u~. v"i O '3 ' N a~ p ul,
O o u a o W v O U V O D U
3 n L'~ --S~ a~i C~ O
m A. p i p a~ V C J
o o w
bp V SS, SS, U U .9 bOA w c U U
3
aA bn o °
-7~ v Z
U O O Q
ctl 'V
.0 CM U SS, ~c u U Q, m
o o ¢ y o o
7-' U
~ 7: O
U v) is O O w
C~l
u _71 o d o¢ o v d ° cA OC. w U 7~ Z u° v
4~7
V~
tQ o W bA O £
a~ c~3 4" 'ice a~
r-' 14,
7- 1-i-, to bp F~
O ff.,
cd R+ aO~ b D "i A. bA a~ ' » O u ct
'd O bA R
uu C.)
C.) tO
bIJ
•5 C.) Z > > 3
h C v - b ~ h u
o 0 0 o o_
bJD
d w Z
W U > °o n
bA
6
C, U '6 , 0 . bA u
' ni v~~' p •0 "d Z u
¢ ~C cd A d y
by . o... U 9 bA » cd
O A.. b~A O O ~C O C cn a a) bl C.)
o o ° w $ o U w° U U
,aa„s &j-)
y
y
0
0
Hy ~ ¢ w
-
C -
_ y
y o _
- o
o y o
z z V
DR-AV I-AON
c
L ~ o
0
o,
z
c
z L
V l ~
0
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
o ~
Q;
~ on ..o 00
w .y
U
b~A O y ~ ~ ~ O
oo
y ~
o o > ' o u
y
y y ~ s° • ~ ..v'. a 'rn U ~ cd
O u ,1"
y
~ eO. sue. O ~ ~ ~ y
..o
on . ~ ~ o~yn ~ ~ ° R
z
~ O d o ~ a
y ral oA Abp O
O C,
r
o
c~J.~,' a v~ O~~' p
p ¢r O m p bA ~bA i
bbn ° ~ oQ
bj~
-0 Z
Z n. 3 o .5 3 Z 72 -
0
0
Q,
z
E
0
z
0
0
0
z
0
z
T z
r
O -
Q
0
3 O Y
(L) z 3
C
bCA v Q.. ~bA p ,bA _.c~ s
N
-I
In,
1--Q
$ o O
r
O h i N
~ U y
~ U =
U y
U
h vUi O °U
~ I
~ I
0
0
0
o~
z
E
0
z
0
0
0
z
E
0
z
O -
Q
0
E -0 a z
o n. 3
~ o
W~ In,
n
7~
-0 x u
C,
u 71 u '40
o o 0
~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ . ~ a4) > O
bA f~' C¢C+ S7 C
A, y
0 Go o > bb J"
In, o bj~ N
o° o z c a
w
. b: cy r
a~
a~
a
~ ~ _
~ ~
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , o ~ ~
r
_ ~ - y
o
r - r ~ - ~ ~ R
J - J ~ - = ~ Z
< ~ ~
I J ✓ i
1
i
T
~
O
~ ~~r~,_
e)
_ ~ ~
0
0
0
z
E
0
z
0
0
0
z
E
0
z
O -
e ~
3
E
d
O
G ~n bQ
+ h
11
Z b-U bA
In, bj ~bA
O ~ CC"" bA LL •-i
C, It
a~
Ul
C
_bD
x u h O
IJ
~v~ U U O
bA ¢n r
o 8,
In, ~bA p ~bA C
c.)
0 n G~ O a~ I-
z
a~ OR '0"
0
0
0
o
Q,
z
E
0
z
0
0
0
z
E
0
z -
T ~ z
O
E
a
c~ bA a O O 3
nom. C, - cd Y" v z
bA >
CL 8L u
O Q
h
a3 v~• a~ cad O O
C4
C4
rl
Tom!
h _
u a
> Q = o £
m O
O" d
LL iJd L~.J, s
.U O 'd w O
h 'b O O O0 t7
bj~
O tQ O ~i
u SJ O
• ~ m ~ ~ LL p ~ ~ O a.
r
bA S7 •a, i
F cp p O Cq O
° bA N
O
0
0
0
o~
z
E
0
z
0
0
0
z
E
0
E
0
U .s.' cy
7~ bn
o s
U h
o o
o ct
a)
U
45
bj~
U a C, o 0 0 bj~
O C. oA p a~ .71 o p¢ d U
31, O~ w0 y
bA O ' i U ~bA U R H
h ' N f" U u'J v .~O u C, i
bpA ' W s+ O 0 aJ O O F
c
Cc), bp
on GA
" U U
~ 'u ~ p s: ~ ~ ~ ..O u cd r'1 O
bj,
4J y 4J cd f. vi u
_71 v u C. u, 'd
cl,
w ¢ p O
= rO~ u c~ rpm p, y aa3 cd GG a) W~ cd 11,
oo
0
0
0
z
Q
E
0
z
Q
0
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
o b- z
0 bb -C
a
w
o u ° -T:~ p
-71 b o
o 7~ > V o
7~ NO L1. oA O -a -
o ? -
p
man
bin ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ° ~
NO 0
o ° w g oA bA
ri,
o o p Q Q
NO c
cad %cad b~A
by V
p ~ O ~ a~ sue. a~ cd ~ C
~bA O bA O R
O 4 9 J
43
bA O O Q
a~
V1 y W O 2 U cad ~C-+ O
m
U
8'~ u a~ O U U pi
° L~ O ° z O c'J.~
C
O ctl
° M U O l7
U O U • U aU., O b~A pp by E C
bp C. 0
bj~
a8J Ud p V) s s o
' >
o o
°
~ > o o w y° o u -C
bj~
U by u ctl ° U f".
U sa cd h U r''~O-u
° 72 ° o ° w d
~ O A, o
U
CU
U U
-0 U 7~
pp ~
V O
bj~
Cu'
by y Abp
C 70~ w p w
0
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
0
0
0
z
Q
0
z
Q
x z
=a
v z
CL -
CL
Q
M
O
N
N
O
N
V)
E
E
O
V
~ a
a ~
O
N -
~ u
O
Q d
a, N
u ~
O - O °
V O
N CL a
Nf _
R
W ~ N s
V L N ~ ~
V Q
Z w
a a v o ~
a
Q v
a
a
R
R
s
3
0
0
R
0
a
N
R
F
d
i~
O
i~
V
d
vi
d
O
O
O
Z
Q
O
Z
-6
Q
Fdsr
Md;n S~,.eet
v
v
c
v
a
Creek Drive
E
0
z
m
v
a
0
z
Land Use Zones
NA-01 NA-03:
NA-02: NA-04: Open Space
0 100 300 S00 north
Neighborhood Commercial Allowed
Fast
Main Street
i
v 'v
a
v
o d
z Creek Drive
v
c
v
m
6
Z
Street & Open Space Network
0 Streets
Open Space
0 100 300 S00 north
Connection to
Bear Creek Greenway
Fast
Main Street
v
N T
> f6
z Creek Drive
c!
v
~Sh/a
o Ph "
2 ?r
PA "
Pedestrian: & B'c
vcIe Network
Sidewalks & bicycle facilities Multi-use path
Woonerf-shared space street} Rear Lane
0 100 300 s00 north
Ashland Central Bike Path
N
m
Q
L I N
V)
E fl' t6
fro ~
~ I ~ r6 O
_ o (3)
m ~
o a+
E III E°ava ~ V vi
ay i V
N ~
t
~~=o N
E
V) 0
1 O
E Q
N w z
0 _ N
~ O
76 O &
~ O
Q z
N 0 r6 Z
L6 ~ ~ z
O O 3
Lij V) _0 ~ 0
oNJ 0
v uj Q O O a~
3v ~ n n n
z -F
q o~ ~ C9j
JI - '
d E
N f T
o - N p
e I I Eo'.. Q
v, T v
3.v
W O
~ Q (3) i Vf
z° of O (3) V) V
Q U o , ~ 0) ~ N d
v O a+
II f- 0 E
O t6 t6 3
V) 0
E 0 N
L c c O V N O N
D +O - ++O _
V N 3 N p r6 Q
VLry O N O Z -
U) -0 Q Lij w V -0 2 o C)
o ly- aC a~ CL O Q
Z
Q oo m •N (3) O E c
tI~ t.i..a 3 w O R
Q N u (3)
Y o s Ilia O 12
r6 O
0
q a J N ~ cn cn cn Q a l7 a
Q r
LL
v
L CL
a) ~ N E
o I L m o
CL E V)
I I e
N
z
f p (3) t6
I I
O
Q 6 O
N t6 O
E o o ea.e, a N O
ov fay Q N
v
O t6
L i Q w 6
U o N ~
O
a 3 o O
CL 0
u V) a1 ij N
U N E w N
V) E V)
_0 Q O L O
u O Z
D t O u O O O
E Q
76 N N
N E E V z
in 0 m ~ ~ Ou Oy Z
N T
Lij a)
Im CL
LL6 O E 0 0
0 o
_ u N O V) Y O 'O
;
V)
Q Q N Q F+
y 3 Cy N u O r6
rc U 5 o Q T a
cc
Q G 2 +T+ Q Q d v
n n n n n n n
C
0 (3)
V E°~ w
a ~ ~ o
f°3 to 3 x
c I 3 O O
m
Eo L t6 ~
9~_ ~ 3 C
A. s° fa N ~ N v
A"
- O vi ~ u
z° 0
Q N (3)
a
UE~ V)
II u~3 O L
N °
0 'E
c c Y N
O O
Z -
23 c ~
O Q
0 N CL
~ o
a -0
°
0 - 0) 0) N m m a
Lij
= c i o V -a m= 9-2 s
ay E
C3 ) +O v, 6 = q) ~6
lui
E
T rv
0
Q° S o ¢
G N a r
LL L a v
L
o V
o -p O Ln 76
Vf M •N
V
9 a L
0 (3)
L V)
I f53 o (V6
o Y o
s
3 0 E° a O
o 9~"_ ~ of C ~
z 9 f a O t6
o ° 6 (3)
c
C V
76 v
76) 0
u ° D •v~ Vt r6 V)
m a)
T " :E5
76 0
V)
CL - Il a) ~ ~ c ~ ~
o
o N
p a) M
O
O Q >
a~+
z V) z
v L 4 a - E v Q
im V)
Cb a) p p 1 p
A ~Lij Q
H i TY p
2 r6 2 Q O d
L
J
wl -7
o T
a1 (3)
>
R II - I E 0 0 V o o O 0 •V
o
E Q a) -p xs
I
a+
O vi a) N
°o -p6
o a p t6 ~ p O
i
f a a) `1 a) ay Q ¢
E E 72 Z
Zo u 3 n v N p
N p E
°
N V)
a _ T p F+ Y
p 6 O N (3) m
A N m w a-+ [ N 0 _
N M O u u
V O O E a)
a+ N p
N
w Q V)
w
4W W (3)
Q
a
° 3 o 2 z -
0) m a)
O Lij ^ o Q v, a) a
V) r6 t c
W a, o p
a) (3) Q (3) Y - p s
u O O 3)
3 _
a) a) Q
•j6 a) +p+ V Q L w
L Yo Q 6) j 0
O
0 3vv c p Q d r
to 76 d n n n
~ V
m
0
0
0
z
z
c
40
L
40
4AA,
LL -
r ~ oa
m Lli
dJ
dJ _
o
40
3
G
~ Q
o
40
40
c
R
W ~ Q
Ll~j
O
40
0
V
0
0
0
z ~
0
E V
0
z . w
40
40
A~
W
z
N •.~w
a1 ~AA
z
T
W
A~
_W
• o
40
3 ~
V
m o
40
40
U. ,OZ / ,Ob
Lli
N
Q
08L
s T
40
Y
0
Ln
c
'c
3 j
o
v ~
a v
c
v
v
v
s
v
Q ~
v
v
v ~
V D V,
N
O
O
3 R
o
3 N
0
c
3 'c
D D
T
O ~
~ v
v
v v,
v v
Q ~
v
76
O
i`f
-M
W N
N O O O O
0
Z Z Z Z
I' ! 't
t'0 ,,,i~.
~ ` pyre 1 (1i t t' ~ ~ t
T,
v
1 $ fiM r il]il ~ k6i h
fn 1 •1}'~ 1J~ Flo' - I2
ION
~f ' I
( 'r 1
+t
'Al
qp"
ad 1~
Q s W
Lli
• Lli f4+' @@@PPP ui
.t Y $ Pry' M.A7rx `
UJ Imo' T2
~ ~ ~ e~sgra '
LO
ui ~U
9 d
~ QA• !8 M ~
q
y
s
y c ~ ,t 1
44
r
i
of i
_ _ t ~ 19111
?#wr'
Lij
ry-
~ 'st
.i
LLJL_ Y
ry~
IF
~ 4
t~ di [e
z i ~l'.vl W" I~M1W'1ll Y A
IA Lij
to ILJJ
M
6
r s~
+-,r
Wii'u1~
~ r+r ,irk
r- ,
r
'TOW
_ T J
U.ll.ll
Vf + ~~1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
Draft Chapter 18 Code Amendments
18-3.x Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
1 8-3.x.01 0 Purpose
1 8-3.x.020 Applicability
18-3.x.030 General Requirements
1 8-3.x.040 Use Regulations
1 8-3.x.050 Dimensional Regulations
1 8-3.x.060 Site Development and Design Standards 18-
3.x.070 Open Space Overlay
1 8-3.x.080 Site Plan Review
18-3.x.010 Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan. The
neighborhood is designed to provide an environment suitable for traditional neighborhood living and recreation.
The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types
while preserving open spaces, stream corridors, wetlands, and other significant natural features. The
neighborhood will be characterized by a connected network of streets and lanes, paths and trails, with nodes of
access and connection to the natural areas, wetlands, and streams that occur. This network will also connect
to the larger network of regional trails, paths, and streets beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood.
18-3.x.020 Applicability
This chapter applies to properties designated as Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Overlay on the Ashland
Zoning Map, and pursuant to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance number (date)].
Development located within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan is required to meet all
applicable sections of this ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this chapter; where the provisions of this
chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions
of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan shall govern.
18-3.x.030 General Requirements
A. Conformance with the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Land uses and development, including
buildings, parking areas, streets, bicycle and pedestrian access ways, multi-use paths, and open spaces
shall be located in accordance with those shown on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan maps adopted
by Ordinance [#number (date)].
B. Amendments. Major and minor amendments to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan shall comply
with the following procedures:
1. Major and Minor Amendments
a. Major amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the land use overlay designation.
ii. A change in the maximum building height dimensional standards in section 18-3.x.050
iii. A change in the allowable base density, dwelling units per acre, in section 18-3.x.050.
iv. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates a street, access way, multi-use path or other
transportation facility, or requires the transportation facility to be shifted more than fifty (50)
feet in any direction.
v. A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those that result in any of the following:
i. A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other
transportation facility to be shifted fifty (50) feet or less in any direction as long as the
change maintains the connectivity established by Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.
ii. A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 1 8-3.x.050, but not including
height and residential density.
2. Major Amendment - Type II Procedure. A major amendment to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Plan is subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type 11 Procedure. A major amendment may be
approved upon finding that the proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose and objectives
of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. In addition to complying with the standards of this section for
a major amendment shall demonstrate that:
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts of the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan, including pedestrian access, bicycle access, and development of the
greenway trail system.
c. The proposed modification furthers the protection and enhancement of the natural systems and
features of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan, including stream beds, riparian zones, wetlands,
and development of the greenway trail system by increasing their area and/ or extent or
improvements in the quality of existing areas.
d. The proposed modification will not reduce the overall intensity of residential development permitted
under the site development standards.
e. The proposed modification is a necessary to accommodate physical constraints evident on the
property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, greenways,
streams and wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between
project boundaries.
3. Minor Amendment - Type 1 Procedure. A minor amendment to the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Development Plan is subject to an administrative decision under the Type I
Procedure. Minor amendments shall not be subject to the Exception to the Site Design and Use
Development Standards of chapter 18-5.2.050(D). A minor amendment may be approved upon
finding that granting the approval will result in a development design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of this chapter and Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Standards.
18-3.x.040 Use Regulations
There are four Land Use Designation Overlays within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan: NA-01,
NA-02, and NA-03, and NA-OS. Character areas NA-01 and NA-02 are intended to preserve land and
open space and provide housing opportunities for individual households. The use regulations and
development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood
character. A variety of housing types are allowed, in addition to the detached single dwelling.
Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall
image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained.
Character area NA-03 is intended to preserve land and open space and provide housing opportunities
for individual households through development of multi-dwelling housing. The use regulations and
development standards are intended to create and maintain a range of housing choices, including higher
intensity housing within the context of the residential character of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Plan.
Character area NA-03 is also intended to provide the opportunity for neighborhood-serving commercial
mixed- use so that many of the activities of daily living may be met within the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood. Neighborhood-serving commercial mixed-use is limited to that area designated for
commercial services on map XX-XXX-XXXX.
Character area NA-OS (Open Space) is intended to protect environmentally sensitive water resource
lands and provide open space recreational opportunities for individual households throughout the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan area.
The development standards for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan will preserve neighborhood
character by providing four different land use overlay areas with different concentrations of varying
housing types along with neighborhood design standards. The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
includes a new building type, Pedestrian-Oriented Cluster in which multiple compact attached and/or
detached Dwellings occupy a single lot. Dwellings are grouped around common open space and are
separated from one another by side yards to provide privacy and single family home-type scale and
character.
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Residential Building Types
Single Dwelling Residential Unit
Description: A Single Dwelling Residential Unit is a detached residential building that contains a
single dwelling with self-contained living facilities on one lot. It is separated from adjacent dwellings by
private open space in the form of side yards and backyards, and set back from the public street or
common green by a front yard. Auto parking is provided in either a garage or on surface area on the
same lot, accessible from the lane or alley. The garage may be detached or attached to the dwelling
structure.
Accessory Residential Unit
Description: An Accessory Residential Unit is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot where the primary use is
a single-family dwelling, either attached to the single-family dwelling or in a detached building located
on the same lot with a single-family dwelling, and having an independent means of access.
Double Dwelling Residential Unit
Description: A Dwelling Residential Unit ( Duplex)is a residential building that contains two dwellings,
each with self-contained living facilities on a single lot. Double Dwelling Residential Units must share a
common wall or a common floor/ ceiling. In appearance, height, massing and lot placement the
Double Dwelling Residential Unit is similar or identical to a Single Dwelling Residential Unit. The
Double Dwelling Residential Unit is subject to all of the same setbacks, height and parking
requirements as single dwellings in the surrounding base zone. Residential units may be arranged
side-by-side, like rowhouses, each with its own entrance, or stacked flats with one or more shared
entrances.
Attached Residential Unit
Description: Attached Residential Units, or rowhouses, are single dwellings with self-contained living
facilities on one lot, attached along one or both sidewalls to an adjacent dwelling unit. Private open
space may take the form of front yards, backyards, or upper level terraces. The dwelling unit may be set
back from the public street or common green by a front yard. Where auto parking is provided on the
same lot, either detached or attached to the dwelling structure, it shall be accessible from the rear lane or
alley.
Clustered Residential Units - Pedestrian-Oriented
Description: Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units are multiple compact dwellings or
cottages that occupy a single lot. Dwellings are grouped around common open space and are
separated from one another by side yards to provide privacy and single family home-type scale and
character. Units are arranged around a central common open space under shared ownership. Each
cottage is typically smaller than 1,000 sq. ft. Dwelling units maybe condominiums, apartments dwellings
on individual lots.
Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit
Description: Multiple Dwelling Residential Units are multiple dwellings that occupy a single building or
multiple buildings on a single lot. Dwellings may take the form of attached residential units (like
rowhouses) or stacked flats (like apartments) or a combination of attached and stacked units. Dwelling
units may be condominiums or apartments. Auto parking is provided in a shared surface area or areas or
parking covered or underground parking structure internal to the lot.
A. General Use Regulations. Uses and their accessory uses are permitted, special permitted or
conditional uses in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan area as listed in the Land Use Table.
Land Use Table 18-3.xx.040
Description NA-01 NA-02 NA-03 NA-OS
Single family Multi-family Multi-family
Residential low density High Density Open Space
Residential Residential
Single Dwelling Residential Unit (Single- P P N N
Family Dwelling)
Accessory Residential Unit P P P N
Double Dwelling Residential Unit (Duplex P P P N
Dwelling)
Clustered Residential Units P P P N
Attached Residential Unit N P P N
Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit (Multi N P P N
family Dwelling)
Manufactured Home on Individual Lot P P P N
Manufactured Housing Development N P P N
Home Occupation P P P N
Religious Institutions and Houses of Worship C C C N
Neighborhood Serving Commercial N N S N
Community Gardens P P P P
Openspace and Recreational Facilities P P P P
P = Permitted Use; S = Permitted with Special Use Standards; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not
Allowed
1. Permitted Uses. Uses listed as "Permitted (P)" are allowed. All uses are subject to the development
standards of zone in which they are located, any applicable overlay zone(s), and the review procedures
of Part 18-5. See section 18-5.1.020 Determination of Review Procedure.
2. Special Permitted Uses. Uses listed as "Permitted Subject to Special Use Standards (S)" are
allowed, provided they conform to chapter 18-2.3 Special Use Standards. The following uses and their
accessory uses are special permitted uses in the Use Tablet 8-3.x.040 and are subject to the
requirements of this section and the requirements of chapter 18-5.2, Site Design and Use Standards.
a.. Portions of the Land Use Designation NA 03 identified in the overlay map are designed as a
mixed-use area providing for residential uses, commercial commodities and services that serve
the immediate area. Within the mixed-use commercial overlay area the following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted outright:
i. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service
establishments such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry
pick-up stations. limited to no greater than 3500 square feet of total floor area.
ii. Neighborhood oriented stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing
services, except that retail uses shall be limited to no greater than 3500 square feet of
total floor area.
iii. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such manufacturing
or assembly occupies six hundred (600) square feet or less, and is contiguous to the
permitted retail outlet.
iv. Restaurants.
v. Day Care Centers
3. Conditional Uses. Uses listed as "Conditional Use Permit Required (C)" are allowed subject to the
requirements of chapter 18-5.4 Conditional Use Permits.
4. Prohibited Uses. Uses not listed in the Land Use Table, and not found to be similar to an allowed use
following the procedures of section 18-1.5.040 Similar Uses, are prohibited.
18-3.x.050 Dimensional Regulations
The lot and building dimension shall conform to the standards in Table 1 8-3.x.050.
Table 1 8-3.x.050 Dimensional Standards
Description NA-01 NA-02 NA-03
Base density, dwelling units per acre 5 10 15
Minimum Lot Area, square feet 5,000 ,000 3,000
10,000 10,000 1,800 2
2,000 2
Minimum Lot Depth, feet 80 80 80
Minimum Lot Width, feet 50 34 25
Minimum Front Yard, feet 15 15 10
Minimum Side Yard, feet 6 6 6
03 03
Minimum Rear Yard, feet 10 plus 10' per 10 10
Cory
Maximum Building Height, feet/ stories 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5
Maximum Lot Coverage, percentage of lot 50 65 75
Minimum Required Landscaping, percentage of lot 35% 25%
Parking Zone Location Refer to section 184.3.080 Vehicle Area Design
Requirements
Parking Zone Minimum Side Yard Setback, feet 6 6 6
Parking Zone Maximum Depth, feet 20 20 20
Required Walkway Unless provided by a public sidewalk or multiuse
path, minimum 5 foot wide walkway between the
street and the residential unit(s), primary structure 4
or between street and street facing cottages 5
Minimum Outdoor Recreation Space, percentage of lot na na 8%
Maximum Building Footprint, square feet 1,000 1,000 na
Minimum Private Open Space, square feet per cottage 100 100 na
Minimum Dimensions for Private Open Space per 10 10 na
cottage, feet 5
Minimum Public Open Space, square feet 100 100 na
Minimum Dimensions for Public Open Space per 20 20 na
cottage, feet 5
1 Maximum Lot Area for Clustered Residential Units (Square Feet)
2 Maximum Lot Area for Attached Residential Units (Square Feet)
3 Minimum Side Yard for Attached Residential Units (Feet)
4 Applicable to the primary structure on a lot with an Accessory Residential Unit
5 Applicable to Clustered Residential Units
18-3.x.060 Site Development and Design Standards. The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Design Standards
provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the management
of parking; and access to development parcels. Development located in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Plan area shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following Design Standards.
A. Street Design and Access The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in
accordance with the Ashland Street Standards, except as otherwise required for the following facilities
within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. A change in the design of a street in a manner
inconsistent with the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Design Standards requires a minor
amendment in accordance with section 18-3.x.030.6.
1 Street Design. The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan uses street trees, green streets, and other
green infrastructure to manage stormwater, protect water quality and improve watershed health. The
urban streams and wetlands manage stormwater naturally and are part of Ashland's green
infrastructure. Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood
storm water treatment facilities.
a Design Green Streets. Streets designated on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan as Green
Streets shall conform to the following standards.
i. New streets shall be developed to capture and treat stormwater in conformance with the City of
Ashland Stormwater Master Plan.
ii. Parking lanes and parking pockets on all Green Streets within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Plan shall be constructed of permeable pavement or porous solid surface.
iii. All development served by planned Green Streets as designated on the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan shall accommodate said facilities by including the same in the
development plan; and/or
iv. Provide the City with a bond or other suitable collateral ensuring satisfactory completion of the
Green Street(s) at the time full street network improvements are provided to serve the
development. Suitable collateral may be in the form of security interest, letters of credit,
certificates of deposit, cash bonds, bonds or other suitable collateral as determined by the City
Administrator.
2. Street Standards: New developments shall provide avenues, streets, woonerfs, rear lanes, multi-use
paths, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements in conformance with the circulation framework and
street standards of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. The standards apply to:
a. Normal Avenue (cross section graphic)
b. Neighborhood Street (cross section graphic)
c. Wo o n e rf (cross section graphic)
d. Common Greens (cross section graphic)
e. Rear Lanes (alleys) (cross section graphic)
f.Multi-use Paths (cross section graphic)
3. Access Management Standards: To manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and
maintain transportation safety and operations, vehicular access shall conform to the standards set
forth in section 18-4.3, and as follows:
a. All development abutting Normal Avenue the number of curb cuts providing vehicular access
shall be limited to one per block. Automobile access to development is intended to be provided
by Rear Lanes (alleys).
b. No curb cuts providing vehicular access are permitted from a Woonerf, Common Green, or
Multi-use Path.
c. All lots shall provide a shared driveway aisle to abutting parking areas that is at least 20
feet in width. The applicant shall grant a common access easement across the lot. If the
site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the
shared access or alley and not from the street frontage.
4. Required On-Street Parking: On-street parking is a key strategy to traffic calming and is
required along the Normal Avenue and Neighborhood Streets as indicated on the street
sections.
B. Site and Building Design Standards.
1. Building and Lot Orientation General Requirements:
a. Lot Frontage Requirements: Lots in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood are required to have their
Front Lot Line on a street or a Common Green.
b. Common Green. The Common Green provides access for pedestrians and bicycles to
abutting properties. Common greens are also intended to serve as a common open space
amenity for residents. The following approval criteria and standards apply to common
greens:
i. Common Greens must include at least 400 square feet of grassy area, play area, or
dedicated gardening space, which must be at least 15 feet wide at its narrowest
dimension.
c. Parking Areas and On-site Circulation. Except as otherwise required by this chapter,
automobile parking, loading and circulation areas shall comply with the requirements of chapter
18-4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation Standards:
i. Neighborhood serving commercial uses within the NA-03 mixed use overlay, are not
required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential uses where one
space shall be provided per residential unit.
2. Conservation of Natural Areas. Development plans shall preserve water quality, natural hydrology
and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands. In addition to the
requirements of 18-3.10 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems shall be considered in the
site design through the application of the following guidelines.
a.Designate a minimum no-build buffer around wetlands.
b.Designated stream and wetland protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and
incorporated in the overall design of a given project.
c.Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat.
d.Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and their
buffers.
3. Stormwater Management. Natural water systems regulate water supply, provide biological habitat,
and may provide recreational opportunities. Undeveloped ecosystems absorb much of the
precipitation that falls on them, conveying only a small portion of rainfall as surface runoff. New and infill
development should minimize disturbances to the functioning of on-site, adjacent, and regional natural
water systems. Development shall reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental
effects of stormwater run-off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways, parking areas,
sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of appropriate stormwater management
practicices including one or more of following guidelines.
a. Implement stormwater management techniques that endeavor to treat the water as close as
possible to the spot where it hits the ground through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through
capture and reuse techniques.
b. Use on-site landscape-based water treatment methods to treat rainwater runoff from all surfaces,
including parking lots, roofs, and sidewalks.
d. Use of pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate soil.
e. Design grading and site plans create a system that slows the stormwater, maximizing time for
cleansing and infiltration.
f.Maximizing the length of overland flow of stormwater through bioswales and rain gardens,
g. Use structural soils in those environments that support pavements and trees yet are free draining.
h. Plant deep rooted native plants.
i, Replace metabolically active minerals, trace elements and microorganism rich compost in all soils
disturbed through construction activities.
4. Design Green Surface Parking. Development of parking areas shall conform to the standards of
chapter 18- 4-3 Parking, Access and Circulation; chapter 18-4.4 Landscaping and Screening; and
the applicable provisions of this chapter.
5. Minimize Construction Impacts. Construction activity shall minimize pollution and waste
generation through the following measures.
a. Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan to reduce pollution from construction
activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation in
accordance with Ashland Public Works Standards. The erosion and sediment control plan shall be
submitted with the final engineering for public improvements and building permits.
b. Restore soils within areas that have been compacted by heavy equipment or the storage of
construction materials.
c. Recycle and/or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris in accordance with
the Building Demolition Debris Diversion requirements in 15.04.216.C.
6. Water Conserving Landscaping. Reference new section of Unified Land Use Ordinance TBD.
7. Solar Orientation. Reference new section of Unified Land Use Ordinance TBD.
8. Building Shading. In order to promote energy conservation, development plans shall
incorporate shade features as follows.
a. Provide horizontal exterior shading devices for south-facing windows to control solar
gain during the peak cooling season.
b. A combination of horizontal and vertical exterior shading devices may be necessary to
control solar gain on southwest- and southeast-facing windows.
c. Promote passive and active solar strategies for residential development. On-site
parking, carports, and garages located on the south side of residential development
shall not shade, shadow, or obscure more than 15 percent of the residential building.
9. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting, in addition to complying with chapter 18-4.4.050 Outdoor
Lighting, shall use down-shielded light fixtures that do not allow light to emit above the 90- degree
plane of the fixture.
1 8-3.x.070 Open Space Overlay
All projects containing land identified as Open Space (NA-OS) on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Development Plan Land Use Overlays Map shall dedicate those areas as: common areas, public open space, or
private open space protected by restrictive covenant. It is recognized that the master planning of the
properties as part of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the
reservation of those lands within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development Plan for open space and
conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning
designation and future annexation.
18.3.x.080 Site Plan Review
A. Applicability. The following planning applications shall comply with applicable Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Design Standards and all other requirements outlined in the Site Design and Use Standards
chapter 18-5.2.
1. Developments requiring annexation approval under chapter 18-5.7
2. Developments Requiring Site Plan Approval under the chapter 18-5.2.
3. Performance Standards Option Developments. In addition to the submittal requirements for Final
Plan approval, per chapter 18-3.8, the applicant shall provide typical elevations incorporating the
architectural elements described in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Design Standards for all
proposed buildings.
4. Partitions.
B. Review and Approval Procedure. All land use applications shall be reviewed and processed in
accordance with the applicable procedures of Part 18-5.
C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of
this ordinance, applications within Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan area shall also meet the following
criteria:
1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan including density, transportation, building design, and building
orientation.
2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Design Standards.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland
FROM: Anne Sylvester, PTE
DATE: September 18, 2013
PROJECT 0722.01
SUBJECT: Draft Future Conditions Report for Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the analysis of future 2038 traffic conditions in the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan study area. The location of this study area and its surrounding street system
is illustrated in Figure 1. Analysis is based on the draft Neighborhood Plan including both recommended
land uses, densities and locations, as well as proposed multimodal transportation infrastructure within
the study area. Analysis also reflects recommendations in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update including the extension of Normal Avenue from the existing at-grade rail crossing north and east
to intersect East Main Street. The TSP also recommends improvements to active (bicycle and pedestrian)
transportation facilities.
This memorandum is built on the analysis of existing transportation facilities and operating conditions
that was prepared by myself and documented in a Technical Memorandum dated September 5, 2012.
Please refer to that report for a discussion of existing traffic volumes, operating performance for existing
streets, intersections, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and recent multimodal safety experience
and considerations.
This memo includes six major sections, as described below:
• Section 1 is this introduction.
• Section 2 describes the existing Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan study area.
• Section 3 highlights characteristics of the anticipated 2038 baseline transportation system. This
baseline transportation system includes development within the Neighborhood Plan area as
anticipated under existing Comprehensive Plan designations and includes an extension of
Normal Avenue from its current northern terminus to a new intersection with E. Main Street.
• Section 4 focuses on the future traffic conditions associated with Neighborhood Plan
development in the study area including proposed land uses and densities, along with the
proposed transportation networks for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The section includes
key findings and conclusions, and presents recommendations for transportation improvement
to maximize operations and enhance safety.
1H . r u ru
September 18, 2013
Page 2 of 22
• Section 5 documents the analysis of Multimodal Levels of Service (MMLOS)
• Section 6 presents the analysis of safety benefits associated with a variety of system
improvements.
2. STUDY AREA
The study area for evaluating future transportation conditions for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Plan includes two primary areas of focus. The first is the Normal Avenue Plan area itself, referred to in
this report as the project area. This area includes both the alignment of Normal Avenue between the
Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad right-of-way and E. Main Street, and all other local streets within the
Plan area that provide access to individual properties. The proposed street system for the project area is
illustrated in Figure 2. This report documents the analysis of this internal street system focusing on
several key questions:
• Whether the proposed street classification and cross-section is consistent with anticipated
travel demand as the project area builds out.
• When an enhanced public crossing of the existing limited crossing of the Central Oregon and
Pacific Railroad at Normal Avenue will need to be improved. Until such time as this
improvement is made traffic circulation to/from the plan area will largely focus on E. Main and
Clay Streets.
The second focus area includes six key intersections located on the streets surrounding the project area.
Existing traffic control and lane channelization at these intersections is documented in Figure 3. Analysis
of these intersections was conducted to identify any potential future 2038 impacts associated with the
Plan. These intersections include:
• Ashland Street at Walker Avenue (included in TSP Update)
• Ashland Street at Normal Avenue
• Ashland Street (Oregon Highway 66) at Tolman Creek Road (included in TSP Update)
• East Main Street at Walker Avenue (included in TSP Update)
• East Main Street at Clay Street
• East Main Street at Tolman Creek Road
3. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.1 2038 Baseline Traffic Volumes
Traffic forecasts for the Normal Avenue study area were developed for 2038 at the six study area
intersections and along key streets within the study area. The purpose of these forecasts was to assess
roadway improvement needs and functional classification designations for conditions with and without
the Neighborhood Plan. Future year traffic volume forecasts were prepared using the following steps
and are presented in Figure 4.
• RVCOG and ODOT provided RVMPOv3.1 travel model output for 2038 including daily and PM
peak hour trips. This model output represents the latest growth and network assumptions
available for the Ashland area. Both 2006 and future 2038 model runs were obtained to assess
the traffic volume growth potential on study area streets.
September 18, 2013
Page 3 of 22
• The expected traffic growth was post-processed using the procedures identified in Analysis
Procedures Manual (APM) to develop intersection level turning movement projections. This
method uses the existing traffic volumes previously developed as a starting point since these
have already been adjusted to reflect the 30th highest hour'. Consistent with the analysis
conducted for existing conditions, intersection level turning movements and operations analysis
have only been conducted for the 2038 PM peak hour.
An assessment of potential traffic volume growth along Normal Avenue was also conducted to form the
basis of comparison with build-out of the Neighborhood Plan (discussed in the next section). In the 2038
RVMPO travel model, Normal Avenue is expected to be extended to E. Main Street. However, the model
also assumes that Normal Avenue would be a lower order facility than Walker or Clay Streets. Projected
traffic volumes along Normal Avenue are expected largely to consist of locally-generated traffic. No
significant volume of through traffic was projected.
3.2 Intersection Operational Standards
3.2.1 ODOT Facilities
One intersection in the Normal Avenue study area is under the jurisdiction of ODOT - OR 66 (Ashland
Street) at Tolman Creek Road. OR 66 is designated as a District Highway from its intersection with
Tolman Creek Road eastward through the I-5 interchange.
ODOT uses volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio standards to assess traffic operations at intersections on state
highway facilities. Table 6 of the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and Table 10-1 of the Oregon Highway
Design Manual (HDM) provide the maximum v/c ratios for all signalized and unsignalized intersections
outside of the Portland Metro area. The OHP ratios are used to evaluate existing and future no build
conditions, while the HDM ratios are used to evaluate transportation system improvements on state
highways. Based on its classification as a District Highway, the signalized intersection of OR 66 at
Tolman Creek Road has an OHP v/c standard of 0.95 (based on revisions to the OHP adopted by the
Oregon Transportation Commission in December of 2011 which became effective on January 1, 2012)2.
Its relevant HDM v/c ratio is 0.80.
3.2.2 City of Ashland Facilities
The remaining five intersections in the study area are all under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland.
Based on discussion included in the TSP, the following operational standards were used:
• Level of service (LOS) D at signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections if the v/c ratio is
not higher than 1.00 for the sum of critical movements.
• LOS E for the poorest operating approach at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Approaches
operating at a LOS F where a traffic signal is not warranted were also identified in the TSP.
A summary of the relevant operational standards for the five City intersections in the Normal Avenue
study area is presented in Table 1 below.
I See "Existing Transportation Conditions Technical Memorandum", Parametrix, September 5, 2012.
2 It should be noted that the TSP used the OHP v/c standards that were in place prior to the OTC's action in
December of 2011. Consequently the v/c threshold cited in the TSP is 0.90.
September 18, 2013
Page 4 of 22
Table 1. Operational Threshold for City Intersections
Intersection Traffic Control Threshold Intersection Traffic Control Threshold
E. Main Street @ Walker TWSC LOS "E" E Main Street @ Clay TWSC LOS "E"
Avenue * Street
Ashland Street @ Walker Signal LOS "D" E. Main Street @ Tolman TWSC LOS "E"
Avenue* Creek Road
Ashland Street @ Normal TWSC LOS "E"
Avenue
* Intersection included in TSP
3.3 Findings and Conclusions
3.3.1 Intersection Operations Analysis Results
Synchro 8 software was used to evaluate the performance of both signalized and unsignalized
intersections in the study area. Table 2 summarizes 2038 PM peak hour operational performance for
study area intersections assuming Comprehensive Plan land use designations. These results incorporate
the intersection geometry and traffic control features illustrated in Figure 3 and the projected 2038 PM
peak hour traffic volumes in Figure 4.
As indicated in Table 2, all study area intersections are expected to meet their applicable mobility
standard. Detailed traffic operational worksheets can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2. 2038 Baseline PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis Summary
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C I Delay 2 LOS 3
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue LOS D Signal 0.59 15.1 B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ashland Street at Normal Avenue LOS E Stop SB 0.44 30.5 D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.95 50.9 D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Walker Avenue LOS E Stop NB 0.34 22.1 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Clay Street LOS E Stop NB 0.34 21.8 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Tolman Creek Road LOS E Stop NB 0.36 13.0 B
Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection or Worst Movement of an unsignalized intersection.
2 LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
3 Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
3.3.2 Traffic Queuing Analysis Results
Table 3 summarizes 2038 baseline PM peak hour traffic queuing analysis results at the two signalized
study area intersections. Worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Queuing results for the signalized intersection of Ashland Street at Walker Avenue show that for both
left turn movements (eastbound and westbound) along Ashland Street there is sufficient space to meet
expected vehicle queuing demand. At the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road
three of the existing left turn lanes do not have sufficient space to accommodate expected traffic
queues during the 2038 PM peak hour without impacting other traffic. In the north and southbound
directions, a two to three vehicle spillover into the through lane is expected for certain signal cycles
during the PM peak hour. A more significant queuing problem occurs with the westbound left turn lane
where queuing demand extends beyond available space in the designated left turn lane, spilling back
September 18, 2013
Page 5 of 22
into a two-way left turn lane and impacting access to/from existing driveways, particularly along the
south side of the street east of Tolman Creek Road.
Table 3. 2038 Baseline PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Queuing
Existing Vehicle PM Peak Hour
Intersection Movement Storage Vehicle Queue
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue' EB Left 100 ft 75 ft
WB Left 100 ft 72 ft
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road' NB Left 100 ft 156 ft
SB Left 100 ft 154 ft
EB Left2 185 ft 179 ft
W B LefO 225 ft 366 ft
Traffic queuing calculated using Synchro 8 traffic operations software.
2 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. EB left has only 185 feet to first driveway.
3 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. WB left has only 225 feet to first driveway.
4. FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS WITH NORMAL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
4.1 2038 Build Traffic Volumes
Traffic forecasts for the Normal Avenue study area were developed for 2038 "build" conditions at the
same six study area intersections and along key streets within the study area. Future year traffic volume
forecasts were prepared using the following steps:
• Similar to the development of traffic forecasts for the 2038 baseline conditions, RVCOG and
ODOT provided RVMPOv3.1 travel model output for daily and PM peak hour trips. This model
run excluded growth in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) that represent the Normal
Avenue Plan area. This allowed creation of a 2038 "Build" assignment to which project-
generated traffic could be manually assigned for greater detail and sensitivity.
• The expected traffic growth from the Build condition model was post-processed using the
procedures identified in Analysis Procedures Manual (APM) to develop non-project intersection
level turning movement projections.
• Normal Avenue Plan trip generation estimates were prepared for AM and PM peak hours and
daily conditions using the most recent ITE rates as appropriate for the assumed land use types.
Two phases of development were evaluated. An internal trip capture reduction of 5 percent will
be assumed and applied to all trips.
• Select zone loads were obtained for the two TAZs (#745 and 750) that cover the Normal Avenue
study area. These were used to develop trip distribution assumptions to manually assign project
traffic to the surrounding street system.
• AM, PM peak hour and daily project traffic for the two phases were assigned to the internal and
surrounding street system to illustrate the potential growth in volumes that could occur on any
give street segment during these time periods. These assignments were used in two ways. First
to assess the level of traffic expected on internal roads to check consistency with classifications
and proposed street cross-sections. Second, to form the base for developing future turning
movement projections at the six study area intersections external to the site. For the latter, only
PM peak hour volumes were used.
September 18, 2013
Page 6 of 22
The following sections describe the development of trip generation analysis, document the distribution
assumptions for project area trips, and present future traffic volumes for Phases 1 and 2.
4. 1.1 Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Trip Generation
This section summarizes the process used to estimate future auto trips that would use the internal road
system in the project area and would impact the surrounding six key study area intersections. Trip
generation estimates were developed using rates for comparable land uses as published in the 9th
Edition of the "Trip Generation" manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, an authoritative
reference to the travel-making characteristics of a wide variety of land use types throughout the United
State. The trip generation rates shown below in Table 4 were chosen as they represented the best fit for
the types of land uses that are envisioned in the project area.
Table 4. Normal Avenue Trip Generation Rates
Plan Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Description ITE Code Land Use Units In Out In Out In Out
NA-01 210 Single Family Residential dus 4.76 4.76 0.19 0.56 0.63 0.37
NA-02/03 221 Low Density Multi-Family dus 3.3 3.3 0.12 0.35 0.34 0.24
Source: Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.
Note: du means dwelling unit.
The trip generation rates illustrated in this table are expressed per individual dwelling unit. These rates
are then multiplied by the total number of dwelling units for each land use type and adjusted to reflect
the potential that some of the generated trips will remain within the neighborhood and not use the
surrounding street system. Table 5 illustrates the total estimated trips for the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood study area. A total of 973 daily trips (one-way) could be expected with build-out of Phase
1, with a further 578 daily trips (one-way) with build-out of Phase 2. A total of 1,551 one-way trips per
day is estimated with build-out of the entire neighborhood plan.
Table 5. Normal Avenue Trip Generation Estimates
Units Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Plan Net per Dwelling
Description Land Use Acres Acre Units In Out In Out In Out
Phase 1
NA-01 Single Family Residential 1.47 5 7 35 35 1 4 5 3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NA-02 Low Density Multi-Family 14.65 10 147 482 482 17 52 48 35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NA-03 High Density Multi-Family 10.28 15 154 508 508 19 54 51 37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sub-Totals 26.40 308 1,025 1,025 37 110 104 75
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less Internal (5%) (52) (52) (2) (6) (4) (3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
Net Trip Ends 973 973 35 104 100 72
Phase 2
NA-01 Single Family Residential 11.73 5 59 280 280 10 33 37 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NA-02 Low Density Multi-Family 5.89 10 59 193 193 7 20 20 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NA-03 High Density Multi-Family 2.73 15 41 135 135 5 14 14 10
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sub-Totals 20.35 159 608 608 22 67 71 46
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less Internal (5%) (30) (30) (0) (2) (3) (2)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
Net Trip Ends 578 578 22 65 68 44
September 18, 2013
Page 7 of 22
The generated trips in Table 4 were further disaggregated into specific geographic sub-areas for use in
developing a refined estimate of how traffic in the neighborhood would use the available street system.
These sub-areas or Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) are illustrated in Figure 5. Trip generation
estimates for each of the project area TAZs is presented in Appendix C.
4.1.2 Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Trip Distribution
The next step in the analysis process was to distribute project-related traffic for the two development
phases to the internal and surrounding street system. This process was based on the directional
distribution of traffic observed in the RVMPO travel demand model for the two analysis zones (#745 and
#750) that constitute the Normal Avenue project area. Trip distribution calculations were conducted for
each TAZ using the assumptions illustrated in Figure 6.
Using the trip estimates in Table 4 and the trip distribution assumptions in Figure 6, the potential growth
in traffic volumes that could occur on any given street segment can be determined. This information will
be used in two ways. First, to assess the level of traffic expected on internal roads to check consistency
with street classifications and proposed street cross-sections. Second, to form the base for developing
future turning movement projections at the six study area intersections external to the site. This
information will then be used to determine the project's long-term impact and the potential need for
mitigation.
4.1.3 Phase 1 Traffic Volumes
The estimates of growth in traffic volume for various street segments in the project area were used to
prepare future (2038) PM peak hour turning movement projections at the six study area intersections.
Figure 7 illustrates both the assumed land uses for Phase 1 of development and the internal street
system expected to be in place. Generally, it is anticipated that the initial development in the Normal
Avenue neighborhood will occur within the eastern portions of the property. As illustrated in Figure 7,
access will be available both from Clay Street (via two east/west Neighborhood Streets) and from Main
Street (via two north/south Neighborhood Streets and the northerly extension of Normal Avenue, a
designated city avenue).
Figure 8 presents 2038 intersection turning movement projections for the PM peak hour including both
2038 background traffic growth and Phase 1 of development in the Normal Avenue project area.
4.2 Phase 1 Findings and Conclusions
4.2.1 Intersection Operations Analysis Results
Table 6 summarizes 2038 PM peak hour operational performance for study area intersections assuming
build-out of Phase 1 of the Normal Avenue Plan. These results incorporate the intersection geometry
and traffic control features illustrated in Figure 2 and the projected 2038 PM peak hour traffic volumes
in Figure 8.
As indicated in Table 6, all study area intersections are expected to meet their applicable mobility
standard. Detailed traffic operational worksheets can be found in Appendix D.
September 18, 2013
Page 8 of 22
Table 6. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 1, PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis Summary
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C I Delay 2 LOS 3
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue LOS D Signal 0.61 16.0 B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ashland Street at Normal Avenue LOS E Stop SB 0.55 38.2 E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.98 55.8 E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Walker Avenue LOS E Stop NB 0.38 24.1 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Clay Street LOS E Stop NB 0.36 23.2 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Tolman Creek Road LOS E Stop NB 0.42 13.5 B
Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection or Worst Movement of an unsignalized intersection.
2 LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
3 Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
4.2.2 Traffic Queuing Analysis Results
Table 7 summarizes 2038 PM peak hour traffic queuing analysis results for Phase 1 of the Normal
Avenue Plan at the two signalized study area intersections. Worksheets are included in Appendix E.
Similar to the results from analysis of the 2038 PM peak baseline condition, queuing results for the
signalized intersection of Ashland Street at Walker Avenue show that for both left turn movements
(eastbound and westbound) along Ashland Street there is sufficient space to meet expected vehicle
queuing demand. At the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road three of the
existing left turn lanes do not have sufficient space to accommodate expected traffic queues during the
2038 PM peak hour without impacting other traffic. In the north and southbound directions, a two to
three vehicle spillover into the through lane is expected for certain signal cycles during the PM peak
hour. A more significant queuing problem occurs with the westbound left turn lane where queuing
demand extends beyond available space in the designated left turn lane, spilling back into a two-way left
turn lane and impacting access to/from existing driveways, particularly along the south side of the street
east of Tolman Creek Road.
Table 7. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 1, PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Queuing
Existing Vehicle PM Peak Hour
Intersection Movement Storage Vehicle Queue
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue' EB Left 100 ft 82 ft.
W B Left 100 ft 78 ft.
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road' NB Left 100 ft 173ft.
SB Left 100 ft 181 ft.
EB Left2 185 ft 149 ft.
W B Left3 225 ft 321 ft.
Traffic queuing calculated using Synchro 8 traffic operations software.
2 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. EB left has only 185 feet to first driveway.
3 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. WB left has only 225 feet to first driveway.
4.2.3 Mitigation
With Phase 1 development of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan, the ODOT v/c standard for the
intersection of Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road will be exceeded. Mitigation of this impact could
be accomplished with the addition of the northbound right turn lane at the intersection. This would
September 18, 2013
Page 9 of 22
require acquisition of property on the southeast quadrant of the intersection which is currently used for
on-site business parking. It should also be noted that this improvement would benefit existing crash
experience at this intersection. Of the 22 crashes recorded from 2000 through 2011, six involved
vehicles in the northbound through/right turn lane, and one of those was a rear-end collision between a
vehicle turning right and one heading straight. Constructing a separate northbound right-turn lane
could be expected to reduce rear-end collisions on the northbound approach and may reduce other
collision types involving the northbound through and right-turn movements. Safety benefits associated
with this proposed improvement are further discussed later in this report.
Table 8 summarizes expected traffic operational improvements with the addition of the proposed
mitigation at the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Table 8. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 1, PM Peak Hour Mitigation
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C I Delay 2 LOS 3
Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.89 39.3 D
Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection.
2 LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
3 Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
4.2.4 Evaluation of Internal Streets
Figures 2, 11 and 12 illustrate the internal street, bicycle and pedestrian systems for the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan. As indicated in Figure 2, the internal street system follows an hierarchical structure
which uses Normal Avenue as its primary backbone. Normal Avenue would ultimately run north/south,
connecting Main Street on the north with Ashland Street on the south. This connection would require
approval of a public railroad crossing of the existing CORP rail line.
Normal Avenue is supported by a system of Neighborhood Streets, running both north/south (generally
parallel to Normal Avenue) and east/west (connecting Normal Avenue to various subareas in the
development and to individual properties). In addition to neighborhood streets, there is also a system of
alleyways or "rear lanes" providing back access to properties fronting on public open space, and
woonerfs that provide for mixed mode travel with no separation between cars, pedestrians and
bicyclists. Woonerfs originated in The Netherlands and are referred to as "living streets" where
pedestrians and cyclists have legal priority over motorists with a goal of calming and reducing speeds.
As shown in Figure 11, the bicycle network in the Plan area includes streets with bike lanes (primarily
Main Street adjacent to the project), streets without bike lanes (including Normal Avenue and the
neighborhood street system), woonerfs, multi-use paths, and the Ashland Central Bike Path. The
pedestrian system shown in Figure 12 includes an extensive system of streets with adjacent sidewalks,
woonerfs, multi-use paths and the Ashland Central Bike Path. It should be noted that these two figures
show the bicycle and pedestrian systems at full build-out. With Phase 1 development, improvements
would be largely confined to the eastern portion of the Plan area (see Figure 7).
The Ashland Transportation System Plan designates Normal Avenue as a City Avenue in its functionally
classified hierarchy of streets. The City's "Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets" defines an
Avenue as a street that provides "concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, transit and motor vehicle access from
neighborhoods to neighborhood activity centers and boulevards. Avenues are similar to boulevards, but
are designed on a smaller scale... A 2-lane or 3-lane configuration can be used depending on the number
September 18, 2013
Page 10 of 22
of trips generated by surrounding existing and future land uses." Avenues are expected to carry between
3,000 and 10,000 daily vehicle trips, speeds would be controlled to 20-25 mph, and bike lanes, on-street
parking, planting strips and sidewalks would all be provided.
Traffic volumes for daily and PM peak hourly conditions with Phase 1 development were estimated for
Normal Avenue south of Main Street, where the maximum traffic volume on this facility is expected to
occur. Traffic volume estimates were based on the trip generation and trip assignment process
described above, resulting in an estimate of approximately 90 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Review
of travel model output indicates that there would be little demand for cut-through traffic movement on
Normal Avenue between Ashland and Main Streets, thus minimizing non-project traffic on the plan area
street system if and when a continuous Normal Avenue connection might be made. Approximately
1,000 vehicles were estimated on a daily basis at this same location, representing a low end for the
Avenue street classification. Consideration should be given to reclassifying this street as a Neighborhood
Collector between Ashland and Main Streets. This classification has a recommended service volume of
1,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day.
It should be noted that the Plan does not propose that bike lanes be included on Normal Avenue which
is inconsistent with its existing functional designation, but generally acceptable given the low traffic
volumes that this street is expected to carry. A reclassification of the street from Avenue to
Neighborhood Collector would eliminate this inconsistency. City standards state that "bicycle Lanes
should be provided on streets designated as neighborhood collectors when the average daily traffic is
over 3000, and/or when actual travel speeds exceed 25 mph". Since Phase 1 (and full build-out volumes
as described later in this report) would generate less than 3,000 vehicles per day along Normal Avenue,
consistency with the Neighborhood Collector classification could be achieved. Street design should
encourage travel speeds of 25 mph or less.
The proposed multi-use path connection along the east side of an existing street from Normal Avenue to
the north edge of the project area will ultimately provide access to the Bear Creek Greenway. When
complete, the Greenway will connect to many destinations in central Jackson County. The presence of
sidewalks and trails throughout the development provide for convenient and safe pedestrian
movement, linking to destinations within the Plan area, as well as outside.
4.2.5 Access Management Considerations
As noted in the TSP, spacing requirements for public roadways and private driveways can have a
profound impact on transportation system operations, safety and land development. Access
management strategies and implementation require careful consideration to balance the needs for
access to developed land with the need to ensure movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner.
Access management generally becomes more stringent as the functional classification level of roadways
increases and the corresponding importance of mobility increase.
The City of Ashland has a minimum driveway access spacing of 300 feet for boulevards like Ashland and
East Main Streets, 100 feet for avenues like Walker Avenue, Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road, and 75
feet for lower order streets such as those that could be developed internal to the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan area. OR 66 east of Tolman Creek Road is under ODOT jurisdiction and state highway
access spacing standards apply. ODOT and the City of Ashland have an agreement that OR 66 within the
city limits is subject to the minimum spacing standards typically applied to District Highways. OR 66
within the City is subject to a minimum access spacing standard of 300 feet. The public roadway spacing
standards is 1 mile for boulevards and % mile for avenues. The City currently does not have minimum
public roadway spacing standards for neighborhood collectors or neighborhood streets.
September 18, 2013
Page 11 of 22
The proposed alignment of Normal Avenue through the Plan area is largely consistent with the % mile
(1,320 feet) spacing standard for avenues in relation to the existing alignment of Clay Street which is
also a designated avenue. The exception would be at the north end near Main Street where Normal
Avenue makes a transition eastward as it approaches Main Street to avoid wetlands and minimize
impact to an existing stream. At its proposed Main Street intersection, Normal Avenue would be
approximately 1,000 feet west of Clay Street. Neighborhood streets are located roughly 300 to 500 feet
apart and are supported by woonerfs and rear lanes.
As development plans for the project area become more refined it will be important to ensure that
there is adequate spacing between the proposed Normal Avenue intersection with Main Street and the
neighborhood street intersection proposed immediately to the east. As shown currently in Figure 2,
there is less than 300 feet between these two intersections. A minimum spacing of 300 feet is
recommended. Additionally it will be important that adequate intersection and stopping sight distance
is provided at each intersection onto Main Street. Consideration should be given to reviewing existing
sight distance at the intersection of Main Street with Clay Street to ensure that appropriate distance is
available to maximize safety.
4.2.6 Railroad Crossing
The existing road crossing of the CORP tracks at
Normal Avenue is a stop-controlled, private
crossing intended to serve a limited number of ;
single family homes on large lots. In order to
connect Normal Avenue as a public street 4
between the Plan area and Ashland Street, a ,
formal rail crossing permit application must be }i~'Y~~; #
submitted and approved. If approved, then it is -w
likely that enhanced rail crossing protection
devices will be required and must be installed
as a part of the public street improvement
project. This is an expensive undertaking as it is
likely that crossing gates with flashers and
warning devices would be required. As a part of the Normal Avenue Plan future traffic conditions
analysis, the need for a Normal Avenue extension including upgraded rail crossing was evaluated.
The primary factors considered in this evaluation focused on whether there would be a significant
degradation of traffic operations along Main or Clay Streets, or at any of the study area intersections
that could be avoided by making the proposed road extension. The results of PM peak hour intersection
traffic operations analysis indicates that, with one exception, all study area intersections would operate
acceptably without the improved rail crossing and Normal Avenue street connection in place. The
exception is at the intersection of Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road where the addition of project
development is expected to cause the ODOT performance standard to be exceeded. A redistribution of
project traffic to/from this location via a new Normal Avenue extension makes no substantive difference
in the overall operating performance of this intersection. Accordingly, developing a public rail crossing
as a traffic impact mitigation measure is not necessary. However, it may be desirable to ultimately
improve this crossing and connect Normal Avenue to the south to provide for additional circulation
connectivity. In the interim, the viability of adding a bicycle and pedestrian connection across the
railroad at this location should be explored.
September 18, 2013
Page 12 of 22
4.3 Phase 2 Findings and Conclusions
Figure 9 illustrates both the assumed land uses for Phase 2 of development and the internal street
system expected to be in place. Generally, it is anticipated that build-out of the Normal Avenue
neighborhood will occur within the western and southern portions of the property. As illustrated in
Figure 9, access will be available both from Clay Street (via two east/west Neighborhood Streets) and
from Main Street (via three north/south Neighborhood Streets and the northerly extension of Normal
Avenue, a designated city avenue). If a public crossing of the existing CORP rail line is permitted and
constructed, access would also be available to/from the south via an improved Normal Avenue
connection.
Figure 10 presents 2038 intersection turning movement projections for the PM peak hour including
2038 background traffic growth and both phases of development in the Normal Avenue project area.
4.3.1 Intersection Operations Analysis Results
Synchro 8 software was used to evaluate the performance of both signalized and unsignalized
intersections in the study area. Table 9 summarizes 2038 PM peak hour operational performance for
study area intersections assuming build-out of both Phases 1 and 2 of the Normal Avenue Plan. These
results incorporate the intersection geometry and traffic control features illustrated in Figure 2 (with the
addition Normal Avenue and other local street connections to Main Street) and the projected 2038 PM
peak hour traffic volumes in Figure 10.
As indicated in Table 9, all study area intersections are expected to meet their applicable mobility
standard. Detailed traffic operational worksheets can be found in Appendix F.
Table 9. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 2, PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis Summary
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C I Delay 2 LOS 3
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue LOS D Signal 0.63 17.0 B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ashland Street at Normal Avenue LOS E Stop SB 0.55 38.3 E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.99 58.7 E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Walker Avenue LOS E Stop NB 0.41 25.3 D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Clay Street LOS E Stop NB 0.39 25.1 D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Tolman Creek Road LOS E Stop NB 0.46 14.2 B
Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection or Worst Movement of an unsignalized intersection.
2 LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
3 Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
4.3.2 Traffic Queuing Analysis Results
Table 10 summarizes 2038 PM peak hour traffic queuing analysis results for Phase 2 of the Normal
Avenue Plan at the two signalized study area intersections. Worksheets are included in Appendix G.
Similar to the results from analysis of the 2038 PM peak baseline condition, queuing results for the
signalized intersection of Ashland Street at Walker Avenue show that for both left turn movements
(eastbound and westbound) along Ashland Street there is sufficient space to meet expected vehicle
queuing demand. At the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road none of the
existing left turn lanes has sufficient space to accommodate expected traffic queues during the 2038 PM
peak hour without impacting other traffic. In the north, south and eastbound directions, a two to three
September 18, 2013
Page 13 of 22
vehicle spillover into the through lane is expected for certain signal cycles during the PM peak hour. A
more significant queuing problem occurs with the westbound left turn lane where queuing demand
extends beyond available space in the designated left turn lane, spilling back into a two-way left turn
lane and impacting access to/from existing driveways, particularly along the south side of the street east
of Tolman Creek Road.
Table 10. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 2, PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Queuing
Existing Vehicle PM Peak Hour
Intersection Movement Storage Vehicle Queue
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue' EB Left 100 ft 90 ft.
W B Left 100 ft 78 ft.
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road' NB Left 100 ft 166 ft.
SB Left 100 ft 192 ft.
EB Left2 185 ft 190 ft.
W B Left3 225 ft 321 ft.
Traffic queuing calculated using Synchro 8 traffic operations software.
2 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. EB left has only 185 feet to first driveway.
3 Existing storage space includes two-way left turn lane. WB left has only 225 feet to first driveway.
4.3.3 Mitigation
With build-out of Phases 1 and 2 of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan, the ODOT v/c standard for
the intersection of Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road will be exceeded. Mitigation of this impact
could be accomplished with the addition of the northbound right turn lane at the intersection. This
would require acquisition of property on the southeast quadrant of the intersection which is currently
used for on-site business parking. Table 11 summarizes expected traffic operational improvements with
the addition of the proposed mitigation at the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Table 11. 2038 Normal Avenue Plan Phase 2, PM Peak Hour Mitigation
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C I Delay 2 LOS 3
Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.89 40.0 D
Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection.
2 LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
3 Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
4.3.4 Evaluation of Internal Streets
Full build-out of the Plan area would occur with Phase 2 development. This development is largely
focused on the western portion of the study area (see Figure 9 for the additional streets that would
serve Phase 2 land development).
Traffic volumes for daily and PM peak hourly conditions with both Phases 1 and 2 were estimated for
Normal Avenue south of Main Street. Based on the estimate of trip-making with this additional
development, an estimate of approximately 110 vehicles during the PM peak hour would use Normal
Avenue near Main Street. This equates to approximately 1,200 daily vehicles at the same location,
representing a low end for the Avenue street classification. It should also be noted that the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan does not propose that bike lanes be included on Normal Avenue which is
inconsistent with its functional designation, but generally acceptable given the low traffic volumes that
this street is expected to carry. However, as discussed under the evaluation of Phase 1 traffic,
September 18, 2013
Page 14 of 22
reclassification of Normal Avenue as a Neighborhood Collector should be considered. This
reclassification would be consistent with the daily traffic volumes projected for the street and would not
require bicycle lanes.
A proposed multi-use path provides necessary connections to/from the schools located west of the
project area along Walker Avenue, offering a safer and more pleasant travel route for young people
than using the proposed Main Street bike lanes. The presence of sidewalks and trails throughout the
development provide for convenient and safe pedestrian movement, linking to destinations within the
Plan area, as well as outside.
4.3.5 Access Management
With development of the Phase 2 street system another neighborhood street connection to Main Street
is proposed at the western edge of the project area. Based on the street alignment illustrated in Figure
2, there does not appear to be any spacing conflicts with other nearby street connections including both
Walker Avenue to the west and Normal Avenue to the east. As development plans for this area become
more refined it will be important to ensure that adequate intersection and stopping sight distance is
provided at Main Street.
4.3.6 Railroad Crossing
The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented under the Phase 1 discussion would not
change with the addition of Phase 2 traffic.
S. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
This section summarizes a qualitative multimodal level of service analysis that was conducted for the
streets in the study area based on procedures recently developed by ODOT3. This analysis differs from
the quantitative assessment conducted for the City's Transportation System Plan and updated for the
Normal Avenue Plan existing conditions analysis. For the qualitative analysis data was collected to gain
an understanding of both the existing and proposed multimodal transportation system and its
performance for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists.
The results of multimodal level of service analysis for roadway segments is shown in Table 12 and
summarized below. Analysis results for intersections is shown in Table 13, and back-up documentation
of data used in both assessments is included in Appendix I. In addition to this analysis, it should be noted
that the City's Central Bike Path runs east/west through the project area along the south side of the
existing CORP rail tracks between Tolman Creek Road and A Street. This path is a significant component
of the City's non-motorized transportation system, connecting the Normal Avenue Neighborhood to the
broader community and significantly enhancing opportunities for the use of active transportation modes
in the study area.
As indicated in Table 12, existing pedestrian facilities vary considerably throughout the study area
ranging from excellent along Walker Avenue in the vicinity of the existing schools to very poor along
Main Street where is there is limited shoulder space and relatively high speeds. Bicycle facilities also
vary considerably throughout the study area ranging from poor on Main and Clay Streets where no
facilities are present and shoulder widths are narrow, to excellent along the northern part of Walker
Avenue where there are existing bicycle lanes. Transit service is currently provided only along Ashland
3 Oregon Department of Transportation, "Qualitative Multimodal Level of Service Supplement", January 2013.
September 18, 2013
Page 15 of 22
Street and Tolman Creek Road (RVTD Route 10). Service is provided on a half-hourly basis and transit
amenities are minimal. Pedestrian access along Ashland Street is very good, but limited along Tolman
Creek Road. Overall the transit level of service was rated as fair. Auto levels of service are largely derived
from the intersection traffic operations analysis that is documented earlier in this report. Generally,
operations are good except for the intersection of Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road where
growing traffic volumes will cause LOS to significantly degrade over time.
With development of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan, it is anticipated that urban scale
improvements would be made to Main Street. Consistent with the Boulevard designation in the City's
"Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets" it is anticipated that Main Street would be constructed
to include: two 11-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot median, two 6-foot bike lanes, two 5 to 8-foot planting
strips on either side of the street to buffer the sidewalk from vehicular traffic, and two 6 to 10-foot
sidewalks. It is also anticipated that the City will seek a speed reduction from the existing 40 mph
designation to a 25 to 30 mph range consistent with the City's street standards. These changes would
improve the multimodal LOS analysis results for Main Street for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to
excellent. A more detailed discussion of the rating process and results is presented on the following
pages.
Table 12. Summary of Qualitative Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Street Segments
Travel Mode
Street Segments Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Auto
Existing and 2038 Baseline
Ashland Street
Walker Avenue to Tolman Ck Road Fair Good Fair Good ill
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Main Street
Walker Avenue to Tolman Ck Road Very Poor Poor N/A Excellent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Walker Avenue
Main Street to Iowa Street Excellent Excellent N/A Excellent
Iowa Street to Ashland Street Good Good N/A Excellent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clay Street
Main Street to Ashland Street Fair Poor N/A Good (zl
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tolman Creek Road
Main Street to Ashland Street Good Good N/A Good ill
2038 with Neighborhood Plan
Ashland Street
Walker Avenue to Tolman Ck Road Fair Good Fair Good ill
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Main Street
Walker Avenue to Tolman Ck Road Excellent Excellent N/A Excellent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Walker Avenue
Main Street to Iowa Street Excellent Excellent N/A Excellent
Iowa Street to Ashland Street Good Good N/A Excellent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clay Street
Main Street to Ashland Street Fair Poor N/A Good (zl
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tolman Creek Road
Main Street to Ashland Street Good Good N/A Good ill
1> Significant congestion at intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. Intersection also exceeds signalized critical
crash rate.
(2) No crash data but perception of hazard on Clay at Main due to speed.
September 18, 2013
Page 16 of 22
Table 13 presents a summary of the results of qualitative multimodal level of service analysis for
intersections. As indicated in the table, existing pedestrian and bicycle crossings of side streets along
Ashland Street are rated as Good due to existing traffic control and the presence of crosswalks. Existing
crossings of side streets along Main Street are rated as Good at Walker Avenue and the future Normal
Avenue due to the presence (or likely future presence) of stop-sign traffic control and crosswalks. The
intersections with Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road were rated as Fair due to the lack of crosswalks.
Crossings of Ashland Street were rated as Fair at Walker Avenue and Tolman Creek Road due to the
presence of traffic signal control with pedestrian buttons and signal heads (which is positive) and the
long crossing distance (which is negative). Crossings of Ashland Street at Normal Avenue and Clay Street
were rated as Poor since there are no traffic control devices, crosswalks or median refuges.
Table 13. Summary of Qualitative Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Intersections
Along Ashland Street at Side Street Crossings of:
Travel Mode Walker Normal Clay Tolman Creek
Existing and 2038 Baseline
Pedestrian Facilities Good Good Good Good
Bicycle Facilities Good Good Good Good
2038 with Neighborhood Plan
Pedestrian Facilities Good Good Good Good
Bicycle Facilities Good Good Good Good
Along Main Street at Side Street Crossings of:
Walker Normal Clay Tolman Creek
Existing and 2038 Baseline
Pedestrian Facilities Good N/A Fair Fair
Bicycle Facilities Good N/A Fair Fair
2038 with Neighborhood Plan
Pedestrian Facilities Good Good Fair Fair
Bicycle Facilities Good Good Fair Fair
Crossings of Ashland Street at:
Walker Normal Clay Tolman Creek
Existing and 2038 Baseline
Pedestrian Facilities Fair Poor Poor Fair
Bicycle Facilities Fair Poor Poor Fair
2038 with Neighborhood Plan
Pedestrian Facilities Fair Poor Poor Fair
Bicycle Facilities Fair Poor Poor Fair
5.1 Data Sources
For the Ashland Street, Main Street and Tolman Creek Road segments, the data was taken exclusively
appendices and support memoranda prepared for the recently adopted Transportation System Plan
(TSP). This data was spot checked on Google Earth to ensure that it was both current and accurate.
Data was updated where necessary.
For the Clay Street and Walker Avenue segments, Google Earth and other resources were used to
determine the values needed to populate the tables. The TSP indicated that there is no transit on these
September 18, 2013
Page 17 of 22
roads and this was confirmed b a check on the RVTD website. To determine pavement conditions, the
pavement as viewed on Google Earth supplemented by photos of roadway segments earlier in the
project, was compared to locations where a pavement rating was provided. Where pavement condition
seemed similar based on visual inspection, a location was scored the same as the other roadways. It
should be noted that all of the roadways with a pavement rating in the TSP had the same score.
For the intersection table, crossing width was assumed to be the number of lanes on the cross street.
The analysis addresses both travel along Ashland and Main Streets, as well as crossings of Ashland
Street.
5.2 Determining the Multimodal Assessment for Segments
5.2.1 Pedestrian System
Factors incorporated into the evaluation were abstracted from ODOT qualitative multimodal level of
service guidance and include the following:
• "Outside travel lane width: Wider travel lanes are rated better than narrower travel lanes
because of the increased separation between pedestrians and motorized vehicles.
• Bicycle lane/shoulder width: The presence of bicycle lanes or shoulders creates a buffer between
traffic and wider facilities are rated better than narrower or nonexistent facilities.
• Presence of buffers (landscape or other): The presence of buffers that separate pedestrians from
traffic result in an improved rating. Wider buffers are rated better than narrower or nonexistent
buffers.
• Sidewalk/path presence and effective width: The presence of sidewalks/paths versus shoulders
or no facilities is a significant consideration with wider facilities rated better than narrow or
nonexistent facilities.
• Volume and speed of motorized traffic in the adiacent travel lane: The speed and volume of
motorized traffic in the adjacent travel lane affect the pedestrian experience with lower volumes
and slower travel speeds rated better than higher volumes and faster travel speeds."
Evaluation findings and conclusions:
• Ashland Street - was given a score of Fair because it has sidewalks with bike lane/shoulder to
serve as a buffer but no planter buffer and fairly high vehicle volumes and speeds in the outside
lane.
• Main Street - was given a score of Very Poor because it has no sidewalks and very little shoulder
space with high speeds and volumes. With the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan, pedestrian
amenities would be significantly improved along Main Street resulting in an excellent rating.
• Walker Avenue (Main to Iowa) - was given a valuation of Excellent because it has sidewalks,
bike/shoulder space and some areas with planter buffers. It also has low speeds.
• Walker Avenue (Iowa to Ashland) - was given a score of Good because it has sidewalks with bike
/shoulder space and low speeds. It did not receive an excellent because the southbound
sidewalk/path is an unimproved area that has been turned into a trail by common usage.
• Clay Street - was given an assessment of Fair because it has partial sidewalks with planter buffer
and low speeds, but it also has areas without sidewalks and has only partial (and narrow)
bike/shoulder width.
• Tolman Creek Road - was given a valuation of Good because it has a southbound sidewalk and
decent bicycle/shoulder space in both directions along with relatively low speeds. However, it
September 18, 2013
Page 18 of 22
does not provide a northbound sidewalk or path area along much of the length of this roadway.
However, the portions of the road without sidewalks are currently undeveloped which mitigated
the overall rating given to the road.
5.2.2 Bicycle System
Factors incorporated into the evaluation included:
• "Bicycle lane presence and effective width: The presence of bike lanes is a significant
consideration, with wider facilities rated better than narrow or nonexistent facilities.
• Shoulder presence and width: Shoulders serve bicyclists in the absence of bike lanes, and wider
facilities are rated better than narrower or nonexistent facilities.
• Outside travel lane width: Wider outside travel lanes are rated better than narrower travel lanes
because of the increased separation between bicyclists and motorized vehicles.
• Pavement Condition: Poor pavement conditions or obstacles such as sewer grates affect the
bicycling experience with good quality pavement rated better than poor pavement conditions.
• On Street Parking: The presence and utilization of on-street parking affects the bicyclist
experience, with no parking or low utilization rated better than high utilization and turnover
rates.
• Volume, type, and speed of motorized traffic in the adjacent travel lane: The volume and type of
motorized vehicles (i.e., more or less large trucks) in the adjacent travel lane affect the bicycling
experience as do travel speeds. Conditions with lower volumes, fewer trucks, and slower travel
speeds are rated better than higher volumes, more trucks, and faster travel speeds."
Evaluation findings and conclusions:
• Ashland Street - received a score of Good because it had 6-foot bike lanes with wide outside
travel lanes, a good pavement score and very low truck percentage. It does not score as
excellent because it has fairly high vehicle volumes and speeds.
• Main Street - received a score of Poor because it has no official bike lanes (only a relatively
narrow shoulder), moderate vehicle volumes and relatively high speeds. It also has a high truck
percentage (7 percent). It did not warrant a Very Poor designation because there are 4-foot
shoulders and fairly wide travel lanes, with a good pavement conditions. With the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan, bicycle amenities would be significantly improved along Main Street
resulting in an excellent rating.
• Walker Avenue (Main to Iowa) - was given an assessment of Excellent because it has bike lanes,
low travel speeds, and good pavement conditions.
• Walker Avenue (Iowa to Ashland) - was given a score of Good because it has bike lanes, low
travel speeds and good pavement condition, but has heavily utilized on-street parking along the
west side of the street.
• Clay Street - this received an assessment of Poor because it has no bike lanes and does have
areas of on street parking that conflict with bike movement, as well as areas with little or no
paved shoulder space. However, it does have low travel speeds and some areas with shoulders.
• Tolman Creek Road - was given a score of Good because it has 6-foot bike lanes with low travel
speeds and a low truck percentage with a good pavement condition. The volume is fairly high,
which kept it from being assessed as excellent.
September 18, 2013
Page 19 of 22
5.2.3 Transit System
Factors incorporated into the evaluation included:
• "Service frequency and reliability: Shorter headways and arrival reliability are rated better than
longer headways and unreliable arrival times.
• Bus speed/travel times: Faster average speeds and shorter travel times are rated better than
slower speeds and longer travel times.
• Bus stop features: The presence of shelters, benches, and lighting is rated better than stops with
no amenities.
• Pedestrian network: The quality of the pedestrian facilities serving transit stops affects the
transit user's experiences. Bus stops connected to a network of streets with sidewalks are rated
better than those with no pedestrian facilities."
Within the study area only Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road currently have transit service. Based
on the data from the TSP (and verified on RVTD's website), the transit service on each street appears
essentially the same and is provided on half-hourly headways. Most stops are designated by signs only,
although there is a shelter with bench on the east (northbound) side of Tolman Creek Road at Abbott
Street with a crosswalk to connect it with the residential development on the west side of the street.
Service is provided on a half-hourly basis. Existing transit service was rated as Fair.
Main, Walker and Clay have no transit service and, accordingly, were not evaluated.
5.2.4 Auto System
Factors incorporated into the evaluation included:
• "Volume-to-capacity Nld ratios: The prime consideration for the auto mode is based on the
quantitative evaluation of demand (volume) versus roadway capacity with lower v/c ratios rated
better than higher v/c ratios.
• Delay: Primarily considered at unsignalized locations with high side-street delays, shorter delays
are rated better than longer delays.
• Sa et : Roadway conditions that provide for a decreased likelihood of crashes were rated better
than conditions with an increased likelihood of crashes."
Generally, traffic operations within the study area range from good to excellent with minimal delays and
no significant safety problems. One exception is the intersection of Ashland Street with Tolman Creek
Road which currently exceeds the citywide critical crash rate for signalized intersections. While existing
traffic levels of service (expressed as volume-to-capacity ratios and average vehicle delay) are good, the
Ashland/Tolman intersection will worsen substantially in the future and exceed the ODOT operational
standard.
5.3 Determining the Multimodal Assessment for Intersections
Multimodal level of service evaluation at intersections focused largely on pedestrian and bicycle
movement. Key factors that were incorporated into the evaluation include: the presence and type of
traffic control, crossing width and whether a median island was present to serve as a refuge. Each of
these criteria was assessed as follows:
5.3.1 Pedestrian Facilities
Factors incorporated into the evaluation included:
September 18, 2013
Page 20 of 22
• "Traffic control: The presence of a traffic signal or all-way STOP control stops pedestrians by
stopping traffic. Intersections with a traffic signal or all-way STOP control with crosswalks are
rated better than locations with only two-way STOP control, and/or locations without
crosswalks.
• Crossing width: The number of approach lanes at an intersection determines the amount of
pedestrian exposure and the intersection crossing time. Fewer travel lanes to be crossed is rated
better than more travel lanes because it reduces pedestrian exposure and crossing time.
• Median islands: The presence of a median island is rated better than no islands because it
reduces crossing time and allows two-stage crossings at unsignalized locations."
Evaluation findings and conclusions:
• Crossings of Side Streets along Ashland Street - Generally rated as Good as all locations include
either signals or side-street stop signs which require traffic to stop before proceeding. Both
types of traffic control devices provide protection for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, all
intersections along Ashland Street presently include crosswalks.
• Crossings of Side Streets along Main Street-- Generally rated as Good at Walker Avenue which
includes a side-street stop sign and a crosswalk. Generally Fair at Clay and Tolman Creek Road
since there are stop signs but there are no existing crosswalks. In the future when Normal
Avenue is extended to intersect with Main Street, it is assumed that this location will be stop
controlled with a crosswalk. Accordingly, it is given a Good rating.
• Crossings of Ashland Street - The crossings of Ashland Street at both Walker Avenue and
Tolman Creek Road are controlled by traffic signals which provide a relatively safe pedestrian
environment. However the crossing distance is long (five vehicular travel lanes plus bicycle lanes
which resulted in an overall rating of Fair. The crossings at Normal Avenue and Clay Streets
have no protection or pedestrian refuge. Accordingly, they are rated as Poor.
5.3.2 Bicycle Facilities
Factors incorporated into the evaluation included:
• "Traffic control: The presence of a traffic signal or all-way STOP control benefits bicyclists trying
to cross the major roadway by stopping traffic. Signalized or all-way STOP traffic control is rated
better than crossings with only two-way STOP control.
• Crossing width: Fewer travel lanes to be crossed is rated better than more travel lanes because it
reduces bicyclist exposure and crossing time. "
Since the evaluation factors for bicycle crossings are virtually the same as for pedestrians, the results are
also the same.
6. SAFETY ANALYSIS
This section focuses on an assessment of potential crash reductions that could be associated with
proposed intersection or roadway segment improvements on the street system surrounding the Plan
area where existing crash data is available. The assessment included the following steps: collecting
relevant data for segments and intersections, evaluating potential improvements for their crash
reduction capabilities, and preparing a summary of analysis results. As requested by the City, all Crash
Modification Factors (CMFs) are given a star rating of 3 or better from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
CMF Clearinghouse. Traffic volumes and other parameters used in this analysis are consistent with the
September 18, 2013
Page 21 of 22
remainder of the described in either this analysis or the previously documented existing conditions
analysis.
Within the study area, only the intersection of Ashland Street (OR 66) with Tolman Creek Road has been
identified as having a collision history that exceeds the City's critical crash rate for signalized locations.
This is also the only intersection predicted to experience capacity-related deficiency based on the 2038
PM peak hour analysis with Phase 1 or Phase 2 traffic.
Based on the analysis described previously in this report, construction of a northbound to eastbound
right turn lane is proposed for this location to mitigate the adverse traffic impact. This improvement will
allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service through the 2038 analysis horizon
year. The improvement will also offer some geometric benefit to help ameliorate the elevated crash
rate observed over the last twelve years (2000 through 2011).
Review of the crash history presented in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan "Existing Traffic
Conditions Report" identified the following trends at the OR 66/Tolman Creek Road intersection:
• Crashes tend to be rear end, angle or turning collisions.
• The majority of rear end crashes occurred when motorists failed to stop or were following too
close to the vehicle in front of them.
• The majority of turning crashes occurred when motorists turned from the wrong lane.
• The majority of angle crashes occurred when motorists disregarded the traffic signal control
and/or were distracted or inattentive.
Of the 22 crashes recorded from 2000 through 20114, six involved vehicles in the northbound through-
right lane, and one of those was a rear end collision between a vehicle turning right and one heading
straight. Constructing a separate northbound right-turn lane at this location could be expected to
reduce rear-end collisions on the northbound approach and may reduce other collision types involving
the northbound through and right-turn movements.
6.1 Crash Modification Factor Analysis
The HSM has published data that summarizes the effect of certain roadway conditions on crash rates.
The report provides a listing of CMFs. A CMF is defined as "an index of how much crash experience is
expected to change following a modification in design or traffic control". A CMF is presented as a ratio
between the number of crashes expected after a design modification is implemented compared to the
number of crashes expected if the change doesn't take place. If a CMF is greater than one (>1.0), it
indicates the design modification would result in more crashes. If it is less than one (<1.0) it indicates
that a reduction in crashes could be expected.
Table 12-26 in the HSM provides a CMF for adding right-turn lanes to signalized urban and suburban
intersections. Adding one right-turn lane to a signalized intersection that has no such lanes has a crash
modification factor of 0.96. This indicates that constructing the proposed NB to EB exclusive right-turn
lane could be expected to reduce the crash rate at this intersection by approximately 4 percent.
4 The critical crash rate calculation shown in the City TSP (and cited in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
Existing Traffic Conditions report) was based the crash history from 2000 through 2009. In this study, more recent
crash reports (from 2010 through 2011) have also been considered in the crash review.
September 18, 2013
Page 22 of 22
The Ashland TSP mentions another potential countermeasure to the existing crash experience at this
intersection which could involve installation of red-light running cameras to reduce exposure to this
type of hazard. Information in the HSM indicates that installing red-light cameras will reduce right-angle
collisions (CMF of 0.74), but it will also increase rear-end collisions (CMF of 1.18). The City should
continue to monitor this intersection to determine if the frequency and severity of right-angle crashes
warrants implementation of a red-light camera in the future.
Main Street
40
4 5
Project ~
Site
\ Q
N
Q
ro
E
a..
0) c?
Ashland Street 30
LEGEND
Normal Avenue Neighborhood
Study Area Intersection
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1
Study Area
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N
W +E
S
I < <
i
w_
i
i
I i
i '
i
i
I - ,
--I~---
i I
I
i
i I
T
i
- -
-
f - - - - ,J
!
Normal
i
Avenue
- -J I
Neighborhood beet
Woonerf
_'T-- - Rear Lane
II
i
i
i
i
i
i
,j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 2
Street Network in Project Area
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
N LEGEND
~N o Vehicle Travel Lane
o Stop Sign
Signalized Intersection
LE
(0 Main Street
05
ns
0
<u
cv ~c 2
a a
s L.
cu ac
(Q
c
i Ica
ro
E
a..
0) c?
Ashland Street 30
71*f-
1) Ashland St at 2) Ashland St at 3) Ashland St at 4) Main St at 5) Main St at 6) Main St at
Walker Ave Normal Ave Tolman Creek Rd Walker Ave Clay St Tolman Creek Rd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure
Existing Lane Configuration
and Traffic Control
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
FJ
(0 Main Street
05
ns
to
<u
cv ~c 2
a a
s L.
cv ac
(Q
c
i Ica
ro
E
a..
0) Ashland Street 30
Q,nN L95 u, u, u, L20 0~o L95
° x-610 x-710 x°765 «-340 «-330 «-125
1 r- 70 ! r- 45 1 r- 295 r- 30 r-10 r-10
75-J !0~ 20-J t 135-J +1 t f- 475- '1 440- '1 125- '1
765- 0 970-~ 0 750- o o 135-1 m 60-1 0 265-1 o 20'1 o 20'1 ~ 80'1 - o, o 00 N
1) Ashland St at 2) Ashland St at 3) Ashland St at 4) Main St at 5) Main St at 6) Main St at
Walker Ave Normal Ave Tolman Creek Rd Walker Ave Clay St Tolman Creek Rd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 4
2038 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Base Conditions
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
N
W +E
_ S
LEGEND
A, B, C,.... = Phase I
1,2,3 = Phase 11
2)
JBI~
ck
(4)
Figure 5
Transportation Analysis Zones
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
N
~N o Ip
S
28% Main Street
Project %
Site
% lowa street -
°rs
m
` o
4%-
<C ~
11% Ashland Street 22%
4% 3% 6% 1% 11%
LEGEND
Normal Avenue Neighborhood
XX% Trip Distribution Percentage
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 6
Trip Distribution Assumptions
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
Figure 7
Phase 1 Street System
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
N
Main Street
40
4 5
Project
Site
\ Q
N
Q
ro
E
a..
0) Ashland Street 30
in inN L105 out u1 ~77 20 L90
05
m f°675 0f°680 «-375 «-345 751
~ 1 r- 75 ! r- 55 1 r- 255 r- 45 r-15 80- t 20-1 +1 1 r 135 t 505-~ '1 465-~ '1 f' 135-~ '1
805- o o n 1005- o 780- n n n 135-1 o o 70-1 o o 290-1 ~ o
25'1 n o 25'1 m 95'1 o m N
1) Ashland St at 2) Ashland St at 3) Ashland St at 4) Main St at 5) Main St at 6) Main St at
Walker Ave Normal Ave Tolman Creek Rd Walker Ave Clay St Tolman Creek Rd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure
2038 PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Phase 1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Figure
Phase 2 Street System
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
N
Main Street
40
4 5
Project
Site
\ Q
N
Q
ro
E
a..
0) Ashland Street 30
oo°m L110 n no ~770 L0675 ^ x°680 «-390 «-375 «-110
j r-75 ! r-55 j r-255 r-55 r-15 r-5
90~ t r 20- t 135 t 525-~ '1 480-~ '1 135-~ '1
805- o n 1005-~ of o 780- n n n 135-1 o o 70-1 o o 305-1 o o
25'1 o n o 30-1 m 95'1
1) Ashland St at 2) Ashland St at 3) Ashland St at 4) Main St at 5) Main St at 6) Main St at
Walker Ave Normal Ave Tolman Creek Rd Walker Ave Clay St Tolman Creek Rd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 10
2038 PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes - Phase 2
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
w
w a ~
I
r
I li ~ II
i I i ?
' ~ I li II -
i
- -------------,I 'r
j it ~ i I ' I ~ •
- s----- T .
it I I li
i l ~ I I i i
I i ~ I I
I l I l I
L
I.
I 'i I
i
-
I
I ~ -
I I i I l i
Streel with Bike Lanes
Street
VVoonerf (share l space Str€el)
i k1ulti-use Path
- ~~shland Central Bike Pc.,th
f
I l
I I
I
I
~I
f
i
I
I
FiglAre 11
Bicycle Network in Project Area
Non-nal Ave-nue Neighborhood Flan
w
ev a ~
F.
St-eet vvilh Sidewalks
Woonerf ( bare )pace street)
MUlt.i-lase Path
Ashland Central Bike Path
Figure 12
Pedestrian Network in Project Area
Norlmial Averiue IVeic~,,h orhood Plan
Parametrix ENGINEERING . PLANNING , ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
700 NE MULTNOMAH, SUITE 1000
PORTLAND, OR 97232-4110
T. 503.233.2400 T. 360.694.5020 F. 503.233.4825
w vw.parametrix.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 5, 2012
To: Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland
John McDonald, ODOT Region 3
From: Anne Sylvester
Subject: Existing Traffic Conditions
cc: Jason Franklin
Project Number: 277-2395-082
Project Name: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the analysis of existing traffic conditions in the Normal Avenue
Neighborhood Plan study area is intended to supplement a memo prepared by City staff documenting existing
land use, environmental, housing and transportation system characteristics for the project. Transportation
characteristics that were described in the City's memo largely reflect recommendations in the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update including the extension of Normal Avenue from the existing at-grade
rail crossing north and east to intersect East Main Street, and the planned bicycle network and street classification
system in the study area. The City's memo also provides a brief discussion of the existing Central Oregon and
Pacific Railroad alignment in the study area and at-grade crossing with Normal Avenue, as well as existing transit
service and traffic counts.
This memo includes four major sections, the first of which is this introduction. The second section describes the
existing Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan study area, while the third section describes characteristics of the
existing transportation system including intersection layout, traffic control and traffic volumes. The fourth section
presents traffic analysis methods and assumptions, along with key findings and conclusions.
The analysis documented in this memo focuses on:
• Analysis of existing traffic volumes and operational deficiencies at six study area intersections
• Volumes, patterns of use and safety concerns for non-automobile transportation including multi-modal
levels of service
• Assessment of recent crash history at six study area intersections and along primary roadway segments
STUDY AREA
The study area for evaluating existing traffic conditions for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan includes the
area generally bounded by East Main Street on the north, Tolman Creek Road on the east, Ashland Street/Oregon
Highway 66 on the south, and Walker Avenue on the west. The study area includes six primary intersections:
• Ashland Street at Walker Avenue (included in TSP Update)
• Ashland Street at Normal Avenue
• Ashland Street (Oregon Highway 66) at Tolman Creek Road (included in TSP Update)
September 5, 2012
Page 2 of 10
• East Main Street at Walker Avenue (included in TSP Update)
• East Main Street at Clay Street
• East Main Street at Tolman Creek Road
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The existing transportation system in the study area includes two boulevards and four avenues as classified in the
City's TSP Update. Boulevards include: East Main Street and Ashland Street. By definition "boulevards provide
access to major urban activity centers for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motor vehicle users, and
provide connections to regional traffic ways such as Interstate S". Ashland Street is a state highway (OR 66) from
its intersection with Tolman Creek Road east through the I-5 interchange, and a city street to the west. It serves as
one of the primary east/west connectors within Ashland. East Main Street also serves as an east/west connector
road and abuts the edge of the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary along its northern frontage.
Avenues include: Walker Avenue, Normal Avenue, Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road. By definition "avenues
provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle access from boulevards to neighborhoods, and to
neighborhoods activity centers".
Existing Intersections
As illustrated in Figure 1, the intersections of Ashland Street with Walker Avenue and Tolman Creek Road are
currently signalized and have two east/west through lanes in each direction with left turn channelization. Tolman
Creek Road has a single north/south through lane in each direction with left turn channelization at Ashland Street.
Walker Street has a single north/south lane approach in each direction.
The intersection of Ashland Street with Normal Avenue has two through lanes and left turn channelization in the
east/west (Ashland Street) direction. Normal Avenue has a single north/south approach lane in each direction.
Normal Avenue is stop sign-controlled at its intersection with Ashland Street.
The intersections of East Main Street with Walker Avenue, Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road all have single
lane approaches in each direction. East Main Street is a 40 mph through street without stop signs through the
study area. Each of the side streets (Walker, Clay and Tolman Creek) is stop sign-controlled.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 2 presents a summary of existing PM peak hour traffic volumes that have been seasonally adjusted to
represent to 30th highest hourly volume for the year in which data was collected. Data for the intersections that
were included in the TSP Update was obtained during September and October of 2009, while data for the other
intersections in the study area was obtained during September of 2011 and April of 2012. Table 1 below
summarizes intersection traffic data collection including jurisdiction, date of each count and the time period or
duration covered by the count. With one exception, all counts were taken for 16 hours between 6 AM and 10 PM
with data stratified into 15-minute increments during the morning and afternoon peak periods as noted below.
Table 1. Existing Intersection Traffic Count Data
Included in TSP Date of Duration Estimated
Intersection Update? Jurisdiction Count of Count Daily Volume
Ashland Street @ Walker Avenue Yes City 10!5!2009 4 hour 13,600'
Ashland Street @ Normal Avenue No City 9/26/2011 16 hour 13,4002
Ashland Street @ Tolman Creek Road Yes ODOT 9/16/2009 16 hour 12,6003
Main Street @ Walker Avenue Yes City 10!7!2009 16 hour 8,5004
Main Street @ Clay Street No City 4!4!2012 16 hour 7,200
Main Street @ Tolman Creek Road No City 4!4!2012 16 hour 6,5006
Along Ashland Street east of Walker Avenue, estimated from PM peak hour counts
2 Along Ashland Street east of Normal Avenue
3 Along Ashland Street west of Tolman Creek Road
4 Along East Main Street west of Walker Street
5 Along East Main Street west of Clay Street
6 Along East Main Street west of Tolman Creek Road
September 5, 2012
Page 3 of 10
During preparation of the TSP Update, an areawide PM peak hour was identified (4:15 to 5:15 PM) and all data in
this table represents this time period. All intersection traffic counts included vehicular turning movements,
pedestrian movements (with or without marked crosswalks), bicycles, and wheeled pedestrians (wheelchairs,
skateboards, etc.). Traffic count data is presented in Appendix A, while calculations for seasonal adjustments are
included in Appendix B.
Intersection Operational Standards
ODOT Facilities
One intersection in the Normal Avenue study area is under the jurisdiction of ODOT - OR 66 (Ashland Street) at
Tolman Creek Road. OR 66 is designated as a District Highway from its intersection with Tolman Creek Road
eastward through the I-5 interchange.
ODOT uses volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio standards to assess traffic operations at intersections on state highway
facilities. Table 6 of the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and Table 10-1 of the Oregon Highway Design Manual
(HDM) provide the maximum v/c ratios for all signalized and unsignalized intersections outside of the Portland
Metro area. The OHP ratios are used to evaluate existing and future no build conditions, while the HDM ratios are
used to evaluate transportation system improvements on state highways. Based on its classification as a District
Highway, the signalized intersection of OR 66 at Tolman Creek Road has an OHP We standard of 0.95 (based on
revisions to the OHP adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in December of 2011 which became
effective on January 1, 2012)'. Its relevant HDM v/c ratio is 0.80.
City of Ashland Facilities
The remaining five intersections in the study area are all under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland. Based on
discussion included in the TSP, the following operational standards were used:
• Level of service (LOS) D at signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections if the We ratio is not
higher than 1.00 for the sum of critical movements.
• LOS E for the poorest operating approach at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Approaches operating
at a LOS F where a traffic signal is not warranted were also identified in the TSP.
A summary of the relevant operational standards for the five City intersections in the Normal Avenue study area
is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Operational Threshold for City Intersections
Intersection Traffic Control Threshold Intersection Traffic Control Threshold
E. Main Street @ TWSC LOS "E" E Main Street @ TWSC LOS "E"
Walker Avenue ' Clay Street
Ashland Street @ Signal LOS "D" E. Main Street @ TWSC LOS "E"
Walker Avenue ' Tolman Creek Road
Ashland C& Normal TWSC LOS "E"
Avenue
Intersection included in TSP
Access Management Considerations
As noted in the TSP, spacing requirements for public roadways and private driveways can have a profound impact
on transportation system operations, safety and land development. Access management strategies and
implementation require careful consideration to balance the needs for access to developed land with the need to
ensure movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Access management generally becomes more stringent
as the functional classification level of roadways increases and the corresponding importance of mobility increase.
i It should be noted that the TSP used the OHP v/c standards that were in place prior to the OTC's action in December of
2011. Consequently the v/c threshold cited in the TSP is 0.90.
September 5, 2012
Page 4 of 10
The City of Ashland has a minimum driveway access spacing of 300 feet for boulevards like Ashland and East
Main Streets, 100 feet for avenues like Walker Avenue, Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road, and 75 feet for
lower order streets such as those that could be developed internal to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan area.
OR 66 east of Tolman Creek Road is under ODOT jurisdiction and state highway access spacing standards apply.
ODOT and the City of Ashland have an agreement that OR 66 within the city limits is subject to the minimum
spacing standards typically applied to District Highways. OR 66 within the City is subject to a minimum access
spacing standard of 300 feet.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Intersection Operations Analysis Results
For consistency with the operations analysis conducted in for the Ashland TSP, Synchro 7 software was used to
evaluate the performance of both signalized and unsignalized intersections in the study area. Table 3 summarizes
existing PM peak hour operational performance for study area intersections. These results incorporate the
intersection geometry and traffic control features illustrated in Figure 1 and the traffic volumes in Figure 2.
As indicated in Table 3, all study area intersections are expected to meet their applicable mobility standard.
Detailed traffic operational worksheets can be found in Appendix C.
Table 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Operations Analysis Summary
Operating Traffic Worst PM Peak Hour
Intersection Standard Control Movement V/C 3 Delay 2 LOS 1
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue LOS D Signal 0.45 12.4 B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ashland Street at Normal Avenue LOS E Stop SB 0.11 16.6 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road V/C= 0.95 Signal 0.63 29.2 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Walker Avenue LOS E Stop NB 0.24 17.1 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Clay Street LOS E Stop NB 0.16 15.9 C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Main Street at Tolman Creek Road LOS E Stop NB 0.31 11.7 B
1. LOS = Level-Of-Service using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.
2. Average Control Delay for an entire signalized intersection or the worst movement of an unsignalized intersection.
3. Volume-to-Capacity ratio of a signalized intersection or Worst Movement of an unsignalized intersection.
Traffic Queuing Analysis Results
Table 4 summarizes existing PM peak hour traffic queuing analysis results at the two signalized study area
intersections. This information was extracted from the Ashland TSP. Worksheets are included in Appendix D.
Queuing results for the signalized intersection of Ashland Street at Walker Avenue show that for both left turn
movements (eastbound and westbound) along Ashland Street there is sufficient space to meet vehicle queuing
demand. At the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road both the northbound and
southbound left turn lanes generally can accommodate most PM peak hour vehicular demand. For the eastbound
left turn lane on Ashland Street, a one or two vehicle spillover into the through lane is experienced for certain
signal cycles during the PM peak hour. A more significant queuing problem occurs with the westbound left turn
lane where queuing demand is more than double the available storage space.
Table 4. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Queuing
Existing Vehicle PM Peak Hour
Intersection Movement Storage Vehicle Queue
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue' EB Left 100 ft 51 ft
W B Left 100 ft 57 ft
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OR 66/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road' NB Left 100 ft 106 ft
SB Left 100 ft 97 ft
EB Left 100 ft 129 ft
W B Left 100 ft 224 ft
1. Traffic queuing calculated using Synchro traffic operations software.
September 5, 2012
Page 5 of 10
Multi-modal Levels of Service
A multi-modal level-of-service (MMLOS) analysis was conducted as part of the TSP in six major corridors in the
city. Of relevance to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan was the analysis conducted along: OR 66/Ashland
Street, East Main Street, Walker Avenue and Tolman Creek Road. For this analysis, each corridor was divided
into several short segments based on the location of major study intersections and changes in the roadway cross-
section (e.g., the presence of sidewalks or bike lanes). The analysis was conducted in accordance with the
methodology described in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (NCHRP) 3-70 which has
been included in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
NCHRP 3-70 provides guidance in assessing traveler perceptions of the quality of service and performance of
various travel modes along urban streets. The Ashland TSP includes results of MMLOS analysis under both
existing and future no build conditions for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities by direction of travel.
Graphics are provided in the TSP that illustrate key findings. Level-of-service differences along roadway
corridors are typically attributable to such factors as the presence of a sidewalk or bike lane, or high traffic
volumes at unsignalized side streets or driveways. Key findings from the TSP analysis are described below for
the three corridors that are relevant to the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. MMLOS worksheets are included
in Appendix E. Analysis results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Analysis Results for Selected Corridors
Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Results
Street/Limits Limits Direction LOS Type Auto Transit Bicycle Pedestrian
E. Main Street Walker to Tolman East Segment B N/A B E
Intersection C B
Tolman to Walker West Segment B N/A B E
Intersection B A
OR 66/Ashland Street Walker to Tolman East Segment B C A C
Intersection B B
Tolman to Walker West Segment B C A C
Intersection B B
Walker Street Ashland to Iowa North Segment B C A B
Intersection A B
Iowa to Ashland South Segment B C A C
Intersection A B
Walker Street Iowa to E. Main North Segment N N/A A A
Intersection A B
E. Main to Iowa South Segment B N/A A B
Intersection A A
Tolman Creek Road Ashland to Main North Segment B C A D
Intersection A C
Main to Ashland South Segment B C A C
Intersection B B
Auto
Auto level of service is primarily measured by the average speed over the length of the corridor and the average
number of stops per mile. Traffic volume, heavy vehicle percentages, turning percentages, and peak hour factors
area all inputs to the auto level of service, along with signal timing at signalized intersection and saturation flow
rates. Auto level of service along the three major corridors in the vicinity of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood is
LOS B.
Transit
The three primary performance measures that influence transit LOS results include access, wait time, and ride
experience. Access is represented by the pedestrian level of service score and pedestrian access to bus stops along
the corridor. Wait time and ride experience are affected by headways (e.g., frequency of transit service), and
passenger per seat ratings. Analysis of transit LOS in the study area has been updated from the TSP to reflect
more recent changes in RVTD service. Transit service is currently provided along Ashland Street, and Tolman
Creek Road, but not along either Walker Avenue or East Main Street in the study area (service is provided to the
September 5, 2012
Page 6 of 10
east of Tolman Creek Road). However, transit service is provided within one-quarter mile of the southern section
of Walker Avenue so the results in Table 5 reflect this proximity. It should be noted that the transit LOS is biased
towards the weekday PM peak hour when service is available. It does not take into account that service is not
provided in the later evenings or on Sundays.
Pedestrians
There are two basic performance measures that influence the pedestrian LOS results within the MMLOS
methodology. One is the feeling of security and quality of experience a pedestrian has walking alongside a
roadway facility (e.g., presence and width of sidewalks). The second is the ability pedestrians have to safety and
efficiently cross a major roadway. For the corridors in the study area, MMLOS results generally indicate that
pedestrians would feel safe walking along Ashland Street, Tolman Creek Road, and Walker Avenue. There is a
gap in the sidewalk along portions of Walker Avenue, but generally this road provides some accommodation for
pedestrians. The narrowness of East Main Street and relatively high travel speeds make this corridor less
attractive to pedestrians. MMLOS for pedestrians at the intersections of East Main Street with Tolman Creek
Road and Walker Avenue are considered higher due to the limited crossing opportunities (north/south side streets
only) and the fact that the side streets are stop-controlled. Opportunities to improve pedestrian LOS include
adding sidewalks or pathways, providing landscape strips between sidewalks and adjacent roadways, increasing
the width of existing sidewalks, and providing additional opportunities for pedestrians to safety and efficiently
cross major roadways.
Bicyclists
Similar to the pedestrian LOS, there are two basic performance measures that influence the bicycle LOS results
within the MMLOS analysis. One is the feeling of security and quality of experience a bicyclist has riding on a
roadway facility (e.g., presence and width of bicycle lanes). The second is the frequency of conflicts with vehicle
cross traffic (e.g., frequency of driveways or unsignalized intersections). MMLOS results for bicycle facilities
indicate that bicycling along the key roadways in the study area is generally considered comfortable. There are
existing bicycle lanes along Ashland Street, Tolman Creek Road and Walker Street, while East Main Street has a
narrow roadway shoulder. Opportunities to improve LOS for bicyclists would be to add a wider shoulder and/or
bike lanes along East Main Street, to buffer existing bicycle lanes from traffic, and/or to consolidate driveways
wherever possible to reduce bike/auto conflicts.
Non-Automobile Transportation Analysis
This section summarizes key features of the active (largely bicycle and pedestrian) transportation system in the
study area. Key destinations for these travel modes in the study area include Ashland Middle School and Walker
Elementary School on the east side of Walker Avenue. There are also commercial shopping and business
destinations along Ashland Street.
The following paragraphs present a summary of information abstracted from the TSP and supplemented by data
collected for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. This information includes a discussion of pedestrian and
bicycle activity in the study area, an assessment of existing risk for these modes including a discussion of crash
experience, and network considerations in developing a well-connected and safe bicycle and pedestrian system.
Pedestrian System
Pedestrian Volumes
Based on data presented in the TSP, there is a relatively high level of pedestrian activity in the study area along
Walker Avenue in the vicinity of Iowa Street. This activity is likely associated with the middle and elementary
schools in the vicinity. A moderate level of pedestrian activity was also observed in the vicinity of Ashland Street
near both Walker Avenue and Tolman Creek Road. Traffic counts taken for the Normal Avenue Plan indicate that
there is a moderate level of pedestrian activity on Ashland Street at Normal Avenue, while light levels of
pedestrian activity were observed along East Main Street.
Pedestrian Risk Anal
The TSP included segment analysis of OR 66/Ashland Street. Along with OR 99, these two corridors showed a
heavy concentration of crashes involving pedestrians. Table 6 summaries the findings of pedestrian-related crash
September 5, 2012
Page 7 of 10
analysis along Ashland Street. This data permits a comparison of the pedestrian-involved crash rate with
environmental factors including vehicular traffic volumes, sidewalk coverage, and signalized crossing density and
coverage.
Table 6.Pedestrian Analysis of Ashland Street in Study Area
Segment Crashes Signalized
Involving Traffic Sidewalk Crossing Signal
Pedestrians Volume' Coverage2 Density Coverage
Road To From (crashes/mi/year) (vph) (cr/mi) (Sig/mi)
OR 66 (Ashland St) Siskiyou Blvd Clay St 0.6 1,100 80% 1.0 20%
OR 66 (Ashland St) Clay St Boundary 1.0 1,250 65% 1.7 7%
Weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes (3:15-4:15 PM) collected in September/October 2009.
2 Sidewalk coverage calculation determined by presence of sidewalks of both sides of the street.
While the pedestrian crash experience along Ashland Street in and near the study area is less than the rate
experienced along sections of Siskiyou Boulevard, the eastern portion of the study area still experienced a rate of
one crash involving a pedestrian per mile for each of the ten years included in the crash analysis. A review of data
indicated that there appears to be a concentration of pedestrian-related crashes near the intersection of Ashland
Street with Tolman Creek Road and along the section of roadway east of Normal Avenue.
Pedestrian Network
As a part of the TSP, network and locational deficiencies in the pedestrian network was assessed through a
desktop inspection of the existing roadway system. This assessment determined that there are a number of gaps in
the pedestrian system along the City's major streets. Of particular significance to the Normal Avenue Plan study
area are existing gaps along Walker Avenue, Clay Street and on the Ashland Street crossing over I-5.
Bicycle System
Bicycle Volumes
Based on data presented in the TSP, there is a relatively high level of bicycle activity in the study area along
Walker Avenue in the vicinity of East Main Street and of Iowa Street. This activity is likely associated with the
middle and elementary schools in the vicinity. A moderate level of pedestrian activity was also observed in the
vicinity of Ashland Street near Walker Avenue. Traffic counts taken for the Normal Avenue Plan indicate that
there is very little bicycle activity along Ashland Street near Normal Avenue or along East Main Street.
Bicycle Risk Analysis
The TSP also included segment analysis of OR 66/Ashland Street. Along with OR 99, these two corridors showed
a heavy concentration of crashes involving bicyclists. Table 7 summaries the findings of bicyclist-related crash
analysis along Ashland Street. This data permits a comparison of the bicyclist-involved crash rate with bicycle
traffic volumes, vehicular traffic volumes, bike lane coverage (this does not include shared use roadways), and
signalized crossing density and coverage.
Table 7. Bicycle Analysis of Ashland Street in Study Area
Segment Crashes Signalized
Involving Bike Traffic Bike Lane Crossing Signal
Cyclists Volume' Volume' Coverage Density Coverage
Road To From (crashes/mi/year) (bph) (vph) (cr/mi) (Sig/mi)
OR 66 Siskiyou Clay St 1.1 14 1,100 100% 1.0 20%
(Ashland St) Blvd
OR 66 Clay St Boundary 1.0 3 1,250 50% 1.7 7%
(Ashland St)
Weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes (3:15-4:15 PM) collected in September/October 2009.
While the bicyclist crash experience along Ashland Street in and near the study area is less than the rate
experienced along sections of Siskiyou Boulevard, the study area still experienced a rate of at least one crash
involving a bicyclist per mile for each of the ten years included in the crash analysis. A review of data indicated
September 5, 2012
Page 8 of 10
that there appears to be a concentration of bicyclist-related crashes near the intersection of Ashland Street with
Walker Avenue, along the section of roadway east of Normal Avenue, and near Tolman Creek Road.
Bicycle Network
The bicycling network in Ashland largely relies on the existing street system which provides both east/west and
north/south mobility through and connecting to the study area. In addition, approximately 23 percent of the
citywide cycling system includes shared use paths or greenway trails. The shared use path adjacent to the rail
corridor between Tolman Creek Road and 6th Street provides a backbone for the bicycle network in and through
the study area. In addition, there are on-street bike lanes on East Main Street (roadway shoulders), OR 66/Ashland
Street, Tolman Creek Road, and Walker Avenue.
Crash Analysis
Crash analysis was conducted using data from the Ashland TSP, augmented by data from ODOT and the City's
GIS files. Within the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan study area, the TSP includes roadway segment crash
analysis for two boulevards (OR 66/Ashland Street and East Main Street) and one avenue (Walker Street). The
TSP also includes intersection analysis at three of the six intersections evaluated in the study area. The remaining
three intersections were studied based on data provided by the City. Key findings and conclusions are summarized
below.
Roadway Segment Crash Analysis
In the TSP, roadway crash analysis for the two boulevards - Ashland and East Main Streets - was organized into
discrete segments of varying lengths based on where the roadway cross-section and/or character changed. Within
the study area only one segment for each boulevard is relevant. For avenues such as Walker Street, the TSP
considered only a single segment because the cross-section and character of these streets changed minimally over
their length. Table 8 summarizes the crash types for the study area street segments, while Table 9 presents crash
rates. Roadway segment crash rates were calculated as crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT).
Appendix F presents segment crash analysis results.
Table 8. Crash Severity Statistics for Segment Crash Data Analysis
Length
Roadway Extents (miles) Fatal Injury PDO Unknown Total
Boulevards
OR 66 (Ashland Street) OR 99 to Tolman Creek Road 1.04 0 11 36 0 47
E. Main Street Walker Avenue to OR 66 1.78 0 2 6 0 8
Avenue
Walker Avenue Entire 1.13 0 5 28 1 34
Note 1: PDO means Property Damage Only
Note 2: Crash statistics above include crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles, if applicable.
As noted in the TSP, typically segments with the highest frequency of crashes are those generally known to carry
the most vehicular traffic and/or are segments of longer lengths. For example, the frequency of crashes on OR
66/Ashland Street is noticeably higher than the frequency of crashes on East Main Street. The frequency of
crashes along Walker Avenue is high in comparison to its volume.
September 5, 2012
Page 9 of 10
Table 9. Roadway Segment Crash Rates
Crash Rate (Crashes/MVMT'
Length Daily Segment ODOT Facility
Roadway Extents (miles) Volume Specific by Type2
Boulevards
OR 66 (Ashland Street) OR 99 to Tolman Creek Road 1.04 12,000 0.86 2.02
E. Main Street Walker Avenue to OR 66 1.78 3,500 0.29 2.27
Avenue
Walker Avenue Entire 1.13 3,100 2.22 1.56
Crash statistics above include crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles, if applicable.
2 ODOT crash rates by facility type are the 2009 Crash Rates by Jurisdiction and Function Classifications. The crash rates shown above are
those occurring on an urban highway system for Principal Arterials (2.02), and Minor Arterials (2.27).
In the instance of both Ashland Street and East Main Street, the specific crash rates were less than the ODOT
statewide crash types for the facility type. This indicates that these segments are performing better than their
statewide peer facilities in terms of frequency of crashes relative to the traffic volume their carry.
Based on systemwide analysis in the TSP, the most common crash type reported is rear-end collisions. On
avenues, the most common crash type reported is collisions with parked cars. The majority of segment crashes on
the selected boulevards and avenues studied in the TSP are property-damage only crashes (80.6 percent on
boulevards and 90.2 percent on selected higher crash avenues). Walker Avenue has a crash rate higher than the
statewide average for facilities of its type which indicates that it has a potential to reduce crashes. 82 percent of
the crashes reported along Walker Avenue are property damage only crashes with the most common crash type
being a collision with a parked vehicle.
Intersection Crash Data Analysis
Crash analysis was performed for the six study area intersections, three of which had been analyzed as part of the
TSP. The critical rate method was used in this analysis. This method involves a comparison between the crash
rate calculated for an intersection and its critical crash rate. Crash rates for intersections were calculated on an
annualized basis per million entering vehicles (MEV). Critical crash rates for an intersection are calculated using
a weighted value for all similar intersections in the city. The comparison of intersection crash rates with their
critical crash rates can then be used the identify locations where further safety analysis should be conducted. For
purposes of this analysis, citywide critical crash rates for signalized and two-way stop controlled intersections
from the TSP were used in developing intersection-specific critical crash rates. The observed crash rate and
critical crash rate for each study area intersection is summarized in Table 10.
Table 10. Study Intersection Crash Rates and Critical Crash Rates
Study Intersection Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate Exceeds Critical Rate?
Ashland Street at Walker Avenue 0.15 0.30
Ashland Street at Normal Avenue 0.16 0.40 OR 66'/Ashland Street at Tolman Creek Road 0.29 0.28 Yes
E. Main Street at Walker Avenue 0.12 0.43 E. Main Street at Clay Street 0.00 0.45 E. Main Street at Tolman Creek Road 0.08 0.47 As shown in Table
10, the intersection of OR 66/Ashland Street with Tolman Creek Road exceeds its critical
crash rate. A more detailed review of the reported crashes at this intersection was conducted for the TSP to
determine potential contributing factors, as well as potential countermeasures for reducing crashes.
OR 66 at Tolman Creek Road is a signalized intersection. The physical characteristics of the intersection, trends
from ODOT crash data and potential countermeasures were discussed in the TSP and are reiterated below.
The basic physical characteristics of the intersection are:
September 5, 2012
Page 10 of 10
• OR 66 has a five-lane basic cross-section on approach to the intersection.
• There are exclusive left-turn lanes on all four approaches at the intersection.
• Right-turns are served by shared through/right turn lanes on all four approaches.
• Marked crosswalks are present on all four approaches.
The exhibit below is an aerial view of the intersection from Google Earth illustrating the physical characteristics
noted above. This exhibit was extracted from the TSP.
OR 66/Tolman Creek Road
v
F,I,Is~; Cr~, # C
In reviewing the ODOT crash data in more detail, the following trends were identified:
• Crashes tended to be rear end, angle or turning collisions.
• The majority of rear end crashes occurred when motorists failed to stop or were following too close to
vehicles in front of them.
• The majority of turning crashes occurred when motorists turned from the wrong lane.
• The majority of angle crashes occurred when motorists disregarded the traffic signal control and/or were
distracted or inattentive.
According to the TSP, the existing intersection layout does not exhibit obvious opportunities for improvement.
The types of crashes reported for the intersection tend to be consistent with the types expected to occur at
signalized intersections. One potential countermeasure would be to install automated enforcement such as red-
light running cameras, which tend to reduce crashes associated with disregarding traffic signals. However, red
light enforcement cameras have also been found to increase rear end crashes. Therefore, additional information
regarding why motorists are currently failing (and historically have failed) to stop to avoid other stopped vehicles
would be helpful in determining whether or not red-light enforcement cameras would be appropriate for this
intersection, as well as what other countermeasures could be considered.
1 1 r4~:i
AL AL AL
+
O ASHLAND ST. & O ASHLAND ST. & OASHLAND ST. & O MAIN ST& . O MAIN
WALKER AVE. NORMAL AVE. TOMAN WALKER AVE CLAY ST.
CREEK RD.
AL
M
Z
5 MAIN ST. &
O TOLMAN
O CREEK RD.
4 MAIN
cFti ST R~~T O O
T~
0
a
ORF00
w ~ w w
>
Q a
U
w Q J z
A U
OZ O
O O ~ O
41 ASHLAND STREET R
R
LEGEND
LANE CHANNELIZATION
BY MOVEMENT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
w STOP SIGN
Paramelrix DATE: August 30, 2012 FILE: P02395082F-01
Figure 1
N Existing Lane Configuration
and Traffic Control
NOT TO SCALE NORMAL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
m M 75 N 15 c°o m 60 270 275
480 565 5 25 ♦ 10
55 ~ ♦ 35 1 8
~ ♦ 185
50 t 15 t 90 t 390 --0- 355
525 --P- oo,, 675 -*0- ,,o 505 o o 110 1 00 50 1 o
15~ 15~ 55N
ASHLAND ST. & ASHLAND ST. & ST. MAIN ST. & ST. &
O W
ALKER AVE. O NORMAL AVE. OAS TO MAN & O WALKER AVE. O MCLIAY ST.
CREEK RD.
~5
80
115 % t*
240 o to
m N
5 MAIN ST. &
O TOLMAN
O CREEK RD.
4 MAIN
cFti ST R~~T O O
T~
0
a
ORF00 w
LU w w
Q a ; LU
U
LU z
O
O O
O Z O F
ASHLAND STREET R
R
LEGEND
XXX PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME
BY MOVEMENT
Paramelrix DATE: August 30, 2012 FILE: P02395082F-02
Figure 2
N Existing Weekday PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
NOT TO SCALE NORMAL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
APPENDIX A
Existing Intersection Turning Movement Counts
Transportation Development Division
Transportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular Volume
Trne semngs MUM(-
Date! 1 W ?iOCI W WPM 153320H
H lur'=:: 100 F'W610 01.11 ''•:Of-iIrIe Tme: '':Ah-ilrM;
Weather I:_ ear r l= ;ir-q FI PeIe!-;trians
Lywati nC:INS=;criWim:AsMand;-Irl:_IR66;) ;1';r';r GwerAve.
4h rI_nunt?-6P
Coun"': Jackson
r=:itr': Mand
s'
I I
Y 1
I I 1 1
i I
~ i
I i
i
I
1
E
t
Ransportation Development Division
'T'ransportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular Volume
Date: i 6 M 1 We Number 1508201 1
H lun_;: 610 AW1 ATO 0111 Sheet Number 05!-1
eWh er: Clear Vehwle-'ypw VehIII_Ie!
I:_rul=sing FIorof Pedestriaw;
LrII_atirlr C:I I:r'ihlti Ir hil:r IJ t. r.11 1'.l Ir'rr aI
n Irth- Ieq = 1
Iuth-i leg = 1
CounN: Jackson
I:_ M: . sh-Iar-d
fir= '
i
Transportation Development Division
Transportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular Volume
Date: 9 N To W11-i W Number 15" 200!-i
Mum! 610 AW1 010 P1.11 Nwe POW 114
Weather: CIear Met Number: 0121
ehicIe T'p'[_i e: ehicIes
um song FN *7 Pedestrians
Sd}ll ce DF".re:ErlF6 on
LyIcati n DescriWi n: AR66 rp ToWman week: Rd.
ite 16 1:11 +;+e .;t1eq
91 bicycHst=: Wh heh et_:
lun"': Jackson
Cit.,: .sMand
a
r,
K 11 f", 1, 1
I
f
i
Transportation Development Division
Transportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular Volume
Thug sett ngs siYfrme
Date: 1 =2001 W Kly ber: 15022009
Hum! 610 AW1 010 Pf11 WNW Tme: ':Ah-icM;
Weather: Clear r = ;ir r~ FI Pedectrians
source- Description
Lucati r- C:esuripti n: Blain St.
biryrli=,t=:swumg h-elrr eta=;=?ii
r_ uny': Jackson
itr': .sMand
'i
- -
i
i L*
i
l
Transportation Developrs°ent Division
l"' ansportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular Volurne
-rinte settings, somce
GW 4 4Q 112 We Number 15022012
H un_;: 610 ,as,t111-1 iiTO 01.11 EVeet Number 375:-:
r Pedesthaw;
l~ C~r~l~=sing Flo;~;~:
StYrBr1.,:e L1~f".saQNi_}0I
L ucati un Eescrih_ti ln: E t;4ain St. i1 Clay-St.
w::h_landed 6-1 RA 4P
blcycli=, s Mh- h-ielmetc;
emmA=
wwsHeq
ilur~t,': .I,~rk:! rr-i
1 1 lTR`Y:f+. I - J~ rfxAl14+
I
I,
F,
IIL
I ~1'•
J e.
Transportation Development Division
Transportation System Monitoring Unit
Vehicular VOILIMe
Tillie settillij s so"rce
Date: 4 4f201 -rite PJurr h_er: 1501201
Hour,:=;: 6:[ILI ,A.t~1-,11:1 :[I[I F'A,1 Xtr'eet 1'.]arr Li er: 75;=I
'l';i? ather: (_::Irub eh icIe T,pe: eh ides
=mssinq FM Pedex;tn!
seduce Desc-HI)Iiatel
Lrcatirn Denniptirn: E kilair St. i1!TuIrran _::reek:Rd.
LdcycHsts with helmets
'we Meg 1 1:1
ea t leq = 1 CI
?plume nNvMen dark:
Cuunj,: Jackson
j
~ty;,
APPENDIX B
Seasonally Adjusted Intersection Traffic Counts
N LO O O (D O
N N (n
lC r
O
H
M O O O O O O
~ T
m
I~ ~ O O O O
H (n Cl)
m
V Vr-O O (O O
J C`)
m
~i
M O LO O O O O
T
~ T N
m
W
OCO OOOO
N O O
(D r Ch
m
W
(D 0 0 0 0 0 0
J T
m
W
(D 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
U)
(n 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
m
0 0 0 0 0 0
N
J
m
Co C`) r- O O O O
r N
m
Z
v 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
m
Z
C7 V O O O O
r O V
J r
m
Z
O O O O
225
W CL CL CL
H v v v
r N N
O O O
N N N
(O V V
W N V V
H ~
Q
D
O r N m V Cn O N
N N CY) CY)
Z
a> ro
o
c ~
a~ Y
~ Q aoi .J
U c
Cf)
Z E
E O H U
O
W (n (D
C C Q ~ (n (n
'E 2 Zm c c
H Fa
H °m ? Q 2
~ Lo~ o o m o
0 M (O I-
r
H
~ V 0 0 0 0 0 0
m T
~i
m ((O co N0 0 0 0
(n N
J M LO CO O O (O O
m
m V NN N O O O O
- LO
w N
mr- (nv~0000
w (O r M
J r- 0 0 0 0 0 0
m r
w
m r- 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
U)
(n 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
m
J N 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
m
mN N CO OOOO
z
r V O O O O O O
m
z
m V co -,t 0 0 0 0
z T
O O O O
5
(n (n (n
7 7 7
(n (n (n
5
w CL CL CL
H V V V
r N N 0 0 0 0
O O O O
O O O 01 01 01 01
N N N r
w (O V V 0 0 0 0
QC\j V V r r r r
r N (M V (n O N
0 NN(M(M
H
Z
CD
CD
O a> ro
Q ~ 0
M r
U M c
- a> o in
a U) Z
_ E
E
0 a~~iro ro
o
2 a) w in
Q : Cf) Cf)
'E Z~ c c
H
H w Z Q
LSD
rn
O
r ca
n
N
M
O
~ r
0_ r LO
CO r- Lo C\i Cl)
N
0-)
N
H o L Y
m Ln Ln O 0 0 0 0
(n O p 2
N
0 C)
U) N N 0 r Lo Cl) (D U
co co N m O N - O m 00
Z r w z
m o mOCn tOm
Z o o w z
T~ NOCD rOZ
z
u b 4 u
m C'M Y ~p CO N M :p U
O r O r O
>m CO O O -Z 0 0 0
LSD O O
m r- J H
M M W W W
m M
W ca
C ~
Q O
H -E
m N ~ O O° p
W co co
O O
Z N~ z
r J
dS J O Q
C\j
m CO I~ C
N W r r
M Q
L
z Cl)
c
m =3> LL a
-Q) 7FD !U 1: Q J > Q H U co
Q
LSD
m
r ~
m
N
0
N \ O 7 -j L6
O O L 7~ O
m m r ~j ~j N
r
N
O
r Y
0>
m O
0 0
(n Q
O
N
J 0 Q lC _ f6
00 O O
(n H ~ H
co (L) 0
N N N O Z
H o o H
m o000 0000
z o o Z
CY)
m (.000 c~oo00
Z r r r Z
m o o o
0 N ~
C:) '0"
Y\
00 C~ -Z i rO
o r
J \H 0:
It LO m m
W W
a m o It
m LJ N N
O
~C O
O
i
O r 0°
m
w r
U r
o o ~
C ~
E N _j
r J z
p a)
Q
O J N
m O O r
N
c co Q
z as
11 a
a
C > LL
2> Q H U co
Q
LSD
m
r ~
n
N
00
N O
LO
Lo 7~ \mm M
m CC r N
N
C) C) m 0 0 0> r U
O O
cn o C)
J 0 0 lC \ fC
O N O
co X00 ~Om
Z Z
I- o
co OO00b OOm
Z o o z
J _ _ J
z ° Z
00
m O o k
me c) 0
r- M o
co c) r-- 00 O < -Z i' O O
N N O O ~
J m
r- 00 mm
LU LU
M It L
O
O
0
co o LO ~ O O
W M M
i O O ~
Cl)
>1 N J Z
J N Q
N 00 0 0
N
U
r
E 0000 Q
z as
c _0
L=L LL 2 (Z QH U C) > 0- co
Q
m m O~~ m~ O O m m m
d M I~ M M M M M M C C C
m m m t-t m T m
O O N N N N N N N N N
F
O i
o
N O =
O
N Ln (D M O O CD N M M (D
~ ~ ~ Cb N Cb Cb N ~ ~ Ln Ln (A
>,.2 (D (D (D m (D co co Lo co (D m t
~a
CD p a)
N E
O CD N r M r N N M LO M M O ~ N
M CD A M T LO N M CD M N r co ~
ca r r r r LO
N ~ O
4; ~ U
a
Y M ~t LO CO ~t M N CD CO I, C7 LO
0 LO I~ CD LO M co LO M ~ N co m CAD
y r r r r r r r r r ~
d ca U
E
O
2 0
otS - LO ~ N M N O CO M - r- CO CD CO N CD LO M CO
i O co co co N m co co co co co co N ~ N
7 O C r
H
Q Q Z
O
Lo CD Lo CD Lo CD LO O LO O Lo p
rce) CD m o7C7? -~t o
c7 m m 4 4 0 Lo 0 m CD
E ,
cn m m m c~ Ln Lri Ln Ln
APPENDIX C
Existing Traffic Operations Analysis Worksheets
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
22: OR-66 & Walker Ave 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " fl " 1:4- 4.14
Volume (vph) 49 524 13 57 481 73 9 39 83 124 34 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
Frt 0.996 0.980 0.914 0.963
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.997 0.972
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3246 0 1614 3237 0 0 1495 0 0 1601 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.977 0.797
Satd. Flow (perm) 1615 3246 0 1610 3237 0 0 1464 0 0 1308 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 21 87 22
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1002 4493 689 1808
Travel Time (s) 22.8 102.1 18.8 49.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 3 3 10 12 9 9 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3% 7% 2% 0% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 52 552 14 60 506 77 9 41 87 131 36 63
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 566 0 60 583 0 0 137 0 0 230 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Number of Detectors 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Left Thru Left Left
Leading Detector (ft) 78 183 78 223 20 18 20 18
Trailing Detector (ft) 72 177 72 107 0 2 0 2
Detector 1 Position(ft) 2 177 2 107 0 2 0 2
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 20 16 20 16
Detector 1 Type Call Extend Call Extend CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 72 72 217
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Extend Extend Extend
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 56
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
22: OR-66 & Walker Ave 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 6.0 26.0 6.0 26.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 39.0 0.0 20.0 34.0 0.0 29.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 29.0 0.0
Total Split 28.4% 44.3% 0.0% 22.7% 38.6% 0.0% 33.0% 33.0% 0.0% 33.0% 33.0% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 22.0 35.0 17.0 30.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.9 2.5 4.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Minimum Gap (s) 1.5 4.9 1.5 4.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Time Before Reduce (s) 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Recall Mode None Min None Min None None None None
Walk Time (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 5.4 17.2 5.7 17.4 14.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.38 0.13 0.39 0.31 0.31
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.27 0.55
Control Delay 27.3 13.9 27.2 13.3 8.2 18.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.3 13.9 27.2 13.3 8.2 18.8
LOS C B C B A B
Approach Delay 15.0 14.6 8.2 18.8
Approach LOS B B A B
Intersection Summary
Area T pe: Other
Cycle Length: 88
Actuated Cycle Length: 45
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55
Intersection Signal Delay: 14.8 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 57
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
22: OR-66 & Walker Ave 11/24/2010
Splits and Phases: 22: OR-66 & Walker Ave
m1 m2 M
mF - OFD I m;
F . „1
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 58
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
22: OR-66 & Walker Ave 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " fl " 1:4- 4.14
Volume (vph) 49 524 13 57 481 73 9 39 83 124 34 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3247 1614 3242 1498 1601
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.80
Satd. Flow (perm) 1630 3247 1614 3242 1469 1312
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 52 552 14 60 506 77 9 41 87 131 36 63
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 13 0 0 60 0 0 15 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 564 0 60 570 0 0 77 0 0 215 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 3 3 10 12 9 9 12
Heavy Vehicles 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3% 7% 2% 0% 2%
Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 17.2 3.3 17.4 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 17.2 3.3 17.4 14.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.07 0.38 0.31 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.9 2.5 4.9 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 111 1227 117 1240 452 404
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.17 c0.04 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.16
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.46 0.51 0.46 0.17 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 20.4 10.7 20.3 10.5 11.5 13.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.6 2.8 0.5 0.1 1.0
Delay (s) 22.7 11.2 23.1 11.1 11.6 14.1
Level of Service C B C B B B
Approach Delay (s) 12.2 12.2 11.6 14.1
Approach LOS B B B B
intersection Surnniary
HUM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.5 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 59
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
17: Ashland Street & Normal Avenue 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
I \
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR VVBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations i +1fi1 +1fi 4+ 4+
Volume (vph) 17 677 14 37 564 14 14 4 20 23 5 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.997 0.996 0.929 0.974
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.982 0.968
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 3315 0 1662 3312 0 0 1596 0 0 1650 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.982 0.968
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 3315 0 1662 3312 0 0 1596 0 0 1650 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 1382 3124 301 709
Travel Time (s) 31.4 71.0 8.2 19.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 17 23 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 16 6 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 18 720 15 39 600 15 15 4 21 24 5 7
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 735 0 39 615 0 0 40 0 0 36 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
17: Ashland Street & Normal Avenue 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
I \
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations i +1fi1 +1fi 4+ 4+
Volume (veh/h) 17 677 14 37 564 14 14 4 20 23 5 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 720 15 39 600 15 15 4 21 24 5 7
Pedestrians 4 17 23
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 0 1 2
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 638 752 1174 1497 385 1129 1497 334
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 781 781 709 709
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 393 717 420 788
vCu,Unblocked vol 638 752 1174 1497 385 1129 1497 334
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 95 95 99 97 92 98 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 937 854 307 292 611 318 282 652
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 480 255 39 400 215 40 37
Volume Left 18 0 0 39 0 0 15 24
Volume Right 0 0 15 0 0 15 21 7
cSH 937 1700 1700 854 1700 1700 413 347
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.28 0.15 0.05 0.24 0.13 0.10 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 9
Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 14.7 16.6
Lane LOS A A B C
Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 14.7 16.6
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " fl " 1:4- " T~ " f
Volume (vph) 90 506 54 184 473 61 70 121 190 62 143 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99
Frt 0.986 0.983 0.908 0.955
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 3213 0 1630 3218 0 1662 1544 0 1614 1632 0
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1648 3213 0 1619 3218 0 1645 1544 0 1599 1632 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 11 58 16
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 4493 703 1154 868
Travel Time (s) 87.5 13.7 31.5 23.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 5 5 6 10 10 10 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles 0% 1% 8% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 1% 3%
Adj. Flow (vph) 100 562 60 204 526 68 78 134 211 69 159 69
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 622 0 204 594 0 78 345 0 69 228 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Yes
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Number of Detectors 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 78 223 78 223 18 18 18 18
Trailing Detector (ft) 72 107 72 107 2 2 2 2
Detector 1 Position(ft) 2 107 2 107 2 2 2 2
Detector 1 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 16 16 16 16
Detector 1 Type Call Extend Call Extend CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 72 217 72 217
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Extend Extend Extend Extend
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 60
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 3.0 10.0 3.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 6.0 24.0 6.0 24.0 6.0 28.5 6.0 30.5
Total Split (s) 28.0 44.0 0.0 28.0 44.0 0.0 23.0 33.5 0.0 23.0 33.5 0.0
Total Split 21.8% 34.2% 0.0% 21.8% 34.2% 0.0% 17.9% 26.1% 0.0% 17.9% 26.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 25.0 40.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 30.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 5.2 2.5 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Minimum Gap (s) 1.0 3.2 1.0 3.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Time To Reduce (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Recall Mode None Min None Min None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 13.0 13.0 18.0 20.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 9.6 25.2 15.5 34.1 9.7 23.2 9.3 22.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.30 0.18 0.40 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.65 0.69 0.46 0.41 0.75 0.39 0.51
Control Delay 53.3 32.0 49.9 23.4 49.1 37.9 49.6 33.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.3 32.0 49.9 23.4 49.1 37.9 49.6 33.2
LOS D C D C D D D C
Approach Delay 35.0 30.2 40.0 37.0
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
Area T pe: Other
Cycle Length: 128.5
Actuated Cycle Length: 85.2
Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 34.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 61
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd 11/24/2010
Splits and Phases: 23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd
m1 -4~ m2 m3 M
44
OF1 O k 0 0
44
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 62
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd 1I11/24/2010
~ .4--- I i
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations " fl " 1:4- " T~ " f
Volume (vph) 90 506 54 184 473 61 70 121 190 62 143 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 3213 1630 3220 1662 1549 1614 1634
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 3213 1630 3220 1662 1549 1614 1634
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 100 562 60 204 526 68 78 134 211 69 159 69
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 42 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 616 0 204 587 0 78 303 0 69 216 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 5 5 6 10 10 10 10
Heavy Vehicles 0% 1% 8% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 1% 3%
Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 26.4 15.5 34.1 7.6 23.2 7.3 22.9
Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 26.4 15.5 34.1 7.6 23.2 7.3 22.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.18 0.40 0.09 0.27 0.08 0.27
Clearance Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 5.2 2.5 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 151 987 294 1278 147 418 137 436
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.19 c0.13 0.18 c0.05 c0.20 0.04 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.62 0.69 0.46 0.53 0.72 0.50 0.50
Uniform Delay, d1 37.8 25.5 33.0 19.1 37.4 28.4 37.6 26.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.4 1.8 6.4 0.6 2.8 5.7 2.1 0.6
Delay (s) 47.2 27.3 39.4 19.7 40.3 34.2 39.7 27.3
Level of Service D C D B D C D C
Approach Delay (s) 30.1 24.7 35.3 30.2
Approach LOS C C D C
intersection Surnniary
HUM Average Control Delay 29.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.9 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 63
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
19: E Main St & Walker Ave 11/24/2010
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations f 4' i'
Volume (vph) 388 110 25 271 76 28
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.970 0.850
Flt Protected 0.996 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1596 0 0 1647 1614 1293
Flt Permitted 0.996 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1596 0 0 1647 1614 1293
Link Speed (mph) 25 40 25
Link Distance (ft) 1205 775 1627
Travel Time (s) 32.9 13.2 44.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles 7% 4% 4% 6% 3% 15%
Adj. Flow (vph) 413 117 27 288 81 30
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 530 0 0 315 81 30
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 15 15 15 15
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 50
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
19: E Main St & Walker Ave 11/24/2010
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations f 4' i'
Volume (veh/h) 388 110 25 271 76 28
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 413 117 27 288 81 30
Pedestrians 1 8 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 0 1 0
Right turn flare (veh) 4
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 531 815 480
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 531 815 480
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.4
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.4
p0 queue free % 97 76 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 1026 336 556
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 530 315 111
Volume Left 0 27 81
Volume Right 117 0 30
cSH 1700 1026 460
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.03 0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 23
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 17.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 17.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 51
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
20: Main Street & Clay Street 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations 1fi 4' "i
Volume (vph) 354 52 8 273 47 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.983 0.981
Flt Protected 0.999 0.959
Satd. Flow (prot) 1720 0 0 1748 1646 0
Flt Permitted 0.999 0.959
Satd. Flow (perm) 1720 0 0 1748 1646 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25
Link Distance (ft) 581 677 1193
Travel Time (s) 9.9 11.5 32.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Heavy Vehicles 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 407 60 9 314 54 9
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 467 0 0 323 63 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
20: Main Street & Clay Street 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations 1fi 4' "i
Volume (veh/h) 354 52 8 273 47 8
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Hourly flow rate (vph) 407 60 9 314 54 9
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 467 769 437
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 467 769 437
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 85 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1105 369 624
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 467 323 63
Volume Left 0 9 54
Volume Right 60 0 9
cSH 1700 1105 392
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.01 0.16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 14
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 15.9
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 15.9
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
16: Main Street & Tolman Creek Road 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
--10- --A Ac
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR
Lane Configurations t r 4' "if
Volume (vph) 115 242 5 82 189 26
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750 1750
Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped Bike Factor
Frt 0.850 0.984
Flt Protected 0.997 0.958
Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1488 0 1727 1650 0
Flt Permitted 0.997 0.958
Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1488 0 1727 1650 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 25
Link Distance (ft) 191 247 540
Travel Time (s) 3.3 4.2 14.7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 128 269 6 91 210 29
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 269 0 97 239 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 0 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area 1 ; - Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan
16: Main Street & Tolman Creek Road 2012 PM Peak Hour with 30 HV
--IN. --A Ac
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NVVL NWR
Lane Configurations t r 4' "if
Volume (veh/h) 115 242 5 82 189 26
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate (vph) 128 269 6 91 210 29
Pedestrians 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0
Percent Blockage 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 398 231 129
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 398 231 129
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 72 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 1165 757 926
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NW I
Volume Total 128 269 97 239
Volume Left 0 0 6 210
Volume Right 0 269 0 29
cSH 1700 1700 1165 774
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.16 0.00 0.31
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 33
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.5 11.7
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 11.7
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
APPENDIX D
Existing Traffic Queuing at Signalized Intersections
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
22: OR-66 & Walker Ave 11/24/2010
I
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 566 60 583 137 230
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.27 0.55
Control Delay 27.3 13.9 27.2 13.3 8.2 18.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 27.3 13.9 27.2 13.3 8.2 18.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 13 59 15 58 9 45
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 141 57 139 48 128
Internal Link Dist (ft) 922 4413 609 1728
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100
Base Capacity (vph) 907 2543 694 2364 958 835
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.22 0.09 0.25 0.14 0.28
InterceCtion Summary
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 9
Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour
23: OR-66 & Tolman Creek Rd II 11/24/2010
~ -4- I t
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 622 204 594 78 345 69 228
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.65 0.69 0.46 0.41 0.75 0.39 0.51
Control Delay 53.3 32.0 49.9 23.4 49.1 37.9 49.6 33.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.3 32.0 49.9 23.4 49.1 37.9 49.6 33.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 157 108 132 41 144 37 98
Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 276 224 230 106 #356 97 226
Internal Link Dist (ft) 4413 623 1074 788
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 100
Base Capacity(vph) 547 1697 537 1730 438 645 425 654
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.37 0.38 0.34 0.18 0.53 0.16 0.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
H:\projfile\10633 - City of Ashland TSP Update\synchro\Memo 4\10633expm.syn Synchro 7 - Report
MJB Page 10
APPENDIX E
Multi-Modal Level of Service Analysis
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: OR66 (Ashland Street) Date: 40522
Limits: DR99 (Siskyou Boulevard) to Tolman Creek Roac Observer: MJB
Analysis Direction: EB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
Siskyou
Se 1 Score Se LOS Int LOS
1004 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
35 mph #1 Transit 2.98 C N/A
1069 vph Bike 3.91 A B
2lanes Ped 3.03 C B
Walker
Se 2 Score Se LOS Int LOS
4508 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
35 mph #2 Transit 3.00 C N/A
1086 vph Bike 4.11 A B
2lanes Ped 3.17 C B
Tolman Creek
Se 3 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #3 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Se 4 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #4 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Se 5 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.14 B
Transit 2.99 C
Bike 4.07 D
Ped 3.14 C
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: OR66 (Ashland Street) Date: 40522
Limits: Tolman Creek Road to OR99 (Siskyou Boulevard Observer: MJB
Analysis Direction: WB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
Tolman Creek
Se 1 Score Se LOS Int LOS
4508 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
35 mph #1 Transit 2.99 C N/A
1112 vph Bike 3.87 A B
2lanes Ped 3.13 C B
Walker
Se 2 Score Se LOS Int LOS
1004 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
30 mph #2 Transit 2.99 C N/A
0 vph Bike 3.42 A B
2lanes Ped 3.15 B C
Siskyou
Se 3 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #3 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Se 4 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #4 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Se 5 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.14 B
Transit 2.99 C
Bike 3.79 D
Ped 3.13 C
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: E Main Street Date: 40522
Limits: OR99 (Siskyou Boulevard) to OR66 (Ashland Street) Observer: MJB
Analysis Direction: EB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
OR99
Seg 1 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
2842 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
25 mph #1 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
581 vph Bike 4.41 B B
1 lanes Ped 2.97 B B
Mountain
Seg 2 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
3031 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #2 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
700 vph Bike 3.85 A B
1 lanes Ped 3.23 D B
Walker
Seg 3 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
4232 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B NA
40 mph #3 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
590 vph Bike 4.20 B C
1 lanes Ped 3.53 E B
Tolman Creek
Seg 4 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
5157 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
45 mph #4 Transit 4.03 D N/A
11 vph Bike 2.95 A A
2lanes Ped 3.02 C B
Ashland Street
Seg 5 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.24 B
Transit 1.36 A
F Bike 3.75 D
Ped 3.20 C
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: E Main Street Date: 40522
Limits: OR66 (Ashland Street) to OR99 (Lithia way) Observer: MJB
Analysis Direction: WB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
Ashland
Seg 1 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
5157 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
45 mph #1 Transit 4.06 D N/A
693 vph Bike 3.75 C A
2lanes Ped 3.21 D A
Tollman Creek
Seg 2 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
4232 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
40 mph #2 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
693 vph Bike 3.90 B B
1 lanes Ped 3.45 E A
Walker
Seg 3 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
3031 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B NA
25 mph #3 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
673 vph Bike 4.20 A C
1 lanes Ped 3.35 D B
Mountain
Seg 4 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
2842 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #4 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike 4.08 B B
1 lanes Ped 2.72 B B
Lithia
Seg 5 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.29 B
Transit 1.37 A
F Bike 3.94 D
Ped 3.21 C
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: Tolman Creek Road Date: 40522
Limits: E Main Street to Ashland Street Observer: EMF
Analysis Direction: NB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
Siskiyou Blvd
Se 1 Score Se LOS Int LOS
2510 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #1 Transit 2.85 C N/A
339 vph Bike 3.98 A A
1 lanes Ped 2.18 B B
Mistletoe Rd
Se 2 Score Se LOS Int LOS
1110 ft Seg. Auto 2,14 B N/A
25 mph #2 Transit 2.91 C N/A
192 vph Bike 3.61 A A
1 lanes Ped 2.58 B B
Ashland St
Se 3 Score Se LOS Int LOS
2925 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #3 Transit 2.94 C N/A
0 vph Bike 3.37 A A
1 lanes Ped 2.78 D C
E Main Street
Se 4 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #4 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Se 5 Score Se LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.27 B
Transit 2.90 C
Bike 3.65 D
Ped 2.52 B
Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets Results
Street: Tolman Creek Road Date: 40522
Limits: E Main Street to Ashland Street Observer: EMF
Analysis Direction: SB
(Down Direction on this Sheet)
Auto LOS Model: NCHRP 3-70 Stops Model
E Main Street
Seg 1 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
2925 ft Seg. Auto 2.14 B N/A
25 mph #1 Transit 2.97 C N/A
327 vph Bike 3.90 A B
1 lanes Ped 3.02 C B
Ashland Street
Seg 2 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
1110 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #2 Transit 2.90 C N/A
499 vph Bike 3.20 A A
1 lanes Ped 2.52 B B
Mistletoe Rd
Seg 3 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
2510 ft Seg. Auto 2.34 B N/A
25 mph #3 Transit 2.87 C N/A
71 vph Bike 3.95 B B
1 lanes Ped 2.27 B B
Siskiyou Blvd
Seg 4 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #4 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0
Seg 5 Score Seg LOS Int LOS
0 ft Seg. Auto N/A #N/A N/A
0 mph #5 Transit #DIV/0! N/A N/A
0 vph Bike #DIV/0! #DIV/0! D
0lanes Ped #DIV/0! A #DIV/0!
0 Street Score LOS
Auto 2.27 B
Transit 2.92 C
F Bike 3.80 D
Ped 2.65 B
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- -
-
- - - - - - - - - -
.
- - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - -
APPENDIX F
Roadway Segment and Intersection Crash Analysis
U
O >
y O
U W
5
CD
> c~
O
CD o
~ T
~OOco M(nr- N
~ M V N V V V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \
i +
U
CD W
to 5
~(n(Dm NOCO
r r N r 0 0 O
U) 0 0 0 0 0 0
i O
U
a>
CD
H
H 0
~ o
p U
r N r N N N O
U O
CD
i ~
CD
C Q
CD
co (D V V
Z O r N CC 0 CO
U U
U o
0)
ro
Q
O
co co N V O N
N O
lP O
U O
>
W f
2 _ -
i r- O O N r +
M V O V r- ';I-
CD Lr) r- M N N LO
O
O
r
X
W O O O O O O Q
0 0 0 0 0 0
i(n OLO LO OLO
~ChLOV OcoL
d r- O) O N O O O
> V O O V rl V U
C(n(nr- O')NN O
r CO
O 0
O O
> O (00 O O O O W (z a) r-
O O7 r M V 0 0 Q N
• V M O O O X O O 0 O O
Q T LO r O
O O
C TO X 0 0 0 C
i > \O 0 0 O
O 0) (D C 7 O) E O
O O
I- N O 7 >
7 0 V M O M~ (LO 0-5 H H O r N
U Y T > cz 0)
L L C
m m O CO
O
V m a> ro ro IL 6 CD CL M - C) U 'C
z o EH~~oCOC U -C75
P c U o ro ro CO CO cz aa) a) o > E > o }o U U U o
. 0 ~ z to U H O T _ H
d U-0-0 c c c o
d d L L L
rQQQu1u1u1
Intersection Crash Analysis from TSP
-
- -
Roadway Segment Crash Analysis from TSP
-
- - - -
i
i 1