HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp Plan CH 10Chapter 10 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Parts:
10.01 Introduction
10.02 Street Classifications
10.03 The Street System
10.04 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
10.05 Public Transit
10.06 Commercial Freight and Passenger Transportation
10.07 APPENDIX A: Committed Facilities
10.08 APPENDIX B: Comments from Neighborhood Meetings
Part 10.01 INTRODUCTION
Sections:
10.01.01 Introduction
10.01.02 Previous Studies
10.01.03 Overview of Ashland's Physical and Transportation Setting
Section 10.01.01 Introduction
This is a planning concept that does not necessarily imply equal financial commitment or equal percentage use of each mode, but rather ensures that we will have the opportunity to conveniently
and safely use the transportation mode of our choice, and allow us to move towards a less auto-dependent community.
Ashland has a vision--to retain our small-town character even while we grow. To achieve this vision, we must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the
community and enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment. That is the goal of this Transportation Element.
The concept of "modal equity," or the equal opportunity to use all modes of travel, is an integral part of realizing this vision. Whether Ashland residents and visitors travel by foot,
bicycle, public transit or automobile, we must have a well-designed, integrated network that is convenient to use. The focus must be on people being able to move easily through the
city in all modes of travel. Modal equity then is more than just a phrase.
When people talk about their love of Ashland, being able to walk many places and linger in public parks and plazas inevitably gets discussed. The ability to easily walk and bike is associated
with higher levels of livability for communities, and Ashland enjoys a high ranking. But if Ashland is to retain and improve the quality of life, we must rethink our efforts towards
transportation planning. Our past focus on accommodating the automobile must now be replaced by concerted efforts toward equally accommodating all modes of travel.
Ashland is a community, which prides itself on innovation and pressing for positive change. The area of transportation has been no exception. In 1990, community leaders formally began
discussions involving a need to change our transportation planning policies from auto-oriented to multi-modal, and to clearly recognize the connection between land use and transportation.
Shortly thereafter, federal and state legislation passed, which brought forward these same ideals and required states and local governments to plan for multi-modal transportation systems.
Specifically, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule states as its purpose "Through measures designed to reduce reliance on the automobile, the rule is also intended to assure that
the planned transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas which will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other areas of
the country."
Indeed, the lessons learned from such cities as Los Angeles and Seattle spearheaded the need for these efforts. However, Oregon, and Ashland itself, has not been immune from the increased
impacts of the automobile. The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Oregon increased eight times faster than the population from 1980to 1990. During the same time period, vehicle
miles traveled within Ashland grew over four times faster than the population.
Clearly, the pronounced growth in VMT can be partially attributed to the fact that cities are growing ever larger in area. The density of the urban population in the United States is
decreasing as more sprawling development occurs. The trend is clear--people have to make more trips to destinations located far apart.
Ashland has followed a similar path, although to a lesser degree. The private automobile is now the predominant travel choice for city residents, with nearly all work, social and recreational
trips using the car. If we fail to alter these patterns, Ashland will experience greatly increased traffic, and greater conflicts between the automobile and other travel choices.
Past transportation planning efforts in Ashland focused much of their attention on the accommodation of the single-occupant automobile, with the main concentration being on creating
a convenient automobile environment. It was believed that improved livability would result from easier car movement, but as we have experienced, the opposite has tended to occur. And
while minor portions of these plans mentioned travel choices other than the auto, most only considered the option of public transit. Since the automobile figured prominently in these
past plans, the implementing measures and improvement plans predictably centered around the car.
Incorporating modal equity in our current planning efforts will allow a change in the way our streets are defined. For too long, streets have exclusively been the realm of the automobile.
Pedestrians, bicyclists and public transit users need our streets for their travel just as drivers do. And we must recognize that our streets are also part of our public spaces. Well-designed
streets, where people socialize and interact as well as travel, are the key factors in the creation of great neighborhoods.
But our planning efforts must involve more than streets and travel modes. We know that land use and transportation patterns are inextricably linked. Ashland's present and future transportation
issues can not be resolved without careful consideration of the spatial relationship of homes, businesses and schools, and how this relationship affects our daily travel needs. While
it would be unrealistic to try to rid the city of automobiles, there are ways in which land uses can be modified to improve the impacts on our lives. Different uses such as homes, small
businesses and schools should be mixed--a blend which would shorten the distance between destinations and thereby encourage the use of all modes of travel, not just the single occupant
automobile. Our land use planning efforts must automatically include recognition of the transportation impacts associated with development, and we must consider all options as we continue
to grow as a community.
The purpose of this Transportation Element, then, is to lay the groundwork for a new transportation/land use planning paradigm and establish goals and policies to pave the way for this
approach. Clearly, the transportation and land use planning efforts of the City directly affect the way Ashland develops.
As outlined in this element, the basis for Ashland's transportation and land use planning will involve a balanced approach based on the concept of modal equity. Allowing people to move
easily through the city by providing multiple, interconnected travel options and retaining Ashland's small-community character and livability must be our goal. The focus of the transportation
system will not be limited to the automobile, but in addition, transportation options will be created where the number and length of trips can be reduced, and walking, biking, and transit
become viable options for daily travel.
Section 10.01.02 Previous Studies
A review of Ashland's past transportation plans enables us to better understand the current transportation system and it supplies information for future work.
1966 Comprehensive Plan
Developed by the Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, this plan dealt with Ashland's future transportation needs, including increased traffic flows caused by new major streets
and a new freeway interchange. This plan was based on a future population of 69,000 people.
While it contained some well thought-out policies, the plan was too broad and omitted cost-effective solutions to the expected population growth. This study is most useful as a historic
reference point.
Bear Creek Area Transportation Study (BCATS)
This comprehensive study provided transportation information for the Bear Creek Valley in 1965. It included origin-destination studies, future traffic flow predictions and transportation
needs estimates, based on data collected at that time.
Containing solid base data on driver behavior and origin- destination information, this plan provides a base from which to examine the changes in driving habits during the last 30 years.
1978 Comprehensive Plan
Developed by the Ashland Planning Department in accordance with the Land Conservation and Development Commission's (LCDC) goals and guidelines, this plan dealt with improvements of traffic
circulation, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and on and off street parking. It did not project future traffic flows.
1981 Comprehensive Plan
The Transportation Element of this plan was prepared by the Ashland Planning Department in accordance with LCDC goals and guidelines. A relatively unsophisticated computer model predicted
future traffic flows through the year 2000.
Until now, this plan worked well within the confines of the automobile-focused approach of the past. Now, however, the limitations of a transportation system that relies on the private
automobile are evident and the need to provide other travel options is clear. The new Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires cities throughout the state to update comprehensive
plans and facilities plans to expedite the development of local transportation systems which make alternative modes attractive and decrease private automobile use.
Section 10.01.03 Overview of Ashland's Physical and Transportation Setting
Ashland's location has historically governed local transportation, patterns. A linear city, situated between the Siskiyou Mountains to the south and Bear Creek/Interstate 5 to the north,
Ashland has relatively steep terrain to the south of North Main Street- Siskiyou Boulevard and more gentle slopes to the north of this thoroughfare.
Growth
Ashland has grown in a consistent pattern for the last 20 years, with population increases in general agreement with the estimates of the Population Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
However, while population growth has occurred as expected, traffic increases, primarily in the number of vehicle trips on our streets, have grown at a much faster rate. For example,
while Ashland's population grew approximately 8.5% between 1980 and 1990, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the city increased by approximately 39%.
While some of this increase can be attributed to tourists, it is apparent that local residents, increasingly dependent on the automobile for convenience, primarily account for the rising
figures. More children are driven to school than walk or ride bicycles, more people drive to work alone than share rides, and more people make separate shopping excursions than combine
them into a single linked trip. Residential development beyond Ashland's city limits also affects the transportation system. The city serves as a shopping/school/employment center for
rural southern Jackson County residents who center many of their daily trips around Ashland. With ever-increasing traffic levels, Ashland must ensure future livability by reducing dependence
on the automobile and encouraging the use of other travel modes.
Land Use Patterns
Ashland is fortunate to have retained a relatively compact urban form throughout its history. Despite its linear configuration, most of the community's residential areas are well served
by nearby commercial service centers. The downtown core contains the banks, the post office, restaurants, and other services used by local residents. With distinctive stores and restaurants,
it is also a regional specialty shopping center for the Southern Oregon/Northern California region. The downtown core is also a tourist destination, as are Lithia Park and the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival. Exceptional transportation demands exist in this area and create the city's highest auto and pedestrian flows. The downtown core also experiences the highest traffic
congestion levels in Ashland.
Other commercial centers lie adjacent to Southern Oregon State College and near the Interstate 5 freeway interchange at Ashland Street. Multi-family and single-family residential developments
are located throughout the city, with a large area of multi- family development centered near the college. Most hillside areas are committed to single-family detached housing units.
With the exception of the Railroad District, most areas of Ashland have been characterized for years by single-use zoning. Few areas exist with "mixed uses" in which a blend of residences,
offices, and retail services is available. Separation of uses through single-use zoning has resulted in residents' need to drive longer distances to work or for services. Compatible
mixed-use zoning would provide services in residential areas and offer housing in commercial areas. These mixed uses would reduce both the number and length of trips for goods and services.
Travel Patterns
Fortunately, Ashland is still a relatively small community and many of the local shopping, school and service trips are very short. The increase in vehicle miles traveled over the last
ten years, however, indicates an ever-increasing number of these short convenience trips.
Ashland has an unusual division of travel modes for work- based trips compared to Jackson County and Oregon, as the following table demonstrates. (1990 Census)
MODE OREGON JACKSON COUNTY ASHLAND
Drive alone 73.3% 77.0% 66.9%
Car Pool 12.8% 11.3% 10.7%
Transit 3.4% 0.7% 1.1%
Walk 4.2% 3.8% 10.5%
Other 1.0% 1.1% 3.7%
Work at Home 43% 5.1% 7.1%
As shown above, 33.1% of all work based trips use some form of transport other than the single occupant automobile, and 22.4% of all work trips do not use the automobile at all. But
while our travel habits, on average, indicate a higher use of the alternate modes than the statewide average, the auto's use within Ashland has risen between 1980 and 1990.
The number of drivers who commute to work alone increased from 57.2% to 66.9% between 1980 and 1990. Fuel pricing is a major factor in this shift. In the mid-1970s, fuel prices rose
rapidly, forcing people to travel more efficiently and to strongly consider other options for travel. Public transit and car pools were vigorously promoted during that decade. During
the 1980s, however, fuel prices remained essentially constant. With inflation factored in, fuel prices actually declined in later years, reducing much of the impetus toward economy,
which characterized driver behavior during the 1970s.
The following table also demonstrates the increase in the number of people who work at home--a figure that almost doubled during the 1980s. Increasingly, many residents' work trips involve
traveling from one portion of the house to the other. The growth of home occupations in Ashland has both enhanced economic development and decreased the number of work trips. These
patterns continue to substantially change our transportation system. (1980 and 1990 Census)
MODE ASHLAND 1990 ASHLAND 1980
Drive alone 66.9% 57.2%
Car Pool 10.7% 18.1%
Transit 1.1% 1.4%
Walk 10.5% 14.6%
Other 3.7% 5.0%
Work at Home 7.1% 3.7%
Rural development outside the city limits has also affected local transportation. Residents of these Iow-density areas use city streets for shopping, work, schools and entertainment.
There are no easy solutions to reduce these trips. Identifying ways in which a rural lifestyle affects city dwellers and reducing development in these areas will help alleviate those
impacts.
General Transportation Problems
In comparison to metropolitan cities, Ashland has few critical transportation problems. This situation could change quickly, however, as it did during the 1980s. Congested automobile
travel areas are currently found in Ashland's downtown area, in the area near Southern Oregon State College, and on East Main Street near the high school and middle school. Should our
reliance on the car continue at the present increasing rates, many more congested areas will evolve.
Pedestrians have a relatively good sidewalk network in the pre-World War II areas of Ashland and in most of the recent subdivisions. The downtown commercial core is well designed for
pedestrians and offers a welcoming walking environment. Because the remainder of the community has developed without sidewalks, pedestrians are forced to compete with autos for space
on many roadways. In some commercial areas of the city, businesses serve drive-up shoppers and make it difficult for those who choose to walk.
Bicyclists' difficulty in traveling through Ashland is primarily due to a lack of safe, comfortable riding areas. North Main Street through the downtown core, and Siskiyou Boulevard
between downtown and the college, create major impediments to bicycle travel through Ashland. Although efforts are being made to remedy these problems, conditions remain difficult for
local bicyclists.
Public transportation is steadily improving in Ashland. At present, 15-minute bus service is available along Siskiyou Boulevard almost the entire length of the city, and a reduced fare
program encourages ridership. Unfortunately, public transit stops are not currently well-sited and they lack necessary amenities. As these stops and overall bus service are improved
within the city, ridership will continue to steadily increase.
Transportation planning for Ashland is both complex and critically important. This element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies important transportation issues and addresses ways to
solve future problems. This Transportation Element considers and incorporates various methods to accommodate traffic growth while retaining Ashland's character and livability. Through
the concept of modal equity, Ashland shall continue to maintain its high level of livability and accommodate the travel needs of our future populations.
Part 10.02 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
Sections:
10.02.01 Introduction
10.02.02 Definitions
10.02.03 Street Classification Guidelines (Arterial)
10.02.04 Avenue (Major Collector)
10.02.05 Neighborhood Collector (Minor Collector)
10.02.06 Neighborhood Street (Local Street)
10.02.07 Alley
10.02.08 Multi-use Path
Section 10.02.01 Introduction
To create a successful transportation plan for Ashland, the interaction of transportation modes must be carefully studied. Whether people walk, drive, take the bus or bicycle, most travel
takes place on the city's street network.
Ashland streets must provide convenient transportation facilities and a comfortable, safe atmosphere. Equal consideration of all travel modes requires more than simply providing various
physical travel areas. Streets must facilitate pedestrian, transit and bicycle traffic. The streetscape determines which transportation modes people use and affects the community's
livability.
This section of the Transportation Element defines the four major street types in Ashland - boulevard, avenue, neighborhood collector and neighborhood street. These classifications identify
the character and level of service to be emphasized on city streets. In addition, a classification is included for multi-use paths. Although not typically considered streets, multi-use
paths can serve as transportation links to the street network for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The street classifications defined in this section are used throughout this document and on the Transportation System Map (page 9) showing Ashland's future transportation system. Preceding
the street classifications are the following definitions of frequently used transportation terms.
Section 10.02.02 Definitions
Bikeways--A bikeway is any road, path or way open to bicycle travel. All streets in Ashland are considered bikeways. The facilities can be a portion of the roadway designated for the
preferential use of bicycles such as a bike lane, shared with other transportation modes, or an off-road path. Bikeways must provide direct, continuous courses accessing commercial
areas, activity centers and schools. Bikeways must provide safe and convenient bicycle travel and be free of unnecessary delays.
Walkways--Walkways provide a circulation network, a meeting place for neighbors, a play area for children, a leisure area and an exercise place. Walkways are intended to provide safe,
attractive and convenient facilities for people traveling on foot and by wheelchair. Walkways are adjacent to streets and although usually in sidewalk form, may occasionally be off-road
paths.
Protected Crossings--Protected crossings are pedestrian crossings designed to minimize crossing distance and provide pedestrians with the safest, direct route across streets shared with
other modes of travel. Curb extensions, pedestrian refuges, raised crosswalks, marked crosswalks, landscape strips, street trees, on-street parking and traffic signals are design elements
used to achieve this effect.
Regional Transit Route--Regional transit routes provide transit service between cities in the Rogue Valley.
Section 10.02.03 Street Classification Guidelines (Arterial)
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 5. The engineering term for this type of street is arterial. North Main Street and Siskiyou Boulevard are examples of boulevards.
On an average day 8,000 to 30,000 motor vehicle trips are made on a typical boulevard. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel can be difficult and uncomfortable if the street is not
designed to buffer non-auto users. To restore balance pedestrian, bicycle and public transit facilities should be emphasized on boulevards. Traffic without a destination in Ashland
should be encouraged to use regional traffic ways and discouraged from using boulevards.
As major thoroughfares, boulevards are busy. They should provide an environment where walking, bicycling and motor vehicle travel are equally convenient. Design should facilitate the
boulevard's use as a public space where people can comfortably wait for the bus or rest on a bench.
Land Use
Mixed-use development should be encouraged along boulevards.
Multi-family development should be encouraged in close proximity to boulevards so that a variety of transportation options are available.
Direct and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access between land uses should be emphasized.
Schools, commercial areas, transit stops, employment areas and parks should be accessible by bikeways and walkways.
A high concentration of homes and/or jobs within walking distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of p~ transit services should be encouraged.
A mix of land uses should be encouraged within easy walking distance of a transit stop to reduce the number of separate trips. The types of land uses should be those which public transit
riders can readily use.
Commercial and recreational development such as shopping centers, entertainment centers, museums and stadiums, which attract trips throughout or beyond Ashland, should be encouraged
to locate along boulevards and be accessible by regional transit routes.
Design
Boulevard design should balance safe, attractive and direct walkways and bikeways with an efficient motor vehicle thoroughfare.
Commercial buildings should be oriented to the street with the main entrance facing the bikeway and walkway. Convenient bicycle parking should be located near the main entrance.
Landscaped medians and park rows offer a visual sense of entry into the community and provide pedestrians with a traffic buffer. Amenities such as benches, shade trees, bathrooms and
water fountains should be pro- vided to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
Protected (pedestrian) crossings should be provided along boulevards at a minimum of every three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet.
Where two boulevards intersect, a boulevard and an avenue intersect or in high traffic areas, a protected crossing should be provided.
Signaled intersections involving boulevards should be designed to allow safe and easy movement of bicycles. Signal triggering devices that can be activated by bicycles should be designated
on the roadway. Intersections involving bicycle lanes should be designed to minimize conflicts, such as turning movements, and to provide adequate bicycle crossings.
Bicycle lanes should be provided on boulevards. Bike lanes should be separated from motor vehicle lanes by an eight-inch solid white line and be well marked.
All boulevards should provide a smooth riding surface for bicycles. Drainage grates, abrupt edges in pavement and debris make bicycle travel difficult and unsafe.
Boulevard and railroad crossing intersections should be designed to provide safe passage for bicyclists over the railroad tracks.
City bikeways should be linked to county bikeways and statewide highway bikeways.
Public transit stops should be easily accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. Covered bicycle racks or lockers should be provided at transit stops.
Transit stops should be covered and contain a bench to provide a convenient, pleasant waiting area. The stops should be located so that oncoming buses are easily visible. A buffer, sidewalk
and/or landscaping, should be located between the waiting area and motorized traffic.
Park and rides should be considered adjacent to boulevards on regional transit routes to encourage commuting residents to use public transit.
Maintain carrying capacity through driveway and curb cut consolidation or reduction.
Off-street parking by uses located on boulevards should be encouraged.
On-street parking removal or street widening should be considered only at specific problem locations, and alternatives and the impacts on adjacent land uses should be studied. Special
consideration should also be given to a safe pedestrian environment.
Boulevard intersections with streets with similar uses should be designed to facilitate the movement of traffic and to allow all turning movements.
Section 10.02.04 Avenue (Major Collector)
Avenues provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle access from boulevards to neighborhoods and to neighborhood activity centers. As Ashland's population increases, transit
routes may access avenues. If public transit routes expand service to avenues, the transit land use and design guidelines for boulevards should be employed. The engineering term for
this type of street is major collector. Iowa and Wimer Streets are examples of avenues.
On an average day 3,000 to 10,000 motor vehicle trips are made on a typical avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be emphasized o~ avenues.
Avenues are similar to boulevards, but are designed on a smaller scale. There are usually fewer motor vehicle lanes and narrower rights-of-way.
Land Use
Mixed-use development should be encouraged on avenues.
Multi-family development should be encouraged in close proximity to avenues so that a variety of transportation options are available.
Direct and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access between land uses should be emphasized.
Schools, commercial areas, transit stops, employment areas and parks should be accessible by bikewa) walkways.
New or expanding land uses, which attract trips from the surrounding neighborhoods or from throughout Ashland should be encouraged to locate on avenues.
Regional land uses should be discouraged from locating on avenues, except where a boulevard is nearby and directly connected to a state/regional traffic-way, such as Interstate 5.
Design
Avenue design should balance safe, attractive and direct walkways and bikeways with an efficient motor vehicle thoroughfare.
Commercial buildings should be oriented to the street with the main entrance facing the bikeway and walkway. Convenient bicycle parking should be located near the main entrance.
Landscaped medians and park-rows offer a visual sense of entry into the community and provide pedestrians with a buffer from traffic. Amenities such as benches, shade trees, bathrooms
and water fountains should be provided to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
Protected (pedestrian) crossings should be provided along avenues at a minimum of every three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet.
Where a boulevard and an avenue intersect, two avenues intersect or in high traffic areas, a protected crossing should be provided.
Signaled intersections involving avenues should be designed to allow safe and easy movement of bicycles. Signal triggering devices that can be activated by bicycles should be designated
on the roadway. Intersections involving bicycle lanes should be designed to minimize conflicts, such as turning movements, and to provide adequate bicycle crossings.
Bicycle lanes should be provided on avenues. These lanes are separated from motor vehicle lanes by an eight-inch solid white line, and must be well-marked.
All avenues should provide a smooth riding surface. Drainage grates, abrupt edges in pavement and debris make bicycle travel difficult and unsafe.
Avenue and railroad intersection crossings should be designed to provide safe passage for bicyclists over the railroad tracks.
City bikeways should be linked to county bikeways and statewide highway bikeways.
Maintain carrying capacity through driveway and curb cut consolidation or reduction.
Off-street parking by uses located on avenues should be encouraged.
On-street parking removal or street widening should be considered only at specific problem locations, and alternatives and the impacts on adjacent land uses should be studied. Special
consideration should also be given to a safe pedestrian environment.
Intersections of avenues with streets with similar uses should be designed to facilitate the movement of traffic and to allow all turning movements.
Section 10.02.05 Neighborhood Collector (Minor Collector)
Neighborhood collectors distribute traffic from boulevards or avenues to neighborhood streets. The average traffic volume of a neighborhood collector is 1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicles
per day. The engineering term for this type of street is minor collector. Fordyce and Morton Streets are examples of neighborhood collectors.
Land Use
Mixed-use development that serves the local neighbor- hood should be encouraged.
New land uses and major expansions of existing land uses, which attract many traffic trips from outside the neighborhood, should be discouraged on neighborhood collectors.
Design
Neighborhood collector design should balance safe, attractive and direct walkways and bikeways with an efficient motor vehicle thoroughfare.
Commercial buildings should be oriented to the street with the main entrance facing the bikeway and walkway. Convenient bicycle parking should be located near the main entrance.
Landscaped islands and park-rows offer a visual sense of entry into the neighborhood and provide pedestrians with a buffer from traffic. Amenities such as benches, shade trees, bathrooms
and water fountains should be provided to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
Protected (pedestrian) crossings should be provided along neighborhood collectors at a minimum of every three blocks or approximately 1,000 feet.
Bicycle lanes should be provided on streets designated as neighborhood collectors when the average daily traffic is over 3,000, and/or when actual travel speeds exceed 25 miles per hour
as outlined in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Bike lanes are separated from motor vehicle lanes by an eight-inch solid white line, and must be well marked.
All neighborhood collectors should provide a smooth riding surface. Drainage grates, abrupt edges in pavement and debris make bicycle travel difficult and unsafe.
Neighborhood collectors and railroad intersection crossings should be designed to provide safe passage for bicyclists over the railroad tracks.
City bikeways should be linked to county bikeways and statewide highway bikeways.
Maintain carrying capacity through driveway and curb cut consolidation or reduction.
Off-street parking by uses located on neighborhood collectors should be encouraged.
On-street parking removal or street widening should be considered only at specific problem locations, and alternatives and the impacts on adjacent land uses should be studied. Special
consideration should also be given to a safe pedestrian environment.
Intersections of neighborhood collectors with streets with similar uses should be designed to facilitate the movement of traffic and to allow all turning movements.
Distribution of traffic to the neighborhoods on neighborhood collectors should be encouraged.
Non-local neighborhood trips should be discouraged on neighborhood collectors.
Section 10.02.06 Neighborhood Street (Local Street)
Neighborhood streets provide access to residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Motor vehicle traffic should be relatively low at 1,000 or less motor vehicles per day. The engineering
term for this type of street is "local" street. Sixth, Allison and Quincy Streets are examples of neighborhood streets.
Neighborhood streets should facilitate pedestrian circulation, allow a meeting place for residents and provide a play area for children. Generally, neighborhood streets are the narrowest
city streets.
Land Use
The scale and character of a neighborhood street design should correspond directly to the land use it serves.
Auto-oriented land uses should be discouraged from using neighborhood streets as a primary access route.
Design
Neighborhood street designs should balance safe, attractive and direct walkways and bikeways with an efficient motor vehicle thoroughfare.
Landscaped islands and park-rows offer a visual sense of entry into the neighborhood and provide pedestrians with a buffer from traffic. Amenities such as benches, shade trees, bathrooms
and water fountains should be provided to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
Traffic control measures or devices may be used to slow traffic, control access or deny traffic movements on neighborhood streets where safety, speed, or non-local traffic problems exist.
On-street parking removal or street widening should be considered only at specific problem locations, and alternatives and the impacts on adjacent land uses should be studied. Special
consideration should also be given to a safe pedestrian environment.
Non-local neighborhood trips should be discouraged on neighborhood collectors.
The use of neighborhood streets for one-way traffic is not generally appropriate, unless the entire circulation pattern of the neighborhood has been considered.
Section 10.02.07 Alley
The alley is a semi-public neighborhood space that provides access to the rear of property. The alley eliminates the need for front yard driveways and provides the opportunity for a
more positive front yard streetscape. An alley at the rear of properties allows the street located adjacent to the front of properties to be designed using a narrow width with limited
on-street parking. 1-he use of alleys can create the opportunity for the use of narrower lots to increase residential densities. Alleys are appropriate in all residential areas and
in some commercial areas for business frontage, and for access and delivery depending on the circulation pattern of the area.
Land Use
Parking spaces and structures should be encouraged to locate on alleys.
Delivery areas for commercial uses should be encouraged to locate on alleys.
Accessory units above garages and accessory residential uses should be located on alleys in residential areas.
Multi-family units and commercial uses may be appropriate on alleys.
Utility easements should be accommodated in the alley.
Design
Landscaping, street trees and varying parking surfaces should be incorporated into the alley to create a streetscape.
Alleys within commercial districts are valuable public spaces. Buildings should be oriented toward the alley with individual businesses showing a strong sense of entry. Alternative pavement
materials, textures and colors should be used to develop the pedestrian environment.
When multiple structures are located on one lot, the buildings adjacent to the alley should be oriented to- ward the alley.
The use of alleys for one-way traffic is not generally appropriate, unless the entire circulation pattern of the neighborhood has been considered.
Section 10.02.08 Multi-use Path
Multi-use paths are off-street facilities used primarily for walking and bicycling. These paths can be relatively short connections between neighborhoods (neighborhood connectors), or
longer paths adjacent to rivers, creeks, railroad tracks and open space. Frequented by both pedestrians and bicyclists, multi-use paths provide shortcuts through neighborhoods and to
other destinations.
Land Use
Parks and schools should be encouraged to locate along multi-use paths.
Design
Multi-use paths within the city limits of Ashland should be linked to state highway bikeways and county bikeways.
Multi-use paths should be built as neighborhood connectors in areas where block dimensions exceed the recommended maximum circumference standard.
Multi-use paths shared by pedestrians and bicyclists should emphasize design features and adequate path markings that allow for the safety of all users.
Intersections of multi-use paths and streets should minimize conflicts and provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Crossings should be located at points along the road where
adequate sight distance exists. When paths cross streets, safety devices such as signs, signals and painted crosswalks should be considered. Curb cuts should be provided.
Intersections of multi-use paths with railroad crossings should be designed to provide safe passage for pedestrians and bicyclists over the railroad tracks.
Railings and barriers should be provided on both sides of bridges on multi-use paths.
All multi-use paths should be signed with regulatory, warning and destination signs as outlined in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Part 10.03 THE STREET SYSTEM
Sections:
10.03.01 Introduction
10.03.02 Existing Street Network
10.03.03 Roadways Needs
10.03.04 Goals
10.03.05 Policies
Section 10.03.01 Introduction
Streets are pivotal in shaping the character of Ashland neighborhoods. Streets provide the first impression visitors have of the community, and longtime residents view Ashland primarily
from the streets -- the city's most prevalent public viewshed.
Street, public right-of-way and street right-of-way are used interchangeably throughout this document. The term "street" refers to much more than the roadway surface. It includes the
sidewalk, planting strip, street trees, lighting and street furniture, as well as traffic calming structures. The publicly owned land a street occupies is called the right-of-way.
Streets provide a travel corridor for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles. They have also historically served aesthetic and social purposes as multi-purpose public spaces, which
diffuse light, circulate air, provide landscaped vistas and facilitate informal, spontaneous recreation and socializing.
After World War II and the development of suburban street standards, streets became single-purpose spaces for the safe and convenient operation of automobiles. Houses were set farther
back, sidewalks often disappeared completely and use of the front yard as an activity area decreased.
Four decades of single-purpose streets have resulted in negative consequences, such as the loss of livable neighborhoods due to fast-moving traffics. The cost of an automobile-dominated
transportation system, traffic's effect on quality of life and the environmental degradation caused by motor vehicles, have forced communities to examine the ways in which the public
right-of-way is used. Streets must be reclaimed as multi-purpose public spaces to facilitate non-auto travel and to maintain community livability.
Section 10.03.02 Existing Street Network
Network Description
Ashland's geographic location has historically governed local transportation patterns. Bounded on the west by the foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains and on the eastern edge by Interstate
5 and large floodplains, the city has developed in a linear fashion. The main thoroughfare, North Main Street-Siskiyou Boulevard, runs between steep terrain to the south and the gentle
slopes of the north.
Ashland's street system design reflects the cultural values and available technology of earlier eras. Most of the first streets were developed within what is today the downtown core.
Streets in the Railroad District were laid out in a grid pattern perpendicular and parallel to the tracks. Subsequent neighborhood streets were patterned in a strict north/south grid
with little consideration for terrain limits. As a result, many Ashland streets are very steep.
As Ashland became increasingly auto dependent, attempts were made to reduce the car's impact by limiting access to neighborhood areas. For example, more recent residential developments
contain curvilinear streets with cul-de-sacs. Current street design trends employ a modified grid pattern while accommodating terrain limitations.
The main boulevard, North Main Street-Siskiyou Boulevard, extends the length of the city. Two boulevards branch off it in an easterly direction. Ashland Street (Highway 66) intersects
Siskiyou Boulevard near Southern Oregon State College and Interstate 5. East Main Street runs in an easterly direction from the city center to Highway 66. Numerous avenues and neighborhood
collectors connect city neighborhoods to the boulevards.
Ashland has three freeway interchanges adjacent to Interstate 5. Exit 19 is located at the northern end of the city off Valley View Road. Exits 14 and 11 are located at the southern
end of the city off Ashland Street (Highway 66) and Siskiyou Boulevard respectively. Interstate 5 provides primary north-south access through the Rogue River Valley as well as to other
Oregon regions and the state of California. On Interstate 5, Ashland is 12 miles from Medford, 40 miles from Grants Pass and 45 miles from Yreka, California.
Several state highways connect Ashland to areas in Southern Oregon. State Highway 99 (Rogue River Highway) is also known as North Main Street aud Siskiyou Boulevard within the city limits.
Highway 99 closely parallels Interstate 5 and extends from the freeway in Ashland to Grants Pass. Highway 99 also provides access to areas northwest of Ashland.
State Highway 66 (Greensprings Highway) runs in an easterly direction from Ashland to Klamath Falls, 60 miles away. Dead Indian Memorial Road, a county road, extends in a northeasterly
direction to State Highway 140. State Highway 140 provides access to Klamath Falls and connects to State Highway 62. Due to steep, rugged terrain, the area directly west of Ashland
is not accessible by local roads. The main routes to the Applegate Valley and the Illinois Valley are either State Highway 238 through Jacksonville or U.S. Highway 199 through Grants
Pass.
Street Conditions
Approximately 83 miles of streets lie within Ashland. There are 75 miles (90%) of paved streets and eight miles (10%) of unpaved streets. Public road maintenance within Ashland is shared
by the City, the County, and the State. The Oregon Department of Transportation maintains two of the boulevards in the city--North Main-Siskiyou Boulevard (Highway 99) and Ashland Street
(Highway 66). Both streets are state highways. Jackson County provides maintenance for county roads within the city. The City of Ashland Public Works Department maintains all other
public streets within the city limits. The City grades and gravels unpaved streets and conducts required maintenance on paved streets.
Future transportation projects currently planned and funded are described in Appendix A.
Street Classifications
Ashland streets have been classified as part of the transportation planning process. Roadway classifications, also called functional classifications, establish uniform criteria for the
construction, maintenance and use of the streets. The classifications are based on street function, traffic volume, average trip length, spacing and relationship to the network. There
are four street classifications: boulevard, avenue, neighborhood-collector and neighborhood streets. The Transportation System Map on page 9 shows the functional classification of Ashland
streets. The map also indicates proposed streets, which will improve travel circulation as the community grows.
The City of Ashland uses a modified version of the functional class system as outlined in the Street Classifications section. The modifications were made to recapture streets as multi-
modal travel corridors and public spaces. Specifically, traditional street type names are used in place of standard engineering terms. Boulevard is used for arterial, avenue is used
for major collector, neighborhood collector is used for minor collector and neighborhood street is used for local street.
Traditional street type names are used because they evoke classic, human scale streets such as Siskiyou Boulevard and East Main Street rather than modern, automobile dominated roads.
See Street Classifications section for further information.
The functional class system was developed by the Federal Highway Administration and adopted in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule of 1991 requires
local jurisdictions to use the functional classification system and ensure that road classifications are consistent with regional and state functional classifications.
According to the functional classification system, streets serve two basic purposes--traffic movement and land access. Boulevards move traffic through the community and onto the collector
system and restrict or prohibit access from adjoining properties. Avenues and neighborhood collectors are designed to collect traffic from neighborhood streets and funnel it onto boulevards.
Although some property access is provided by these street types, moving traffic is of prime importance. Neighborhood streets primarily provide access to adjacent properties and move
neighborhood traffic onto collectors. Neighborhood streets should be protected from shortcut or detour traffic, from vehicles moving at excessive speeds, and from parking unrelated
to residential activities.
While the functional classification system is a useful transportation planning tool, it has several shortcomings. First, the concentration on vehicular traffic volumes and street capacities
tends to dominate street design and construction. Streets are widened at the expense of sidewalk width, trees and front yards. Cities across the nation have made changes based on the
assumption that traffic would increase at a steady rate in the future and have used traffic volumes and capacities as principal measures of street use. It is becoming increasingly apparent
that a road's function and its relationship to the network, as well as its traffic volume, must be considered.
The functional classification system, which focuses on vehicular traffic, assumes that streets exist for two purposes--moving motor vehicles and providing land access. As a result, non-automobile
users (pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders) are only considered in afterthought. The third street purpose, that of providing a public space, is entirely ignored.
Section 10.03.03 Roadways Needs
Ashland citizens have expressed opinions about transportation needs in many forums. To address their concerns, the city held neighborhood meetings from February to April 1994. At these
meetings citizens identified a variety of problems and possible solutions. Appendix B contains a complete list of neighborhood meeting comments.
Land Use and Travel Patterns
Transportation demand and resulting traffic are determined almost entirely from the ways in which land is organized and used. Suburban development tends to be low in population density
and requires use of the personal automobile for almost all travel. Destinations are far apart in suburban areas and residential neighborhoods are strictly separated from the places
people work, shop, and socialize. Extensive areas of suburban development result in sprawl.
In contrast, traditional neighborhood development is compact and integrates residential areas with employment, shopping and recreational districts. By locating destinations close to
areas in which people live, walking, bicycling and public transit can be used for everyday trips. While a sprawling development pattern systematically locks cities into dependence on
the single-occupant automobile, a traditional development pattern provides multiple transportation options.
A recently completed study by the University of California at Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development compared travel characteristics in two distinctly different neighborhoods
in the San Francisco-Oakland region's East Bay. These enclaves included Rockridge, an older compact and mixed-use neighborhood with many traditional design qualities, and Lafayette,
a post-World War II community dominated by suburban tract housing, spacious community designs and auto- oriented retail strips and plazas. The two neighborhoods were discovered to be
similar in some ways. They lie in the same geographic area, are the same approximate distance to downtown San Francisco, have a public transit station, are served by the same regional
freeway and have comparable median household incomes.
The study, however, found that the older traditional neighborhood, Rockridge, averaged a 10% higher share of non-work trips by travel modes other than automobile, compared to the auto-oriented
Lafayette. Neighborhood characteristics exerted the strongest effect on non-work trips of less than one mile. Specifically, in Rockridge walking trips were frequently substituted for
automobile trips. Residents made 28% of non-work trips under one mile by foot and 66% by automobile. In contrast, Lafayette residents made just 6% of non-work trips by foot and 81%
by car.
The University of California study highlighted two factors, which have been critical in the evolution of sprawl--the personal automobile and single-use zoning. Prior to the 1950s, homes
were built on small lots close to public transportation. As economic growth and the national standard of living escalated in the 1950s, an increasing number of households purchased
automobiles. As extensive road systems were developed throughout the nation and within communities, the car became the connecting link between home and work. New homes were built on
large lots away from employment centers and the suburban population exploded.
Shortly before the automobile's proliferation, single-use zoning, which designates areas for specific, limited land uses, became the basis of comprehensive planning and zoning in the
United States. Single-use zoning had been developed in the late nineteenth century to prevent poor living conditions caused by industrial pollution, noise and odor, and to prevent fire
and disease.
The resulting development pattern decentralized land uses and strictly separated residential and commercial functions. The landmark 1927 U.S. Supreme Court decision of the Village of
Euclid vs. Amber Realty Co. upheld the municipality's right to designate areas for single land uses9. Ironically, cars traveling between separate uses have caused the pollution and
destruction of natural resources that single-use zoning was originally intended to eliminate.
Sprawl-induced dependence on the automobile negatively affects communities in many ways. Sprawl emphasizes the private living space and ignores development of public spaces. It does
not respond to changing demographics. As families become smaller and less traditional, and as cars are required for daily living, other demands, such as regular chauffeuring of children,
become a hardship.
Sprawl is expensive. On average, a two year old car costs $5,000 per year to own and maintain~3. Keeping a private automobile has become more costly for wage earners and a formidable
economic barrier for lower income residents. The cost of installing and maintaining public infrastructure, such as roads, sewers, water, electricity, schools, parks, police and fire
protection, grows as the amount of serviced land area increases.
The public pays the high infrastructure costs for a sprawling development pattern. Extensive road networks consume valuable land and low density makes transit inefficient and ineffective.
Requiring high-energy consumption, sprawl is also a major source of air and water pollution. The cumulative effects of sprawl compromise the quality of life and the environment, and
discourage a sense of community.
The traditional neighborhood is an alternative to low density development. Traditional neighborhoods are moderately dense, multiple-use communities which provide transportation options.
Traditional communities include a core with mixed and multiple uses, variation in the size of buildings and building footprints, an increase in the size of residential units and lot
sizes from the neighborhood core to its periphery, open space and a focus on pedestrians and human scale in the streetscape. In Ashland's traditional neighborhoods, such as the Railroad
District, new development and redevelopment increasingly integrate those elements, which have historically proven effective.
Traditional neighborhoods facilitate everyday life without the need for extensive driving. Compact land use, mixed and multiple-use areas, and the pedestrian environment promote walking,
bicycling and public transit. In contrast, the low density development, separated land uses and automobile environment of suburban areas limits travel to the car and promotes an increasing
number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita. Traditional neighborhood development must be facilitated to increase walking and bicycling trips and to make public transit possible
in the long term.
Street Layout and Design
Street network patterns and the physical design of the right-of- way are intrinsically linked to travel patterns and neighborhood character. Successful, multi-modal streets in traditional
neighborhoods resemble inviting public spaces and function in an interconnected network. Street layout and design should support the traditional neighborhood.
Traditional neighborhoods such as the Ashland's Railroad District, reveal common characteristics in network layout and street design. They typically contain a grid network--a framework
of parallel or crisscrossed streets intersecting at right angles with very few dead ends. Blocks are 300 to 400 feet in length with 1,200 to 1,600 feet perimeters.
In contrast to the multiple curves and cul-de-sacs found in suburban development, a grid network spreads out local traffic by providing multiple ways to reach the same point. The many
interconnections and short block lengths mean that trips are more direct and shorter in distance. This network allows residents to get to neighborhood destinations, schools, stores,
or friends' houses, without entering a boulevard.
Physical street design is strikingly different in traditional neighborhoods than in suburban areas. Typical neighborhood streets have evolved from the narrow pavement width and right-of-way
designed to carry horse-drawn vehicles to the much wider streets seen in today's suburbs, which allow people to drive 40 to 50 miles per hour.
Traditional neighborhood streets typically have 30 to 50 feet of right-of-way, with 18 to 24 feet of pavement. Houses are set back 12 to 20 feet from the right-of-way and detached garages
are either located behind the house or set back further than the house facade. In contrast, subdivision streets have 60 feet of right-of-way, 32 to 36 feet of pavement, houses set back
20 to 60 feet from the right-of-way and attached garages set back the same distance as the house facade.
Other elements of traditional neighborhood street design include parallel parking on at least one side, park-rows and sidewalks on both sides, street trees and street lamps at regular
intervals, curb radii of not more than 15 feet, and bump-outs and safety islands on wider streets. In traditional neighbor- hoods, all streets are not the same. Some serve high-density
neighborhoods, some commercial cores, and others serve low- density districts. They also vary in pavement widths, sidewalks and building locations contrasting markedly with rigid contemporary
suburban standards. A noticeable feature of traditional neighborhoods is that design differs from street to street.
Street design should promote safety and livability. It should permit comfortable and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel as well as motorized vehicular operation. Vulnerable users such
as children, the disabled and the elderly, should be protected. The street should be a multipurpose, public space that enhances the neighborhood's overall aesthetics. Deliveries, emergency
access and where densities allow, bus or paratransit service must be accommodated.
Ashland's street layout and design need to be better matched to adjacent uses, the physical features of the land, location in the neighborhood and position in the community. A grid or
modified grid network pattern should be used to provide connectivity. Ashland street design standards must incorporate traditional neighborhood street elements.
Traffic Calming
The challenge of the neighborhood street system is to balance restoring the human scale characteristic of traditional neighborhoods with residents' desire for convenient automobile access
to their home. This involves reducing traffic unrelated to the neighborhood, slowing down traffic using the streets and providing for attractive and unobtrusive vehicle parking.
There are three methods for achieving traffic control in the neighborhood: general laws and ordinances; traffic control devices; and traffic calming techniques. The third method, traffic
calming, is increasingly being used on neighborhood streets because traffic control devices and speed limit laws tend to be ineffective in both deterring through traffic and slowing
down local traffic.
Traffic calming uses geometric design features to guide or restrict physical movement of motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The basis for traffic calming is simple. Drivers tend
to respond to their surroundings rather than to posted speed limit signs. If the street is designed using suburban standards and has the width and gentle curves of a highway, people
will drive as if they are on a highway. Even the Romans understood that certain measures had to be taken to restore neighborhood tranquillity when they placed stone blocks at some street
entrances as a physical barrier against high speed chariot traffic.
Traffic calming can be used to address two major problems: the protection of neighborhood streets from high speed and through traffic; and the mitigation of traffic impacts on residential
areas located on major streets.
"Cut-through" traffic in established neighborhoods disrupts life and erodes the neighborhood's integrity. Residential traffic problems arising on major streets may require special efforts
to balance residents' needs with those of the traveling public.
A wide variety of traffic calming measures can be combined in various ways to create different traffic control levels. In general, where there is an alternative route, steps which discourage
use and decrease roadway capacity are appropriate. In situations where no alternative route exists, traffic can be slowed down without substantially taking away capacity~4.
Traffic problems are most judiciously handled when a clear, understandable traffic control planning process is in place.
Traditionally in Ashland and most small cities, traffic complaints are handled on a case-by-case basis. The weakness in this approach is that complaints do not always come from the areas
where problems are most frequent, spot treatment often simply shifts problems to other areas, and residents may demand a specific action which may not be the best solution to their
problem.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends developing a traffic control planning process which regularly inventories neighborhood traffic problems throughout the community,
and adopting standards to identify conditions which need attention. Once a traffic problem meets the criteria for traffic control treatment, the following process should be used:
assess problem and causes
develop alternative courses of action that could eliminate or reduce the problem
predict both primary and secondary impacts of alternatives on the neighborhood and general community
develop an implementation strategy, including a financing and maintenance plan
evaluate in-place performance of selected action or actions, and make adjustments as needed
The City of Ashland should develop a traffic control planning process for the systematic treatment of traffic problems in the existing street network. Traffic calming measures should
be used to protect neighborhood streets from through traffic and to mitigate traffic impact on major streets.
Future Travel
A travel forecasting model for Ashland was developed in 1992 by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. The model tested various measures of reducing future motor vehicle travel in the Ashland
area by replicating the existing traffic volumes and predicting future volumes on Ashland streets. Non-automotive measures and automobile-oriented measures were both studied.
Specifically, the 1992 model addressed two questions. First, what roadway network improvements would be necessary for all boulevards and avenues to operate at volume-to-capacity ratios
of less than !.0 in Year 2005? (A volume-to-capacity (V/C) ration equal to or greater than 1.0 means the roadway volumes exceed capacity of the facilities.) Second, what net effect
would future non-auto modal enhancements have upon overall travel in the Ashland area in 2005?
The first test, the "base scenario", was conducted to predict traffic flow in the year 2005. It assumes no physical changes to the street network and that the modal split remains the
same. The base scenario serves as a constant, to which several other scenarios using different transportation system options can be compared.
In the base scenario, five roadway segments on Ashland's boulevard/avenues street system operate with V/C ratios in excess of capacity in 2005:
Siskiyou Boulevard (northbound and southbound) between Mountain Avenue and Ashland Street
Siskiyou Boulevard (northbound) south of the inter-section of East Main Street and Lithia Way
Ashland Street (eastbound) between Interstate 5 southbound and northbound ramps
Pioneer Street (both directions) at East Main Street
Valley View Road (northbound) at Interstate 5 inter-change
When a scenario with full improvements to Hersey Street was studied, the roadway segment of Siskiyou Boulevard south of the intersection of East Main Street and Lithia Way operated below
capacity.
Two "automobile-oriented" scenarios, building additional roadway capacity and transportation system management (TSM), were developed to test whether auto measures would alleviate future
roadway congestion. (TSM is a method of maximizing the efficiency of the existing transportation system by managing traffic through the use of traffic control devices such as traffic
signals, ramp meters, median turn barriers, restricted access to properties along congested corridors, etc.)
The first scenario to enhance street capacity added more travel lanes to Siskiyou Boulevard between Ashland Street and Lithia Way, and to Ashland Street between the Interstate 5 ramps.
The five "above capacity" street segments from the base scenario all operated at V/C rates less than .9 with added travel lanes in 2005.
A second test was conducted using TSM measures such as traffic signal system enhancements, intersection capacity improvements and access management of driveways and intersections instead
of added travel lanes. All street segments operated with V/C rates less than 1.0 in 2005 as a result of TSM improvement measures.
Five "mode-split enhancement" scenarios, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, high occupancy vehicle and combined modes, tested whether non-auto measures would reduce automobile travel in the
Ashland area and relieve roadway congestion. The pedestrian scenario applied a 25% reduction rate to all trips less than one-half mile, and resulted in a less than 1% reduction in auto
trips in 2005. The bicycle scenario applied a 10% reduction to all trips between one-half and two miles, and resulted in a 2% reduction in auto trips in 2005.
Mode-Split Enhancement Scenarios (TDM) from 1992 Travel Demand Model
Increase of... Reduction in 2005 Auto Trips
25% of all trips made by walking less than 1%
10% of all trips between .5 and 2 miles by bicycling 2%
10% of trips adjacent to bus routes by transit 2%
15% of trips to Medford by high occupancy vehicle 6%
All Mode-Split Enhancements Combined 11%
The transit scenario applied a 10% vehicle trip reduction rate to all origin-destination pairs located adjacent to RVTD bus service Routes #5 and #10 in Ashland. These calculations resulted
in a reduction of approximately 2% of future auto trips. The high occupancy vehicle to Medford scenario applied a 15% vehicle trip reduction rate to all Ashland generated trips with
an origin or destination located in Medford. This calculation results in a reduction of 6% future auto trips in Ashland.
The combined scenario of all the mode-split enhancements tested the impact of all transportation demand management (TDM) measures on reducing auto travel i~ Ashland. (The purpose of
TDM is to reduce the number of motor vehicles using the road system by providing a wide variety of mobility options. Examples of TDM strategies include encouraging walking and bicycling
trips, decreasing distance traveled through land use, encouraging ridesharing and alternative work arrangements.) Combined trip reduction factors resulted in a decline of approximately
11% future auto trips in Ashland. Overall, auto travel was significantly reduced on North Main Street, Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. However, V/C rates in excess of 1.0 are
still found on two of the five "above capacity" roadway segments from the base scenario--Siskiyou Boulevard between Mountain Avenue and Ashland Street, and on Pioneer Street at Main
Street.
Finally, a scenario combining the TSM and Combined Mode- Split Enhancements was developed to test the impact that TSM and TDM measures would have on reducing auto travel in Ashland.
The combined TSM/TDM enhancement scenario resulted in a significant reduction of future auto trips on North Main Street and Ashland Street. No roadway segments on Siskiyou Boulevard
showed V/C rates above 1.0.
The City must select a transportation system alternative that adequately meets Ashland's transportation needs. The alternative should combine strategies which best meet the goals and
objectives of the Transportation Element and which address future capacity insufficiencies.
The travel demand model is a valuable tool for predicting where future bottlenecks, sensitive intersections, etc. will occur. However, like any other forecasting method, travel demand
modeling has limitations. Travel demand models are automobile-oriented and were developed strictly to determine where roads should be built or expanded. Traditional models look only
at automobile travel and assume that these patterns will continue and remain constant in the future. They do not incorporate alternative modes of transportation or changes in land use
patterns, and they do not examine travel behavior or options, which might affect how people travel. When analysis assumes the automobile is the only transportation option, the only
solution for congested areas is to add capacity to the streets. In this respect, the travel demand model perpetuates accommodation of increased traffic by building roads.
Many communities mistakenly use model results as the sole basis for transportation policy. Streets, which were supposed to function below capacity for many years in the future may reach
above-capacity conditions in a much shorter time. When cities use travel demand modeling as an overriding doctrine in transportation planning, they often accept methods, which accommodate
automobile traffic by building new roads.
Recent travel demand models have only begun to attempt incorporating options such as walking, bicycling, public transit and different land use patterns. Transportation modeling professionals
began to consider non-auto modes in response to passage of the Federal Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. These laws explicitly
acknowledge non- auto transport as viable modes of transportation and initiated a new era in transportation planning. At the time of this writing, a model, which solidly predicts walking
and bicycling has not been perfected.
The 1992 travel demand model for Ashland included non-auto trip analysis to the extent possible at that time and assumed a traditional, single-use land development pattern in the future.
Since then, modeling alternative land use patterns has become a fairly common practice. Depending on advances in travel demand modeling and available resources, the Ashland 1992 model
may require refining to test alternative land use patterns and non-auto transport options.
Freeway Access
Presently, the City of Ashland is served by three freeway interchanges- Exit 19 at the northern endofthe city; Exit 14 at the intersection of Ashland Street and Interstate 5, and Exit
11 at the far southern end of the community at the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Interstate 5. In the previous Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (1981 ), there
was discussion of an additional freeway interchange at the intersection of North Mountain Avenue and Interstate 5, designed to serve the center of the community. For several reasons,
this new interchange is not likely to be developed during the planning period. However, it is not precluded as an option for the future.
First, additional research has been conducted regarding the service area of the interchange. The new interchange would primarily serve Southern Oregon State College commuter students,
and Medford-based trips from the nearby residential areas. However, due to the linear nature of the community, and the perceived distance of the freeway interchange from Siskiyou Boulevard,
the total area served by the interchange would not be large. The overall impact on through traffic to the community is not offset by the large financial investment necessary to construct
the interchange.
Second, regarding the financial investment, current state highway construction dollars are tightly controlled, and the likelihood of gaining state support for construction of an interchange
during the planning period is minimal. The availability of three interchanges for a community of 18,000 appears to be ample, by state standards. Therefore, the cost of constructing
the interchange would fall entirely on the local community.
Third, the investment in the freeway interchange, and the necessary infrastructure improvements to streets accessing the North Mountain area would be almost entirely auto-oriented. The
benefits to other modes of travel would be minimal, especially when compared to the large capital outlay necessary. Therefore, a freeway interchange at North Mountain Avenue is not
likely to be developed during the planning period, but it is not precluded as an option for the future.
Access Management
Access management reduces maneuvers in the travel corridor through roadway design techniques that maintain or increase street capacity. Access management is used on boulevards and avenues
to create a safe roadway environment that allows pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic to flow smoothly. Among tools used in access management are proper spacing of traffic
signals, provision of turn lanes, use of medians and planned driveway spacing and design.
Access management is a useful transportation management tool for the existing street network as well as for future streets. It can be used as an alternative to constructing additional
motor vehicle travel lanes on existing streets. Preliminary studies of Highway 30 from Portland to Astoria show that using access management techniques can decrease the need for traditional
highway widening and equal savings of over $75 million over the next 20 years.
All streets functionally classified by the Oregon State Division of Highways as rural collectors and minor arterials that connect Ashland with other municipalities are under the administrative
control of either the County or the State. Access management on these routes is handled by permit. Within the city limits, roadways under State administrative control are coordinated
by the State. Access management on streets under jurisdictional control of the City is its responsibility. In the interest of minimizing street construction and widening, the City of
Ashland must develop an access management plan for the boulevard and avenue street network in cooperation with the County and State.
Safety
Safety is important in existing street network function as well as in the successful design of future streets. Areas prone to traffic accidents must be identified and systematically
addressed.
Safety problems are rooted in the conflicts among the many users of street space. Although streets are public property and belong to everyone, some users have preempted more of the street
space than others. The "traffic function", moving traffic streams efficiently, competes with streets as public spaces, access to properties and parking.
The number and types of conflicts between street users depends on the facility's physical design and on the users' behavior. In order to identify goals for street design, it is important
to identify all user needs, consider what conflicts they might have and what safety needs might result. Safety for all users should be a guiding factor in street planning and design
in Ashland.
Conflicts arise out of the manner in which people use the street and interact with other users. As outlined in the Pedestrian/Bicycle Section, well-enforced traffic laws play an important
part of street safety. Also, transportation safety education is one way to familiarize pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers with proper practices and traffic law.
Regional and State Roadway Systems
Clearly, Ashland needs a safe and efficient roadway system connecting the city to the region, to the state and to the rest of the nation. The United States has heavily invested in the
interstate highway system, and as a result the flow of people, goods and service depends on the roadway network. In the interest of the residents and the local economy, Ashland's transportation
system must be coordinated with county, regional, state and federal jurisdictions.
In the Rogue Valley region, land use patterns directly affect the development of viable non-auto transportation. Alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle cannot succeed if an auto-
oriented Iow-density development pattern continues. Ashland must be involved in advocating regional land use patterns that support a multi-modal transportation system.
Section 10.03.04 Goal
To Provide all Citizens with Safe and Convenient Transportation While Reinforcing the Recognition of Public Rights-of-Way as Critical Public Spaces.
Section 10.03.05 Policies
Provide zoning that allows for a mix of land uses and traditional neighborhood development, which promotes walking and bicycling.
Periodically review and revise street design standards. Incorporate traditional neighborhood design elements such as, but not limited to, planting strips, minimum necessary curb radii,
alleys and skinny streets in standards. The street design standards shall incorporate the land use and design guidelines in the Street Classifications section of this element.
Design streets as critical public spaces where creating a comfortable and attractive place that encourages people to walk, bicycle and socialize is balanced with building an efficient
travel corridor. Design streets with equal attention to all right-of-way users and to promote livability of neighborhoods.
Enhance the streetscape by code changes specifying placement of critical design elements such as, but not limited to, windows, doorways, signs and planting strips.
Reduce excessive street pavement width in order to facilitate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation, to facilitate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation, to reduce the
costs of construction, to provide for more efficient use of land and to discourage excessive traffic volumes and speeds.
Encourage a connected street network pattern, as topography allows, to promote pedestrian and bicycle travel. Off-street pathways should be connected to the street network. Block perimeters
should be 1,200 to 1,600 feet and the distance between streets should be a maximum of 300 to 400 feet.
Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure Ashland Street is developed as a multi-modal corridor including attractive landscaping, sidewalks, bike lanes and controlled access. Development
along Ashland Street shall be compatible with and support a multi-modal orientation.
Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure that Siskiyou Boulevard is developed as a multi-modal corridor with sidewalk and bike lane facilities appropriate to the volume and speed of motor
vehicle traffic.
Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure that A Street and B Street are developed as multi-modal corridors. Development along A Street and B Street shall be compatible with and support
a multi-modal orientation.
When designing and funding facilities, consider all the costs of automobile use compared with using other forms of transportation. These costs include social costs, and air, noise and
water pollution.
Advocate regional land-use patterns that support multi-modal transportation.
Encourage the use of all modes of travel that contribute to clean air and energy efficiency.
Integrate traffic calming techniques into city street design standards to reduce automobile speeds within new and existing neighborhoods.
Develop a process for traffic control management for the systematic treatment of traffic problems in the existing and future street network. Traffic control includes general laws and
ordinances, traffic control devices and traffic calming techniques. The process should include a regular inventory of neighborhood traffic problems, at both intersection and other locations
on the street, throughout Ashland, and standards to identify conditions, which need attention.
Develop a process for identifying and addressing areas prone to traffic accidents.
Maintain carrying capacity, safety and pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and motor vehicle movement on boulevards, avenues and neighborhood collectors through driveway and curb cut
consolidation or reduction.
Direct driveway access onto streets designated as boulevards and avenues should be discouraged whenever an alternative exists or can be made available.
Require design that combines multiple driveway accesses to a single point in residential and commercial development.
Develop a process for evaluating the consistency of curb cut requests with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance.
Maintain street surfaces to achieve maximum pavement life so that road conditions are good and pavement maintenance costs are minimized. Prioritize streets for repaying by factors such
as the level of use, street classification and pavement condition.
Prohibit the formation of new unpaved roads.
Discourage development from occurring on unpaved streets.
Off-street parking for all land uses shall be adequate, but not excessive, and shall not interfere with multi-modal street uses.
Manage the supply, operations and demand for parking in the public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety and livability of neighborhoods. Parking in the right-of-way,
in general, should serve land uses in the immediate area.
Reduce the number of automobile parking spaces required for new development, discouraging automobile use as the only source of access and encouraging use of alternative modes.
Consider environmental impacts when developing new street projects. Require new street projects to reduce impact on terrain and natural vegetation.
Acquire or control parcels of land that may be needed in the future for any transportation purpose when the opportunity arises through sale, donation or land use action.
Periodically assess future travel demand and corresponding capacity requirements of street network. Choose a comprehensive transportation system approach to address any capacity insufficiencies
that is consistent with the goals, policies and philosophy of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Coordinate land use planning with transportation planning. Integrate transportation-related functions that involve several City departments so that the goals, policies and philosophy
of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan are consistently pursued in the transportation project development process.
Coordinate City transportation planning with county, regional, state and federal plans.
Coordinate the transportation planning efforts of the adopted Ashland Downtown Plan with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including the
provision parking lots and parking structures.
Interconnections between residential neighborhoods shall be encouraged for automobile, pedestrians and bicycle traffic, but non- local traffic shall be discouraged through street design,
except for boulevards, avenues, and neighborhood collectors. Cul-de-sac or dead-end street designs shall be discouraged whenever an interconnection alternative exists. Development or
a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street Dedication map.
Plan for the full improvement of Hersey, Nevada, and Mountain Avenue as alternative routes to the downtown area for north-south traffic.
Street dedications shall be required as a condition of land development. A future street dedication map shall be adopted and implemented as part of the Land Use Ordinance.
Re-evaluate parking space size requirements due to the increased use of smaller cars.
Encourage sharing of existing and future parking facilities by various nearby businesses.
Require effective landscaping throughout continuous paved parking areas to increase shading, screening and buffering aesthetics, and for percolation of water into the groundwater table.
Part 10.04 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION
Sections:
10.04.01 Introduction
10.04.02 Benefits of Walking and Bicycling
10.04.03 Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Differences and Similarities
10.04.04 Walkway and Bikeway Design
10.04.05 Effective Walkways and Bikeways
10.04.06 Existing Walkways and Bikeways
10.04.07 Pedestrian and Bicycle Needs
10.04.08 Who is or will be making short trips?
10.04.09 Where are People Going?
10.04.10 What Makes People Drive?
10.04.11 Encouraging Walking and Bicycling Through Design
10.04.12 Goals & Policies
Section 10.04.01 Introduction
Habit, established by our nationwide dependence on the automobile since the end of World War II, accounts for most of the situations in which citizens elect the automobile as a standard
travel mode. Less apparent reasons for these choices are the perception of greater distance than actually exists and the presence of unsafe, unaesthetic or intimidating barriers to
travel that discourage people from walking or cycling.
Ashland residents make decisions about travel each time they run errands, visit friends or attend events. In most cases they choose their cars even when the distances to be covered are
relatively short. Although 40% of all trips made in Ashland are two miles or less, and 25% are one mile or less, over 86% of trips one mile or less are still made by automobile.
Like other cities, Ashland must reduce auto dependence in the face of compromised air quality, traffic congestion, and large subsidies for our road systems. The community must avoid
further increases in automobile traffic by expanding the number of short trips made on foot or by bicycle.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities must be improved and promoted in Ashland to encourage residents to abandon their automobile for the sidewalk and the bikeway.
Section 10.04.02 Benefits of Walking and Bicycling
"Families get to know one another better when there are sidewalks. Without them, it is awkward to take a walk. You feel you're intruding. A man walking along a sidewalk appears to have
a purpose; a man walking in the street or across your front yard looks suspicious... Without sidewalks, houses are just houses. When sidewalks tie them together with a neat ribbon of
concrete, they become part of something more: a neighborhood" (Pearce, 1980).
Walking and bicycling not only improve health and well-being, they benefit the general public, motorists, employers, the community and the environment. Many positive effects result when
residents walk and bicycle instead of drive.
The number of people who regularly walk and bicycle is one measure of a city's quality of life. Businesses benefit when people stroll and window-shop. Sidewalks provide places for casual
socializing. The presence of pedestrians and bicyclists in the community indicates that people feel safe and confident outdoors. Walking and bicycling allow people to more directly
appreciate Ashland's natural beauty.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WALKING AND BICYCLING REPLACES VEHICULAR TRIPS?
reduced accidents and property damage
reduced air and noise pollution
reduced consumption of petroleum resources
reduced wear and tear on roads
reduced light pollution and visual clutter
reduced need for additional roads, travel lanes and parking
Section 10.04.03 Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Differences and Similarities
Although pedestrians and bicyclists do not have the same travel behavior, they have been considered similarly in the past. As bicyclists are routed on sidewalks instead of the road,
conflicts arise because they move more rapidly than pedestrians. Motorists are often confused when bicyclists enter or leave the traffic stream at pedestrian crosswalks.
While walking and bicycling are both used for local short trips, pedestrians and bicyclists have very different travel needs. Bicycles move faster than pedestrians but slower than automobiles.
Since pedestrians move more slowly, they require greater separation from traffic and need extra time to cross roadways.
Both walking and bicycling are used for short trips that can be accomplished in 20 minutes or less. Typically, this is one-half mile or less for pedestrians, and three miles or less
for bicyclists. Both pedestrians and bicyclists are exposed to the elements, both are sensitive to geographical barriers and both are vulnerable to motor vehicles. Pedestrian and bicycle
facilities compete with "edge" right-of-way demands such as on-street parking, utility poles and signs. Neither walking nor bicycling requires a license.
Section 10.04.04 Walkway and Bikeway Design
Two factors are critical in walkway and bikeway design. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities must be routinely considered as part of the total design on all transportation projects. Furthermore,
individual walkways and bikeways must be designed to be safe, convenient, attractive and easy to use.
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provide facility design standards for walkways and bikeways.
The following is a brief summary of the basic design principles included in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedes- trian Plan.
Pedestrian
Sidewalks provide separation from traffic and all-weather surfaces for pedestrians. Planted strips between the sidewalk and roadway create an attractive environment by buffering pedestrians
from traffic and increase their comfort and safety by making the street more inviting. Ideally, sidewalks should be provided on both sides of streets.
Accessible sidewalks must be available to people with disabilities unless topography makes construction unfeasible. Special attention must be given to curb ramps and vertical clearance.
Accessible walkways must be conveniently tied into adjacent development walkways.
Bicycle
The type of bikeway provided on a street should be based on the motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds that share the roadway. Bike lanes are the appropriate facility for bicyclists
on boulevards and avenues. Bike lanes help define the road space, provide bicyclists with obstruction-free paths, decrease bicyclists' stress in traffic and remind motorists of cyclists'
right to the road. A shared lane is appropriate on neighborhood collectors and streets because of the low traffic volumes and travel speeds.
On existing roadways where bike lanes are not possible due to constraints such as buildings or environmentally sensitive areas, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan recommends a wide
outside lane and reduced actual travel speeds of 25 m.p.h, or less. This option, however, is recommended only after alternatives, such as narrowing or removing travel or parking lanes,
are examined.
Neighborhood Connectors
Neighborhood connectors are off-road, separate pedestrian and/ or bikeways that minimize travel distances within and between residential areas and schools, shopping and workplaces. In
most cases, walkways and bikeways should be provided along streets in a well-connected street network.
Neighborhood connectors are used in situations where street connections are infeasible. For example, these short multi-use paths are useful to connect cul-de-sac streets and dead ends,
and to allow passage through areas with topographical constraints. In Ashland for example, the Talent Irrigation District (TID) right-of-way could provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
for areas on steep hillsides that are otherwise inaccessible by roads. Historically, the TID right-of-way has been used as an unofficial neighborhood connector.
Section 10.04.05 Effective Walkways and Bikeways
A street network should serve the transportation needs of everyone in the community. Well-worn dirt paths where sidewalks would usually be, as well as bicyclists riding on sidewalks,
demonstrate that pedestrians and bicyclists use streets even if no facilities exist.
In Ashland, the street network is the primary transportation infrastructure with most destinations oriented to the street. With the most direct and convenient travel routes, this network
logically should contain pedestrian and bicycle travel corridors where walkers and cyclists will be more visible than they are on separate pathways. Incorporating these corridors into
the street network is economical and efficient and reduces the need for additional easements or maintenance.
According to Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, effective walkway and bikeway networks depend on:
accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists on boulevards, avenues and neighborhood collectors
providing appropriate facilities
creating and maintaining a grid system of closely spaced, interconnected neighborhood streets
overcoming barriers such as freeway crossings, railroad tracks, intersections, rivers and canyons
The Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires boulevards and avenues, the backbone of the urban transportation system, to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Major streets provide
direct, continuous and convenient access to most destination points because they move traffic through the street system. In addition, they provide signalized crossings and bridge obstacles
such as rivers, freeways and railroad tracks.
Cyclists and pedestrians tend to use the shortest, most convenient route to travel to their destinations. Major streets provide direct travel routes for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists
alike. If walkways and bikeways are not provided on major streets, negative consequences such as the following may occur:
Many pedestrians and cyclists will choose to stay on the thoroughfare, even without sidewalks or bike lanes. This can cause safety problems and traffic delays.
Some motorists will not respect bicyclists or pedestrians who are perceived to be "riding or walking where they don't belong."
Circuitous bike route signing will be ignored by bicyclists. As a result, other bicycle signing is not respected.
The importance of bicyclists and pedestrians in the transportation network is diminished.
Section 10.04.06 Existing Walkways and Bikeways
Most of the boulevards (North Main Street, East Main Street, Lithia Way, Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street and North Mountain) have sidewalks on both sides within the city limits. Avenues,
neighborhood collector streets and neighborhood streets, however, lack continuous sidewalks in many places. Boulevards such as East Main Street, Ashland Street from Siskiyou Boulevard
to Interstate 5, and Siskiyou Boulevard from Walker Avenue to Tolman Creek Road have bike lanes on both sides. Avenues such as Hersey Street, Walker Avenue from Ashland Street to East
Main Street and Tolman Creek Road from the north city limits to Siskiyou Boulevard have bike lanes on both sides. However, similar to the sidewalk situation, the bike lanes are not
continuous.
A bikeway system map identifying existing bicycle facilities and future proposed bike lanes, shoulder lanes, shared lanes and bike paths was adopted by the City Council in June 1995.
Future transportation projects, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, currently planned and funded are described in Appendix A.
Section 10.04.07 Pedestrian and Bicycle Needs
Ashland citizens have contributed to an assessment of local transportation needs in many forums. To address their concerns, the city held neighborhood meetings from February to April
1994. At these meetings citizens identified a variety of service and facility needs. Comments ranged from general suggestions, such as "keep bike lanes free of debris," to the site
specific such as "difficult crossing Siskiyou at SOSC'. Appendix B contains a complete list of neighborhood meeting comments.
Ashland has many characteristics, which make walking and bicycling viable transportation options. It covers an area roughly six square miles in size, which makes most in-town travel
by bicycle possible within 20 to 30 minutes. The 1990 Census indicates that Ashland had one of the highest percentages of residents walking to work of all cities in Oregon. Many of
the older neighborhoods such as the Railroad District are compact and have sidewalks in place. Most of the city is within bicycling distance of commercial centers, including the downtown
core.
Ashland's goal is to increase the number of short trips made by walking and bicycling. Even though 49% of all trips are within walking or bicycling distance, national statistics show
only 7.2% of all trips are by walking and 0.7% by bicycling. In order to determine how walking and bicycling can be increased, three questions must be addressed:
Who is or will be making short trips?
Where are people going ?
What makes people drive ?
Section 10.04.08 Who is or will be making short trips?
Future Population and Employment
Pedestrian and bicycle systems in Ashland must accommodate both future population changes and employment conditions. Ashland's official population projection for the year 2005 is 20,000,
with an employment to total population ratio of approximately 39%. Historically, the majority of employment has been in the service and retail sectors.
An addition of 2,225 people from 1995 to 2005 is equivalent to approximately 820 households. If current transportation trends continue at ten-vehicle trips per household per day, 820
new households would generate roughly 8,200 additional vehicle trips each day.
Ashland demographics vary from typical patterns in several ways. Between now and 2005, the greatest population increase will occur in the 35 to 65 year old age group, the mature work
force. While this trend matches existing trends in Jackson County, the SOSC student population results in a disproportionate amount of people in the 15 to 29 year old age group.
The tourist population is also rather unique in Ashland. In 1988, the average daily tourist population in Ashland was 1,476, and in 1989 there were 873 traveler's accommodation units.
Even if tourists made only one-half the number of vehicle trips made by a household, they could still generate approximately 4,365 additional vehicle trips each day. Since the tourist
market is centered at the Shakespeare Festival and in the downtown area, walking is a viable option. The potential of the tourist group to generate a significant number of vehicle trips
suggests the need to increase their walking and bicycling trips.
Quality of life constitutes one of the most important considerations in planning the pedestrian and bicycle systems. Historically, the community's livability has attracted new residents,
industries and tourists to Ashland and part of this appeal lies in the opportunity to walk or bicycle. In order to maintain quality of life, Ashland pedestrian and bicycle systems must
keep pace with population and economic growth.
Non-Drivers
Walking and bicycling are especially important to people who do not have automobiles. Non-drivers include school age children, elderly residents, people with disabilities and the poor.
Almost a quarter of Jackson County residents do not have drivers licenses37. People without drivers' licenses de- pend on other people, or on walking, bicycling or public transportation.
Future walking and bicycling planning must provide non-drivers with multiple transportation options.
Section 10.04.09 Where are People Going?
Walking and bicycling trips can be grouped according to four basic trip purposes: personal/family, social/recreational, earning a living and civic/educational. Examining trips by purpose
indicates the importance of addressing all types of trips in pedestrian and bicycle networks.
School and Personal Business Trips
Residents make most trips to run errands and take children to school. According to the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the largest portion of trips (41.5%) is for personal
or family business such as shopping, visits to the doctor or dentist, or to transport a child to school.
Daily Trips by Purpose
Personal/Family 41.5%
Social/Recreational 24.8%
Earning A Living 21.6%
Civic/Educational 11.4%
Other 0.7%.
(Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 1990 Federal Highway Administration)
Civic related trips (when an individual transports him or herself to school, such as a child walking to school) account for another 11.4% of trips. Approximately one-third of pedestrian
miles traveled in the United States are for school-related purposes. Ashland residents must have the option to make school and personal business trips by foot or bicycle. All home-to-school
links should have walkways and bikeways, and promotional and educational activities should be provided for students and parents.
Recreational Trips
Social or recreational travel such as visiting friends, or trips to a park, account for another 24.8% of travel. Social meeting places such as coffee shops, neighborhood parks and sports
parks should be within convenient walking or bicycling distance of residential areas.
Work Trips
While commuting to work may seem to be the day's primary trip, only one out of five trips actually involves travel to or from work. Less than 2% of trips involve on-the-job traveP9.
Even though commute trips comprise a modest proportion of all trips, travel-to-work trips have typically been the focus of daily travel statistics and many multi-modal programs.
Census data shows that a significant portion of Ashland's working population makes short work trips. Almost two-thirds of the working population is employed in the city and travels less
than 15 minutes to work. Since Ashland is approximately six square miles is size, the trips made by people who live and work in the city are likely to be short enough to be within walking
or bicycling distance.
Although many of the work trips are short enough to be within walking or bicycling distance, census data indicates that Ashland workers drive single occupant vehicles. In fact, as a
transportation means, walking and bicycling declined approximately 5% from 1980 to 1990. At the same time, the number work trips made by driving alone increased by 9.6%. In the future,
the number of walking and bicycling work trips should be increased.
Working people frequently use their lunch hour and break to run errands. They are more likely to make personal business trips by automobile if the area around their work site is automobile-oriented
and if shopping and eating areas are distant or inaccessible by walking. Personal business trips from the work site on foot or bicycle should be convenient and pleasant.
Section 10.04.10 What Makes People Drive?
The "Decision to Walk or Bicycle" model helps identify measures that facilitate walking and bicycling. The model looks at the psychological, cultural and physical barriers that encourage
driving and discourage walking and bicycling.
Personal Considerations
Values, Attitudes, and Habits
Many people do not seriously consider bicycling or walking because by habit they rely on a car. Driving represented affluence and convenience after World War II, and this attitude became
part of our national culture. As a result, driving for all trips is now a typical nationwide pattern.
Decision to Walk or Bicycle
Personal Considerations Destination Barriers
Values & Attitudes Parking
Habits Showers
Distance & Time Employer/Organization Support
Family Responsibilities Peer Support
Work Requirements
Trip Barriers
Traffic Safety
Weather
Topography
Facilities & Access
Route
Distance and Time
Although distances may vary in what is suitable for bicycling or walking, it is likely that the farther one is from a destination, the less likely one is to walk or bicycle. Distance
is probably the key factor, which limits utilitarian pedestrian trips because walking is much slower than bicycling.
Studies show that utilitarian bicycle trips usually are two miles or less, while work bicycle trips tend to be average five miles. The 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey
found average length walking trips to be .6 mile and bicycling trips to be two miles.
Travel time is highly valued in our society. The time people perceive a travel mode to require directly affects their choice to walk or bicycle. Common perceptions suggest that walking
and bicycling sacrifice time even though it frequently does not. Walking and bicycling can save time by enabling travelers to avoid congestion and omit finding parking--two inconveniences
associated with motorized travel.
Average Walking and Bicycling Speeds
Walking = 3 miles per hour
= 264 feet per minute
= 1/4 of a mile in 5 minutes
Bicycling = 10 - 12 miles per hour
= 880 - 1,056 feet per minute
= 1 mile in 5 - 6 minutes
(Adapted from Nelessen and federal Highway Administration.)
Family Responsibilities and Work Requirements
Automobile-oriented cities and regions make driving the only option. Needs such as transporting children at school, running errands conveniently during the commute, using the car for
work-related meetings or having to transport heavy or bulky items, lead people to drive. Walking and bicycling should be options for all our daily trips, not only in the neighborhood,
but also in cities and regions.
Trip Barriers
Traffic Safety
Traffic safety is most often cited as a reason for not bicycling. Although people who regularly cycle in traffic are less fearful than non-riders, the general perception of danger can
not be dismissed and must be changed through better facilities and training.
Pedestrian traffic safety concerns focus on specific facilities. Survey data suggests that sidewalks, traffic signals, pedestrian crossings and street lighting are important pedestrian
safety concerns and determine whether or not they choose to walk42.
National safety statistics regarding pedestrians and bicyclists are sobering. The Fatal Accident Reporting System data for 1991 recorded 6,595 pedestrians and 841 bicyclist killed in
crashes involving motor vehicles nationwide. In addition, an estimated 109,000 pedestrians and 77,000 bicyclists were injured in motor-vehicle-related crashes. Pedestrians and bicyclists
comprise more than 14% of all highway fatalities each year.
Approximately 15% of pedestrian accidents occur while the pedestrian walks in the roadway. While a sidewalk, shoulder or pathway would not necessarily prevent these accidents, it would
clearly reduce the accident potential in locations where facilities do not exist.
Weather and Topography
Evidence suggests that rain and snow are the greatest barriers to walking and bicycling. Studies suggest that rain is a bigger barrier to bicyclists than to pedestrians. Weather was
found to be a greater deterrent to fixed-schedule trips, such as the work commute, than it was to discretionary trips. Hills are a deterrent to walking and bicycling because climbing
is strenuous. In Ashland, fall and winter weather as well as the steep slopes south of Siskiyou Boulevard, need to be considered in all walking and bicycling plans.
Facilities, Access and Route
Pedestrians and bicyclists need walkways and bikeways that are clean, free of obstructions and continuous. They must be able to cross barriers such as freeways, railroad rights-of-way,
busy streets and waterways. Connectivity of travel routes is as important as having a physical place to travel. Fragmented systems are a serious impediment to convenient travel.
Destination Barriers
Storage, Showers and Employer/Organization Support
People are discouraged from using a bicycle if their destination lacks safe and adequate bicycle parking. A tack of changing and shower facilities also deters bicycle commuting. Pedestrians
and bicyclists need support and encouragement from employers, businesses, schools and the larger community. In order to make walking and bicycling viable travel options, residents need
flexibility to adjust work and school schedules for daylight travel, and to have other forms of transportation available in case of emergencies.
Peer Support
Some professions and social groups consider utilitarian bicycling to be inappropriate. Potential riders cite dress requirements as a reason to eliminate bicycling as a method to travel
to work and school. Walking and bicycling should be eventually viewed as acceptable and even fashionable modes of transportation.
Section 10.04.11 Encouraging Walking and Bicycling Through Design
Walking and bicycling can be encouraged by providing mixed- use areas and by making the pedestrian environment more hospitable. Creating sidewalks and bikeways alone will not sharply
increase the numbers of walking and bicycling trips. People probably will not walk five miles along a five-lane, high-speed boulevard to go to the store even if a sidewalk leads all
the way there. 1-hey will be much more likely to walk and bicycle if the distance is reasonable and the environment is attractive.
In a study of the pedestrian environment in the Portland Metropolitan Region, walking and bicycling were found be as low as 2.2% in uninviting pedestrian environments and as high as
7.4% in areas rated high as a pedestrian environment. The pedestrian environment factor is based on ease of street crossings, sidewalk continuity, local street characteristics (grid
vs. cul-de-sac) and topography. Similarly, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household decreased from 38.3 in areas with the lowest pedestrian environment factor to 18.0 in areas
with the highest pedestrian environment factor. Daily vehicle trips per household decreased from 6.5 to 5.7.
Mixed Uses
Mixed use is a term describing a heterogeneous mixture of commercial, retail, residential and light industrial uses in individual or interconnected buildings. Traditional single-use
zoning strictly segregates commercial areas from residential areas. In addition, residential zones are separated by density per acre--a situation, which creates a monotonous environment
when subdivisions of similar size houses are placed on equally- sized lots.
Mixing land uses, housing and jobs reduces traffic by locating residences close to shopping, entertainment and job centers. Because trips are short, walking and bicycling are attractive
transportation methods in the mixed-use environment.
Architect and Urban Designer Anton Clarence Nelessen suggests that every neighborhood should have a mixed-use core that is one-quarter mile from the periphery. This design is based on
that of urban areas built prior to World War II when walking and bicycling were more prevalent. The core should contain office and retail uses to be utilized by residents on a daily
basis. If possible, cores should be located where the largest number of jobs occur. Housing density is usually highest at the core and lowest at the neighborhood periphery. Walkways
and bikeways must connect all neighborhoods to the larger downtown core.
The Pedestrian Environment
When asked to identify the most likeable qualities of the pedestrian environment, respondents to a survey identified the following (listed in order of popularity):
trees and landscaping
parks, open space
quiet streets and sidewalks
shade on hot days
historic buildings/neighborhoods
safety from crime
benches, places to rest
When asked to identify the most unappealing qualities, they identified the following (listed in order of importance):
air pollution/car exhaust
litter and garbage
dangerous street crossings
traffic noise
poorly maintained sidewalks
skateboarders on sidewalks
panhandlers
cyclists on sidewalks
The pedestrian environment consists of the path and the area around and above it. Walking's slow pace al- lows the pedestrian to absorb much more of the surrounding environment than
motorists can. As a result, features, which appeal to the senses, make walking a more attractive option.
Streets are typically designed for automobiles, which isolate their drivers from the physical street environment. As a result, street design tends to neglect creation of an attractive
pedestrian environment. Street design needs to create appealing pedestrian environments in order to increase the number of walking trips made.
Convenience of travel, safety from vehicles and an interesting environment must all be addressed in the physical design of the pedestrian path. These pedestrian needs are ensured on
what Lennertz and Coyle describe as transportation balanced streets. These streets have narrow driving lanes, tight curb turning radii at corners, a buffer of on-street parking, planting
strips between car lanes, and sidewalks and building front doors and windows at the sidewalk and street. Traffic calming measures may be necessary on neighborhood streets, which experience
high traffic flows.
Grid street patterns enhance the pedestrian environment by providing people with many connections between destinations. Small blocks in a grid pattern are much more conducive to walking
than are large blocks with cul-de-sac streets. Block perimeters of 1,200 to 1,600 feet provide convenient pedestrian circulation.
Pedestrian environment design must account for different types of walking trips. People's willingness to walk varying distances depends on the situation. Studies show people will walk
two to three minutes (one-eighth mile), from a parked car to the entrance of their destination. In a neighborhood, or an employment area, people will walk five minutes (one-quarter
mile), from the core to the periphery. People will walk about twice as far--ten minutes (one half-mile) to get to school or to work.
The pedestrian environment must have human scale proportions and perceptions. Nelessen defines the human scale as the relationship between the dimensions of the human body and the proportion
of the spaces people use. Adults are about six feet tall with an arm span of equal distance and travel at about three miles an hour. Conversely, automobiles are about six feet wide,
twelve to fifteen feet long and travel about ten to 100 miles per hour. Clearly, spaces that feel comfortable to people are much smaller than those designed for automobiles. Streets
must be designed for the pedestrian as well as to accommodate motor vehicles.
Section 10.04.12 Goals & Policies
Goal I: To raise the priority of convenient, safe, accessible, and attractive walking and bicycling networks.
Policies:
Provide walkways and bikeways that are integrated into the transportation system.
Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facility needs into all planning, design, construction and maintenance activities of the City of Ashland
Provide walkways and bikeways in conjunction with all land divisions, street construction and reconstruction projects and all commercial, industrial and residential developments.
Require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce vehicle trips. Modify street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained.
Target walkway and bikeway improvements that link neighborhoods, schools, retail and service areas, employment centers and recreation areas.
Use design standards that create convenient, safe, accessible and attractive walkways and bikeways.
Design walkways and bikeways for all types of users including people with disabilities, children and the elderly.
Require sidewalks and pedestrian access in all developments.
Require wide sidewalks in retail areas.
Require planting strips and street trees between the roadway and the sidewalk to buffer pedestrians from vehicles.
Require secure, sheltered bicycle parking in business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments.
Design street intersections to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel by using design features such as, but not limited to, raised medians and islands, curb extensions, colored, textured
and/or raised crosswalks, minimum necessary curb radii, pedestrian crossing push buttons, left and right bike turn lanes, signal loop detectors in bike lanes and signal timing conducive
to pedestrian and bicycle travel speeds.
Design intersections with equal attention to pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist safety. Identify existing intersections that are dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists, and develop
plan for redesign of unsafe areas.
Develop maintenance program to keep walkways and bikeways smooth, clean and free of obstructions.
Pedestrian Traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets and in parking lots.
Encourage the establishment of a Community-owned Bicycle Program, allowing the provision of "loaner" bikes throughout the community for residents, commuters and tourists.
Goal II: To support and encourage increased levels of walking and bicycling.
Policies:
Promote decreased auto use and increased walking, bicycling, public transportation, ride sharing and other transportation demand management techniques.
Develop and implement a transportation safety education program.
Increase enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety laws. Target motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Increase neighborhood use of Sidewalk LID Program.
Encourage employer commuter programs to promote walking, bicycling, public transit, ride sharing and other transportation demand management techniques.
Encourage businesses to inform customers of available non-auto access to the business locations and to support customer use of non-auto access.
Establish aggressive but realistic performance targets for increasing walking and bicycling trips (for personal business, school, social and work).
Goal III: Emphasize environments, which enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage.
Policies:
Maintain and improve Ashland's compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Promote a mixed land use pattern, where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design that supports walking and bicycling trips.
Develop street design standards that outline street widths, curb radii, and other pedestrian environment factors which facilitate walking and bicycling.
Use traffic calming tools to create a safe, convenient and attractive pedestrian and bicycle environment to slow speeds, reduce street widths and interrupt traffic as appropriate in
each particular location.
Establish a street tree program to plant more trees on existing streets and to promote/monitor street tree care throughout Ashland.
Identify areas needing pedestrian and bicycle amenities, such as rest rooms, benches, pocket parks and drinking fountains, and develop installation and funding plan.
Encourage public art along multi-modal travel corridors.
Goal IV: To dedicate funding and staff support to implement the goals and policies of this section.
Policies:
Identify funding sources for walking and bicycling promotion, planning and facilities construction.
Investigate the creation of the role of transportation coordinator to facilitate a viable multi-modal transportation network and achieve Ashland's transportation goals.
Develop transportation program using a comprehensive approach with planning and engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement components.
Support participation by all City staff involved in creating the transportation network in educational programs covering transportation planning, design and engineering.
Consistently incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the City of Ashland Capital Improvement Plan.
Part 10.05 PUBLIC TRANSIT
Sections:
10.05.01 Introduction
10.05.02 Existing Public Transit Services
10.05.03 Public Transit Needs
10.05.04 Public Transit Goals and Policies
Section 10.05.01 Introduction
Public Transit, like walking and bicycling, constitutes an important transportation alternative to the automobile. Ashland has consistently encouraged public transportation as an integral
part of its transportation goals. Because of that commitment, public transportation in Ashland has a relatively high level of use compared with other areas in the Rogue Valley. In
fact, the Ashland bus routes accounted for 51% of the Rogue Valley Transportation District's (RVTD) total ridership between July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994.
In cooperation with Southern Oregon State College (SOSC) and Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), the City developed the Reduced Fare Program and SOSC Student Pass Program. The
Reduced Fare Program, funded by the City, reduces the fare on all bus trips within Ashland city limits to 25 cents per ride. This program increased ridership by 3,000 trips per month
within the Ashland city limits. The SOSC Student Pass Program allows all students to ride the bus for free anywhere in the district service area. Students simply show their student
identification to the driver for passage. This program is funded by student fees.
This unique partnership between the City of Ashland, SOSC and RVTD resulted in increased use of the public transit system in Ashland. Continued involvement by the City with RVTD is essential
to assuring the current level of service and improving the future system.
The City must continually find ways to expand public transportation use in Ashland, for the automobile remains the most popular travel mode. The number of Ashland residents driving alone
to work increased 9.6% from 1980 to 1990. At the same time, 3% fewer Ashland residents used public transportation to get to work. Overall, approximately 1% of the working population
uses public transit to commute. This means that only 78 of the 7,759 Ashland workers aged 16 and over regularly use RVTD services to get to work.
On an average day, a person boarding one of the RVTD buses on an Ashland route will find that over one-half of the seats are empty. Although Ashland bus routes generated 51% of RVTD's
total ridership from July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994, they run on average at 16.2% of total capacity.
Ashland bus routes accounted for 51% of the Rogue Valley Transportation District's (RVTD) total ridership between July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994.
Two out of five Ashland residents (43%) used public transportation in 1993 according to the Public Awareness and Perception Study completed in Spring 1994 by Laurel Research for RVTD.
No single use dominated the public transportation trips. However, 65% of ridership is centered on commuting to work, school, and shopping.
Section 10.05.02 Existing Public Transit Services
Rogue Valley Transportation District: Service Area and Governance
The Rogue Valley Transportation District is Jackson County's regional mass transit resource. The District, which covers approximately 159 square miles, includes the incorporated cities
of Medford, Ashland, Central Point, Jacksonville, Talent and Phoenix, and the unincorporated community of White City. The District serves approximately 122,000 residents who live within
its jurisdiction.
Created in 1975, RVTD is an Oregon special district. It is supported by revenues from a property tax levy, state and federal grants, advertising fees, and fares paid by passengers.
The Oregon legislature established the Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund (STF) during the 1984-1985 session. The fund is to help provide adequate transportation services
to those who are disabled, are age 60 or over, or both. The local advisory committee for Jackson County called the Special Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC), recommends how STF
funds should be distributed. The RVTD Board of Directors is the local governing body that takes STAC recommendations and distributes the funding locally among service providers. In
the past, STF funds have been used to fund the Coupon Connection program, the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program's Call-A-Ride, the Ashland Senior Program and the Upper Rogue Community
Center.
RVTD offers five services--fixed-route bus service, valley feeder, coupon connection, valley rideshare and the alternative transportation program. A description of each service follows.
Fixed-Route Bus Service
The fixed-route bus service is the most recognized RVTD service. Ten fixed routes totaling approximately 210 miles operate regularly district wide. Passenger miles traveled annually
exceed 2.5 million. Most bus routes operate Monday through Saturday. On workdays, certain routes feature early morning and late- evening commuter service. Fares are discounted for the
elderly (62 years or older), the disabled and children 6 to 12 years old.
Ashland Bus Routes
Four fixed-routes directly serve Ashland. Route 5 and Route 6 are the Ashland Loop routes. They provide service within Ashland to the Downtown Plaza, Ashland Library, Ashland Shopping
Center, Tolman Creek Plaza, SOSC and Ashland Hills Inn. Route 10 and Route 15 provide transportation between Ashland and the Front Street Transfer Station in Medford. Route 10 turns
around in Ashland south of the Plaza at Oak Street. Route 15 replaces Route 10 and the Loop Routes during the early morning and evening "commuting" hours.
Service Schedule
Every 15 minutes an RVTD bus arrives at each RVTD stop within Ashland. From Medford to Ashland, there is a 30-minute service frequency.
Ashland does not have an official transfer station. However, riders coming into Ashland from the north on Route 10 and Route 15 can catch the Ashland Loop routes, Route 5 and Route 6
at the Ashland Plaza bus stop. Currently, no park and ride facilities exist in Ashland.
Route 5 and Route 6 run on 30-minute schedules. It takes a bus leaving the Ashland Plaza stop 30 minutes to make all stops along the loop and return once again to the Ashland Plaza stop.
Route 10 runs on a 70-minute schedule. A one-way trip from the Ashland Plaza to Front Street Transfer Station in Medford on Route 10 takes approximately 30 minutes. Route 15 runs on
a 78-minute schedule. Route 15 includes the 30 minute trip to Medford (Route 10) plus the Ashland Loop route (Routes 5 and 6).
Bus Stops
There are 46 bus stops throughout Ashland, 21 for northbound routes and 25 for south bound routes. The amenities offered at the bus stops range from a pole and a sign to a covered waiting
area with a bench. Eleven bus stops have covered waiting areas.
RVTD Fleet
In Spring 1995, the majority of the fleet was converted to buses using compressed natural gas (CNG) for fuel. The RVTD fleet includes 16 buses: 11 CNG vehicles and 5 diesel fuel vehicles.
All of the CNG buses are equipped with bike racks. Prior to the conversion to CNG buses, the fleet operated at 15.8% of total capacity on the Ashland routes. Based on 1993/1994 ridership
figures, the CNG fleet runs at approximately 40% of total capacity on Ashland routes.
Ridership Volumes
Approximately 51% of RVTD ridership was generated by the Ashland bus routes in fiscal year 1993/1994. A total number of 69,320 boardings were made on Route 5, 246,480 boardings on Route
10 and 96,266 on Route 15. Because Route 6 was relatively new (instituted in July 1994), ridership data was not available at this writing.
Routes 5, 10 and 15 are in heaviest use during the evening peak hour - 3:00 p.m to 5:50 p.m. Ridership on Route 6 is comparable to Route 5 during the evening peak hour, but has the most
use during the midday from 9:00 a.m to 2:59 p.m. The aver- age trip length on Route 5 and 6 is approximately 1.9 miles, and the average trip length on Route 10 and 15 is approximately
6.4 miles.
Valley Feeder
The Valley Feeder program is a shuttle service that delivers people to the nearest RVTD bus stop from designated stops near where they live or work. Persons needing transportation in
a Valley Feeder Service Area call the service number, and a dispatcher arranges to have a Valley Feeder taxi meet them at a designated pickup point. Valley Feeder stops are identified
by distinctive green and white signs. If a person needs a shuttle on their return trip from a bus stop to a Valley Feeder Service Area, they tell the bus driver when boarding, and the
bus driver arranges to have a Valley Feeder taxi meet the rider at the designated pickup point. Valley Feeder clients do not have to pay for the shuttle service ride, but pay the regular
bus fare once they board the RVTD bus.
The Valley Feeder program enables RVTD to deliver reliable transit service into neighborhoods where it isn't practical or economically feasible to operate a full-size transit bus. There
are six existing Valley Feeder Service Areas in Jackson County: the Lower Table Rock Road area east of Central Point, the Sage Road area in northwest Medford, the Upper Table Rock Road
area and White City area in White City, the Brookdale area near Providence Hospital and the Kings Highway area in southwest Medford. In fiscal year 1993/1994, 4,925 Valley Feeder trips
serviced 9,254 passengers. Presently, there are no Valley Feeder Service Areas in Ashland.
Purpose of Public Transit Trips for Ashland Residents
Commuting to/from work 27%
Travel to school/college 14%
To go shopping 24%
Travel to recreation 11%
To visit friends 11%
To medical care 0%
Special events 11%
Other 3%
(From "Public Awareness and Perception Study," Spring 1994, by Laurel Research for RVTD)
Coupon Connection
The Coupon Connection program is a service for people whose disability or age may prevent them from using a bus or from traveling to a bus stop. This program is considered "comparable
paratransit service" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The program uses local taxis under contract with RVTD. People who meet the eligibility requirements receive coupons that they use to pay for their taxi trips. Coupon Connection clients
make arrangement for their trips with the local taxi company of their choice. Ride requests can be made from up to 14 days in advance to within an hour of a rider's appointment. Coupon
Connection service is available from any origin to any destination within the RVTD service area.
In fiscal year 1993/1994, there were 1,921 Coupon Connection rides made by 137 Ashland residents. Districtwide, 38,167 Coupon Connection rides were provided in the same time period.
Valley Rideshare
Through the Valley Rideshare program, RVTD provides detailed information and planning support to Jackson County residents and employers interested in carpooling and vanpooling programs.
Workplace surveys help match employees interested in sharing rides. Approximately 40 people are enrolled district wide in the Valley Rideshare program.
Alternative Transportation Program
RVTD's Alternative Transportation staff provides information and referrals regarding various transportation services, activities and organizations. RVTD is also a regional clearinghouse
for information about telecommuting. Telecommuting enables employees to work from home using telephone and computer equipment as an alternative to commuting daily by car.
Future transportation projects, including public transit projects, currently planned and funded are described in Appendix A.
Section 10.05.03 Public Transit Needs
As with other transportation concerns, Ashland citizens gathered at several neighborhood meetings held by the City between February and April 1994. At these meetings, residents contributed
many ideas for public transit facility and service improvements. Appendix B includes a complete set of comments expressed at the neighborhood meetings concerning public transit.
Among them were several common ideas, which indicate specific areas of concern. People were interested in new connections within the city to the Ashland Hospital and nearby medical offices,
on East Main Street and Walker Avenue and to neighborhoods. A park and ride, an express commute service between Ashland and Medford, daily routes to Grants Pass and Yreka and an interstate
bus depot were identified as regional needs. Residents suggested extending service hours to the evening and to Sundays and expanding the frequency of service in the downtown area during
the tourist season. Regionally, bus stops were described as needing such improvements such as shelter from the weather, maps and bus schedules on-site, lighting, drinking fountains,
bathrooms, telephones and newspaper machines.
The future viability of public transit in Ashland is dependent on two factors. One involves Ashland residents' perception of public transportation. The other factor concerns tangible
improvements, such as adding new routes and amenities to bus stops and providing shuttle service to outlying neighborhoods.
Perception of Public Transit
As discussed earlier in this document, Ashland citizens must change their priorities in order to make public transportation more viable. In the 1980s although the population increased
8.5%, the number of vehicle trips increased by 39%. When surveyors asked people living in Ashland why they hadn't used public transportation, 46% said "I drive my own car" and 10% said
"1 don't have a need for it." Only 29% of respondents cited reasons such as "inconvenient times, not available in the area or too expensive."
These figures suggest that over one-half of Ashland residents do not see the bus as an alternative to driving their cars. Ashland residents think of public transportation as a product
of necessity, not choice, and they only ride the bus when their car is not available.
Unfortunately, Ashland residents see RVTD services as being good for other people in the community, but not necessarily as being advantageous for their own families and businesses. While
56% of Ashland residents rate RVTD services as excellent or as a good value to the community, only 24% rated RVTD services as high value to their families, and only 19% rated RVTD services
as high value to their businesses.
The RVTD Board of Directors has long directed services and promotional activities toward non-drivers -- those who are unable to drive a car or who do not have access to a car. Providing
access to this core group is important and should be considered the very minimum level of service. Future efforts however, should concentrate on persuading people who have and drive
personal automobiles to become public transportation users. The public perception of public transit as a "product of necessity" needs to be shifted to public transit as a "product of
choice." The City should work with RVTD to expand the range of users while maintaining the minimum level of service.
Facility and Service Improvements
Current and future facility and service needs for Ashland and the entire RVTD service are outlined in the district's Ten Year Community Transportation Plan for 1996 to 2006. Although
RVTD is directly responsible for identifying and addressing the needs, the City of Ashland has been an active partner in facilitating this process. In the interest of viable public
transit, the City will continue to work with RVTD and SOSC.
Section 10.05.04 Public Transit Goals and Policies
Goal: To create a public transportation system that is linked to pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle.
Policies:
Develop pedestrian and bicycle networks that are linked to the public transportation routes.
Zoning shall allow for residential densities and a mix of commercial businesses within walking distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of existing and planned public transit services
which support use of public transportation.
Work with the local public transit provider to provide service within one-fourth of a mile of every home in Ashland.
Promote and support express commuter service between cities in the Rogue Valley.
Incorporate needs of people who don't drive when developing transit routes and facilities.
Provide pleasant, clean, safe, comfortable shelters along transit lines.
Require residential and commercial development within one-quarter of a mile of existing or future public transit services to provide transit shelters, bus access, and bus turnaround
areas.
Install bike racks or lockers at transit stops.
Identify park and ride, bike and ride and walk and ride lots in Ashland to support ridesharing.
Develop a transportation center in Ashland.
Encourage promotional and educational activities that encourage people who own cars and school children to use public transit.
Work with the local public transit provider to address the specific public transportation needs of Ashland.
Participate and show leadership in interacting with counties, cities and other special governments in Southern Oregon to develop regional public transportation services to reduce the
frequency and length of vehicular trips.
Establish aggressive but realistic performance targets for increasing public transit use for the short, medium and long run.
Part 10.06 COMMERICAL FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
Sections:
10.06.01 Introduction
10.06.02 Air Transportation
10.06.03 Rail Transportation
10.06.04 Water Transportation
10.06.05 Pipeline Transportation
10.06.06 Highway Freight Transportation
10.06.07 Commercial Freight and Passenger Transportation Goals and Policies
10.06.08 Summary
Section 10.06.01 Introduction
Commercial freight and passenger transportation in and connecting to Ashland takes place via the air, rail, water, pipeline and highway systems. Air, rail, water, pipeline and highway
freight transportation is discussed below. Public passenger transportation is discussed in the Public Transit section.
Section 10.06.02 Air Transportation
Ashland Municipal Airport
Ashland Municipal Airport is located on approximately 94 acres, 3 miles northeast of downtown Ashland at the extreme eastern boundary of the city limits. Airport elevation is at 1,894
feet mean sea level (MSL). Access to the airport is provided by Dead Indian Memorial Road, which connects to East Main Street. Interstate 5 is located one-half mile west of the airport,
with access provided via Greensprings Highway. The airport is bordered on the east, west and south by sloping valley lands surrounded by rising mountainous terrain.
The Ashland Municipal Airport is classed as a general aviation airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). General aviation includes every type of civil flying other than the
certified air carriers -- business, commercial, instructional and personal. Ashland Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Ashland under the Department of Public Works.
The City holds an operating agreement with a fixed base operator to administer tie-down and hangar rents, fuel flowage fees, etc.
The airport was established at its current site in the 1940s. The airstrip was developed by Sumner Parker, a local pilot, and leased to the City of Ashland for use as a public airport.
The City continued to lease the property and make improvements to the airfield into the 1960s. In 1964, the City purchased the airstrip and the property surrounding it, and received
Federal approval of the site. At that time, the airport was renamed Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. For a complete description of existing airport facilities, see chapter
3 of the Airport Master Plan.
The City, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), under a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant, retained SFC Engineering Company to update the Airport
Master Plan to determine airport facilities required to serve the vicinity through the year 2012. The City Council adopted the plan as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan
on March 2, 1993.
Aviation demand forecasts from the Airport Master Plan indicate airport operations will grow at a relatively modest rate through the year 2012. Based on the forecasts and an inventory
of the existing facilities, the plan includes an airport layout and capital improvement plan for recommended airport improvements to meet forecast aviation demand during the 20-year
planning period. Recommended improvements include the development of new hangar facilities, aircraft storage and business-oriented aviation activity, addition of airport security fencing
around the perimeter of the airport, construction of a helicopter landing area, provision of a non-precision instrument approach, and upgrading of runway edge lighting from low to medium
intensity.
The Airport Master Plan is the ruling document concerning airport development and is hereby adopted by reference. Any transportation system improvements involving air transportation
or development which may impact or be impacted by the Ashland Municipal Airport should consult the Airport Master Plan for the City of Ashland, October 1992.
Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport
The Rogue Valley International - Medford Airport provides the nearest scheduled commercial service carriers for passengers and/or freight, approximately 16 miles northwest of Ashland.
The airport provides both air carrier and regional air service to cities throughout the Northwest and connections to larger markets and beyond. The airport lies on 989 acres within
the city limits of Medford, and approximately three miles north of the central business district of Medford on Biddle Road near Interstate 5.
The airport was established at its current site in 1940. It was a military airport and was turned over to the City of Medford at the end of World War II. In 1971, Jackson County became
responsible for the airport's operation. In January 1995, the airport was designated as a foreign trade zone and became an international point of entry.
Other Facilities
Other air facilities in the region include a public general airport and Air National Guard Base in Klamath Falls, and small strips in Shady Cove, Beagle and Cave Junction. Klamath Falls
and Coos Bay are also recognized as foreign trade zones.
Section 10.06.03 Rail Transportation
The Siskiyou Line of the Southern Pacific Rail System runs from Springfield, Oregon through Roseburg, Grants Pass, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland. The portion of
the line running south from Ashland through the Siskiyou Mountains to Montague, California is known as the Black Butte Line. Both lines are limited to the transport of freight. At the
time of this writing, the Siskiyou and Black Butte lines were owned by Rail Tex and operated by Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad, Inc. (COPR), a subsidiary of Rail Tex.
Ashland citizens gathered to discuss transportation concerns at several neighborhood meetings held by the City between February and April, 1994. At these meetings, residents expressed
a desire to have commuter rail service between Ashland and Grants Pass. Appendix B includes a complete set of comments expressed at the neighborhood meetings.
An analysis conducted for the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan found land use development based on current zoning projected to be at densities that are too low to support a
commuter rail service. (The Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan is the long-range transportation plan for the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, a geographic area
established by the Governor encompassing Medford, Central Point, Phoenix and White City.) As stated in the Street System Section, alternatives such as commuter rail service cannot succeed
if an auto-oriented low-density development pattern continues throughout the region. Regional land use patterns must change so that non-auto travel modes can be viable options in the
future.
Section 10.06.04 Water Transportation
The rivers in Southwest Oregon are used primarily for recreational purposes such as river rafting, fishing and kayaking. The largest river in the area is the Rogue River, with sections
protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Water transportation is not feasible on the Rogue River and small water sources such as Bear Creek.
The Port of Coos Bay, located approximately 178 miles northwest of Ashland, is an international/national shipping facility and is the closest Oregon port to Ashland. The Oregon Transportation
Plan identifies the Port of Coos Bay as a major inter-modal hub facility. (The Oregon Transportation Plan defines an inter-modal hub as a facility where two or more modes of transportation
interact so that people and/or goods can be transferred from one mode to another, for example, from a bus to an airplane or from a truck to a train.) The port serves as a link to the
international marketplace with access to multi-modal connections, including air and rail freight service.
Section 10.06.05 Pipeline Transportation
WP Natural Gas, a subsidiary of Washington Water and Power, serves Jackson County with a 10-inch steel high pressure main from its origin at the Grants Pass terminus of the Northwest
Pipeline transmission facility. The pipeline is located in the Interstate 5 corridor.
At the time of this writing, a new WP gas transmission from Klamath Falls to Ashland was under construction. The new line is intended to increase capacity and thereby meet increasing
demand for service in the greater Southern Oregon region. For further information, refer to the Oregon Pipeline Transportation Plan.
Section 10.06.06 Highway Freight Transportation
Highway freight transportation is the movement of goods and services by truck. The key to providing effective freight movement is a boulevard and avenue street system that can support
truck traffic and has continuous connections within the city and to inter-modal hubs and interregional routes. The Oregon Transportation Plan suggests streets used for freight transportation
should provide a Level of Service C (LOS C) during off-peak periods.
Trucks are permitted to use all boulevard and avenue streets in Ashland, with the exception of Oak Street, which has weight limitations. Highway freight transportation in the Rogue Valley
metropolitan planning region is concentrated along designated truck routes. These designated truck routes include Interstate 5, Crater Lake Highway and Lake of the Woods Highway.
As Ashland's future street network is planned, truck access to the city from the north and south and circulation of truck traffic within the city needs to be reviewed. The provision
of truck facilities should be considered in conjunction with the goals and policies of the Economic Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The Economic Element encourages a diverse
economy that retains Ashland's high quality environment. Clearly, the type of truck facilities the City provides needs to match the type, size and freight requirements of current and
future businesses in Ashland. On a regional and state basis, truck travel needs to be coordinated with highway freight systems outlined in the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan,
Oregon Transportation Plan and Oregon Highway Plan.
Future transportation projects currently planned and funded are described in Appendix A.
Section 10.06.07 Commercial Freight and Passenger Transportation Goals and Policies
Goals: To provide efficient and effective movement of goods, services and passengers by air, rail, water, pipeline, and highway freight transportation while maintaining the high quality
of life of Ashland.
Policies:
Review development within the Airport Overlay Zone to ensure compatibility with the Ashland Municipal Airport.
Explore intra-city commuter rail service on existing rail lines.
Mitigate railroad noise through the use of berming and landscaping in developments adjacent to the railroad and which are impacted by railroad noise.
Maintain boulevard and avenue street facilities adequate for truck travel within Ashland.
Coordinate with County, regional, State and Federal jurisdictions to maintain and develop inter-modal hubs, which allow goods and passengers to move from truck or automobile to rail
to ship or plane.
Encourage the use of rail transport for the movement of goods and passengers as a means of conserving energy and reducing reliance on the automobile.
Section 10.06.08 Summary
In the preceding five sections, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan has examined many of the critical issues that face Ashland as it plans a viable and livable future.
As the population grows in coming decades, pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and motor vehicle transportation will figure prominently in decisions that affect the community's quality
of life. As stated earlier in this document, the Transportation Element is intended as a guide to Ashland's development in residential, commercial and industrial neighborhoods, and
it offers the groundwork for sound transportation planning. The joint efforts of citizens, planning staff and government representatives should ensure that thoughtful decisions are
made and implemented for the future.
Part 10.07 APPENDIX A: Committed Facilities
Sections:
10.07.01 Introduction
10.07.02 City and State Transportation Capital Improvement Projects
Section 10.07.01 Introduction
Committed facilities, as defined by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, are proposed transportation facilities and programs that have approved funding. The following section summarizes
the committed facilities in place at the time of writing.
Section 10.07.02 City and State Transportation Capital Improvement Projects
The City Capital Improvements Plan, 1996-97 Through 2001-02, includes 15 transportation projects. Status in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 1996-1998 Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program is noted for projects involving the State. The construction and funding of projects on state highways is largely determined by ODOT. Further project details and
costs are detailed in the City of Ashland Capital Improvements Plan, 1996-97 through 2001-2002 and the 1996-1998 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Sidewalk Installation throughout the City -- This project includes design and construction of side- walk facilities throughout Ashland. The purpose is to provide greater continuity in
the sidewalk system.
Ashland Street Redesign -- This project includes side- walk expansion and landscape improvements be- ginning a t the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. The purpose
of the project is to increase pedestrian and bicycle use of the area.
Bikeway from Railroad Park to Shamrock Lane -- Construction of a 1.3-mile bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to the railroad tracks. The purpose is to provide a safe pathway through the
city for bicyclists and pedestrians. This project is included in the 1996-1998 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Siskiyou Boulevard Redesign -- Construction of .57 miles of bikeway along Siskiyou Boulevard. The project is designed to provide a direct, convenient and safe travel route through the
city for bicyclists. The installation of bike lanes on Highway 99 from Valley View Road to Walker Avenue is included in the 1996-1998 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Bus Shelters -- This project will replace four shelters and construct two new shelters at existing bus stops. The six shelters will be located in the following areas: on the plaza, in
front of the library, in front of Safeway, at Palm Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard, at SOSC near Bridge Street, and on the Water Street overpass on Lithia Way. The shelter areas will
be improved to include lighting, a bicycle rack and a drinking fountain. The position of the shelters will be changed slightly to provide a view sight of the oncoming bus. The new shelters
are designed to encourage ridership by offering a more attractive and useful environment in which to wait for the bus.
Senior Shuttle Bus -- Purchase of a 17 to 21 passenger bus equipped with wheel chair lift kit, air conditioning and a mobile radio. The bus is used to transport local senior citizens
to various locations.
Reconstruction of East Main Street from Railroad Tracks to Walker Avenue -- East Main Street will be re-paved, have storm drains installed and have sidewalks constructed on both sides
from the railroad tracks near California Street to Walker Avenue.
Realignment of the Intersection of Indiana Street and Siskiyou Boulevard -- Reconstruction of the inter- section, including curbing, crosswalk and storm drain construction. The purpose
of the project is to improve pedestrian and vehicle movement and efficiency from Indiana Street to Siskiyou Boulevard.
Rebuild Sherman Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to Iowa Street -- Sherman Street will be completely torn out and replaced including the curb, gutter and storm drain system.
Rebuild Union Street from Siskiyou Boulevard to Auburn Street -- Union Street will be completely torn out and replaced including curb, gutter and storm drain system.
Signals at the Intersection of East Main Street and Mountain Avenue -- This project includes the installation of new turn signals at the intersection of East Main Street and Mountain
Avenue. The purpose of the project is to address increasing current and future traffic flows.
Airport Security/Fencing -- Construction of chain link fencing around the perimeter of the Airport property. The purpose of the project is to prevent people and animals from roaming
onto the runway.
Eight Unit T-hangars -- Construction of a new block of eight T-hangars adjacent to the 18 T-hangars currently being used. The purpose of the project is to meet consistent demand for
enclosed hangars.
Six Unit T- hangar and Turf Tie Down Area -- Construction of a six unit T-hangar and an area dedicated and equipped as a turf tie down area. The purpose of the project is to meet demand
for aircraft storage facilities.
East Area Access to Taxi Lanes -- Construction of a road, including grading and drainage, for access to the eastside of the airport.
The following projects are included in the 1996-1998 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, but are not included in the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Ashland Park and Ride Lot -- This is a RVTD project scheduled for construction in 1997.
Bear Creek Greenway from South Valley View Road to Ashland -- This is a Jackson County project scheduled for construction in 1996.
Sidewalk Local Improvement District (LID)
The City began a Sidewalk Local Improvement District program in July 1995. Through the program, the City pays 25% of sidewalk construction, and provides engineering and inspection for
residential neighborhoods that form a LID for sidewalk improvements.
Priority Walking Corridors
The City began a Priority Walking Corridor program in July 1995. The purpose of the program is to identify sidewalk needs for high priority construction funding.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Sidewalk Projects
Beginning July 1994, the City was entitled to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A portion of
the funds was earmarked for sidewalks in eligible neighborhoods. As defined by HUD, a neighborhood having 51% or more of the residents earning at or below 80% of median income is eligible.
Sidewalk projects are selected on a yearly basis. There are two restrictions on the use of the CDBG funds: The funding can not be used to install sidewalks in front of commercial property;
and 2) the sidewalk improvements can not be constructed along an boulevard or avenue. Continuation of CDBG sidewalk project funding depends on two factors: 1) the "entitlement" status
of the City, and 2) the future of HUD as a federal program.
Part 10.08 APPENDIX B: Comments from Neighborhood Meetings
Sections:
10.08.01 Introduction
Section 10.08.01 Introduction
The transportation planning process began with six neighborhood meetings in February and March 1994. Participants identified their issues, concerns and needs relating to transportation
in the city. One meeting was held in each of the neighborhoods shown on the map below.
The neighborhood meetings generated a wide variety of comments. The following two tables summarize the citizen input gathered at the meetings. The material is, whenever possible, verbatim
comments citizens gave at the neighborhood meetings.
Table l/Comment Highlights-comments concerning pedestrian, bicycle, public transit and other subjects that repeatedly came up. Specific ideas about issues in neighborhoods are also included.
Table 2/Automobile Comment High- lights-comments concerning driving in Ashland. Presented in a separate table because the comments tended to focus on specific areas more than the information
in Table I.
COMMENT HIGHLIGHTS FROM NEIGHB0RHOOD MEETINGS
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PEDESTRIAN · more benches, bathrooms & water; complete sidewalk network/make connections
· dramatically mark crosswalks
· educate public on pedestrian laws - utility bills & cable TV safety programs
· tree barrier between sidewalk & streets (wider)
· post-pedestrian crossings
· improve existing curb cuts & install more
· separate pedestrians from bicyclists
· hand rails on steep sidewalks
· incorporate neighborhood pathways to neighborhood parks
· retrofit pedestrian crossings-raise to increase pedestrian safety, widen to width of cars
· stamped concrete identifying pedestrian/vehicle intersection
· traffic calming measures to slow autos in pedestrian areas
· difficult crossing Siskiyou at SOSC
· islands on Ashland St.
· crosswalks across N. Main
· traffic light across 3rd & Lithia Way for pedestrian safety
· sidewalk on Ashland St.
· need white step-off zone at crosswalks to stop cars- especially N. Main, Lithia Way & Siskiyou
· library crosswalk unsafe for pedestrians
· clear crossing at Water & E. Main (diagonal)
· greenway plan-open space/ natural area/park "nodes" with connection to walking paths
· crosswalk on Ashland St.& Ray Lane
· sidewalk on Walker
· sidewalk on Oak
· crosswalk at Hersey & Oak
· pedestrian path from Williams Way to RR district
· sidewalks on Nevada Street
· additional pedestrian scale lighting on B St.
· sidewalks on 8th St.
· sidewalks on Scenic
· sidewalk on Nutley from Granite to Winburn Way
· sidewalks on Tolman Creek Road
· need path from alley to Hillview
· sidewalk or path on Wimer
· Orange St. parkrow
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD BICYCLE
· bike racks on buses
· bike racks at bus shelters- covered & secure
· improve paving/grates are hazardous
· benches, bathrooms, shelters & water for cyclists
· educate cyclists & public on bicycle safety - in schools
· keep paths free of debris bike paths that don't compete with traffic
· additional bike paths/lanes
· level bike routes/gradual slopes
· make paths closer to stores
· park/ride for bike w/locked facilities
· direct bike routes
· bike parking near doors of buildings
· real bike path through downtown - on Lithia Way & E. Main
· use RR tracks for bike path
· bike lane on N. Main
· need a safe way for cyclists to get all the way through town
· paths on Siskiyou would be safer for cyclists, pedestrians & cars
· safe path from N. Main to library
· link Bear Creek trail to Ashland
· safer access on B St.
· lane on Oak to greenway
· lane on Helman
· lanes on hillside streets
· no more building on Wimer without provision for cyclists
· lane on A St. to Mountain
· path on C St.
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC TRANSIT · park & ride areas more covered bus stops bathrooms at bus stops
· extend evening hours
· stops closer to neighborhoods or shuttles
· lighting at bus stops & approaches
· encourage hotel/motel guests to use bus
· need on-call service
· increase timeliness of buses
· more frequent runs
· service on Sunday
· need on-site bus info & maps at stops
. need free zone in core area of city
· bus service to hills
· express bus earlier for commuters to Medford
· need turnouts on N. Main so don't stop on street bus route to hospital & medical offices
· bus route on E. Main- regular route/school time route
· interstate bus depot
· bus to Grants Pass & Yreka
· bus to Oak St. & Helman St.
· service to hillside area
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER
· better street lighting-motion sensitive
· revise taxi ordinance for flexibility for rickshaws, golf carts, electric carts
· scooter parking
· encourage mopeds
· keep horses off sidewalks- road apples are dangerous
· encourage alternative auto use (electric, golf carts)
· use children/bikes/residential neighborhood signs to increase awareness of neighborhood
· separate modes
· delivery service for large packages for people using alternative modes
· trolley/trams like San Luis Obispo
· better access to Bear Creek
· access to Ashland Creek
· special lane on Siskiyou for 3-in-car, bike, bus
· electric rail from plaza to Medford
· signs on Oak St. obscured by trees
· zoning changes for corner groceries in Quiet Village
· water fountains in Helman
· access for school children to Helman School from Oak across creek
· neighborhood market needed by hospital
· more short cuts for pedestrians & bicyclists-RR district to Hersey, Oak to Helman, Hersey to Patterson
· need park in Briscoe neighborhood so don't have to travel so much
AUTOMOBILE COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD INTERSECTION
· control parking near intersections
· visibility concern at intersections
· install signal at E. Main & Gresham
· signal at Siskiyou & Walker realignment of Siskiyou & Indiana
· traffic light needed at Tolman 8, Siskiyou
· need no turn on red light sign at Siskiyou & Mountain
· need longer turn signal at Walker & Ashland St.
light or 4-way stop at E. Main & Mountain
· 3rd & Main dangerous intersection
· E. Main should have stop signs at Tolman Creek, Walker & Mountain
· bad intersections Maple & N. Main, Wimer & N. Main
· stop light at Lithia & Oak
· 1st & B St. intersection visibility
· stop sign at Hillview & Peachy
· visibility going up hill at Scenic & Church
· need stop signs by mini-market by VanNess
· difficult to cross or turn left on E. Main from Mallard or North Wightman
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING · synchronize signals throughout town
· traffic law enforcement
· alternate routes for trucks to keep them out of neighborhood
· alternate route through north/south
· speed bumps/raised intersection to slow traffic
no commuter by-way for RR district-alternate route should not destroy neighborhood
· worst traffic in city at E. Main, Siskiyou, Gresham, & Third
· consistency with speed on N. Main area to Epsteins
· Ashland St. too fast from Litwiller-Simonsen funeral home to freeway
· lower speed to 25-30 mph on Ashland St.
· speed on Siskiyou too fast
· slower speeds on Lithia Way
· N. Main needs left turn lanes
· add alternate route through town past Billings
· lower speed limit on E. Main at city limit, on Tolman Creek Rd. from Ashland St.
· encourage use of Hersey to limit A St. traffic
· one way RR district streets
· all commercial deliveries from Oak to A Street - not through neighborhood
· limit trucks no further than 3rd & 4th on A St.
· limit non-local traffic in RR district
· use traffic calming on B St.
· quantity of traffic on Hillview
· route traffic off Strawberry and Skycrest down Ashland Mine
· heavy traffic on Wimer-safety of school children
· make Maple, Church safer
· slow traffic on Pebble, Maple & Briscoe
. slow traffic on Oak traffic calming on Diane & Jacquelyn
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING
· parking on one side of street
· restrict truck parking downtown
· require Copeland to unload using city parking, not 1st
· no parking last 1/2 before Siskiyou on Walker
· move parking from down town E. Main to 1 block away
· paid parking downtown
· more short term parking downtown
· more parking on (decking) on Hargadine lots
· shorten time limits for City lots
· no parking north side of A Street
·A Street is a zoo
· increase parking in Railroad district near downtown
· parking problems at armory
· parked cars interfere with visibility on Scenic & Wimer
· remove parking one side of Helman, Oak
MODE GENERAL CITY WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER
· more yield signs at Sentry market
· plant trees in median on Siskiyou to block sunlight in windshield
· need Mountain St. interchange off I-5
· install 4th street crossing to Hersey
· new roads across to Grandview & Westwood from Strawberry Lane
· get rid of ruts on Grandview, but don't pave
· widen & pave Grandview
ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN