HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0819 Study Session PACKET Y
Materials for Study Session
Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 12:30 p.m.
Agenda
1. Status Update on the Off-Site Portion of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Improvements
2. Request for Closure of Winburn Way on Summer Sundays
3. Review of current status of the Oak Street Sidewalks and Traffic
Calming Project
l
i
Council Communication
Public Works Department
August 19, 1998
(Study Session)
Submitted by: Paula Brown'
Approved by: Mike Freeman�A -
Title:
Review of Current Status of the Oak Street Sidewalks and Traffic Calming Project
Synopsis:
Staff has been working with the neighbors, the traffic Safety Commission and ODOT on the
proposed sidewalk and traffic calming measures for Oak Street for the past 18 months. At this
seventh revision, staff is comfortable with the final conceptual design and is prepared to move to
final design specifications for construction completion.
Recommendation:
It is staffs recommendation that Council approve that design as presented for the Oak Street
Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Project.
Background Information:
Last September(1997), City staff applied for and received an Oregon Department of
Transportation(ODOT)Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Grant targeted toward local streets. The
project on Oak Street was identified as an accessible pedestrian link and safe pedestrian access
on a highly traveled multiuse roadway system. This grant is for Fiscal Year 1999, beginning in
July 1998. It requires a 20%local match and the project was estimated at $147,684. There is a
cap of$100,000 available from ODOT grant funds. All "in-kind" design costs completed by City
staff may be used for the match dollars. Additional match could come from a combination of
neighborhood funds and perhaps the City's Arterial Sidewalk fund.
The current design as detailed in the attached memorandum and attachments from Jim Olson, is
estimated at $152,070. It is proposed that the grant fund $100,000,the neighbors fund $18,000,
engineering provide in-kind design effort of$14,000, and the remaining $20,070 come from the
City's Arterial Sidewalk fund.
The design has been modified. The details of the design changes are delineated in Jim's memo
(attached), but are highlighted below:
► Elimination of the traffic islands/tree wells
► Use of rubberized speed hump devices
► Installation of curb extensions and raised cross-walk at Crispin Street
Installation of a full 4-way stop with channelizing traffic (turn lanes) at the
intersection of Oak and Hersey as justified by the warrant study
► Two revised cross-walk with curb bump-outs (at Crispin and at Oaklawn)
Four speed humps
► Raised intersection at Nevada and Oak Street
Traffic calming features have been spaced approximately 450 feet apart(recommended spacing
is 300 to 600 feet)to provide the best possible combination for speed control.
It is further proposed in conjunction with this project, that the weight limit on Oak Street be lifted
to allow truck traffic. With the traffic calming measures, the speed bumps will encourage safe
speeds for trucks as well as other motorists. Sidewalks will improve pedestrian safety and
essentially eliminate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.
This project incorporates a multitude of traffic safety, multi-modal transportation opportunities,
and traffic engineering options. All have been thoroughly researched and are well though out
with the help of the neighbors,Traffic Safety Commission and ODOT. It is staffs hope that the
Council will recommend approval of the design so that these important safety features can be
constructed.
1
! b
n Y 0
NIZVADs aruasr
�$ Q p
"E q act "V y
A( p a U
�° n1
A# m
to
E l p woawl AR
if w1 LSFiSEiCSSzS
m
r
r
R" V90 a rLdce
+ d r
r
b
1 �
r
, a �
r x �
K wg r w
aF r
r
j 4f ��
r
i gp E
' 9 i E
°$-
` 14ft � K
d j x
5a �
r v
r
r
t� r
i o
r 179
i
2r ! 818@! 55+1
F
F ;
at
a r _
r —
e
r
d B x n
x F
_ d
� o .
�p na l r
S n + >m mo r
y�'N F-
+j 111 1]t tot " g
in 161 14 r
i SUN" HOld.OW 8a�,
d 3* 11r
'21123 in to Itr i �
v Z8g8d8 »°' m
� O
d8888g "°` � oi
C '
" , r
CITY OF ASHLAND .........y
l pF AS
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division h
MEMORANDUM °,pREGoN...
DATE: August 14, 1998
TO: Paula Brown
FROM: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
RE: Oak Street Traffic Calming
Attached is the latest revision of the Oak Street Traffic Calming Plan. Under this plan, the traffic
calming scheme would consist of
1. 4-way stop with channelizing traffic lane at Hersey and Oak Streets
2. Two raised cross-walk with curb bump-outs (at Crispin and at Oaklawn)
3. Four speed humps
4. Raised intersection at Nevada and Oak Street
Traffic calming features have been spaced at approximately 450 feet apart(recommended spacing
is 300 to 600 feet)to provide the best possible combination for speed control.
TRAFFIC ISLANDS
The previously shown traffic islands(originally proposed with trees planted in the islands and would
have created a chicaning effect on cars) have been eliminated from the proposal. Of all of the
proposed features, these received the most neighborhood opposition and also offered the greatest
potential for accidents. ODOT's review was also not extremely favorable to the traffic islands
without additional curbing to direct traffic. The deletion of the traffic islands is also supported by
our staff. Their elimination will reduce possible vehicle and bicycle conflicts.
SPEED HUMPS
It is proposed that one additional speed hump be added from the April 9, 1998, plan bringing the
total to four speed humps.
Recycled Technology, Inc., in conjunction with the City of Portland has developed and marketed a
molded rubber device with a parabolic curved profile exactly matching the specifications required
for a 25 mph speed hump. These devices,made of recycled scrap tire rubber come in 2'X 7' panels
which are fastened to the existing street surface by lag screws or other type device. The advantage
of this product is that the speed humps can easily be removed or relocated without any pavement
damage. These rubberized devices can be installed in fraction of the time it takes to install the
asphalt humps.The rubber speed humps are more expensive than the traditional asphalt variety,but
G:Dawn\TraAOak Street Traffic Calming Memo 8-14.wpd 1
it is felt that the ease of installation, the portability of the hump, and the more resilient surface will
compensate for the extra cost. Each device costs approximately $3,500 each. A copy of the
manufacturer's information sheet is available if you are interested.
CURB EXTENSIONS
The curb extensions and raised cross-walk at Crispin Street have been re-installed at the City
Council's request. The abutting property owner has expressed a possible conflict in the planned
driveway. The driveway is planned for relocation and may need to be adjusted. The two curb
extensions at Crispin and at Oaklawn, both incorporate the use of raised cross-walks as a special
control feature.
HERSEY - OAK INTERSECTION
The warrant study for this intersection has been completed and a copy is attached (Appendix A).
While the warrants for installation of a traffic signal are narrowly missed,the installation of a 4-way
stop is fully justified.
The concept of a 4-way stop was presented to the Traffic Safety Commission at its April 23, 1998
meeting. (See attached Appendix B)and at a neighborhood meeting on April 29, 1998. The Traffic
Safety Commission approved the 4-way stop subject to City Council's approval. There were no
objections to the stop voiced at the neighborhood meeting.
As indicated on the attached intersection study, it is recommended that turn lanes be created for all
legs of the intersection to accommodate the heavy turn movement volume. The arrangement would
also accommodate the future installation of a traffic signal once the warrants are met.
It is recommended that stamped concrete cross-walks be cut into all four approaches of this
intersection to further highlight the pedestrian walk and to add visual appeal to the intersection.
NEVADA - OAK INTERSECTION
It is proposed that this intersection be re-done in decorative concrete or brick and that the center be
elevated a few inches to provide a modified speed hump effect. This treatment will provide a clearly
defined entry to the City and the neighborhood, and has received wide support from the
neighborhood as well as from the Traffic Safety Commission.
SIDEWALKS
Under this project,sidewalks would be installed continuously from Hersey Street to Nevada Street.
With the exception of a short section of walk way near Hersey,the sidewalk would be installed on
the west side of the street. Parkrows will be created where possible. In other instances,the walk will
be adjacent to the curb. The primary concern in walk placement is the preservation of existing trees.
COST ESTIMATE
The construction estimate for this project has been revised to incorporate the altered plan. With the
addition of the curb extensions at Crispin and the rubber speed humps, the estimated cost of
construction is $152,070 or$6,345 more than previously considered. Attached (Appendix C) is a
revised cost break down for the project.
G:Dawn\Trafioak Street Traffic calming Memo 8-14.wpd 2
TRUCK TRAFFIC ON OAK STREET
ON May 28, 1998,the Traffic Safety Commission heard a request for the re-establishment of truck
traffic on Oak Street (attached memo - Exhibit D). The request was accompanied by a petition
signed by 39 citizens from the Helman School neighborhood. The Traffic Safety Commission
moved to recommend to City Council that the current truck weight limit be removed from Oak Street
following the completion of the traffic calming project.
SUMMARY
This proposal represents the seventh major revision to this proposed project. It is recommended that
Council approve this plan so that construction might commence as quickly as possible. Although
plans and specifications can be drawn up very quickly,bids would most likely not be available until
nearly November. Final completion is expected in the spring of 1999 unless there are further delays.
G:Dawn%Traf\Oak Street Traffic Calming Memo 8-14.wpd 3
APPENDIX A
.......... ......
..........
Of ASHLAND
N:. L:& :N
.. . . .............
.............-
. ..........
... .......
........... .....
........... ....................... .......
.. .................. ........ ...... .......-.... ..............................
........... ...... ......
....... ....... ...PUBMW0RK&DEPARTMENT ::::
....DEPARTMENT
jDMSIONi�i�i��i:.......
......... isid
... ENGINEERING........... ....
...........
....... ... ......
OAK HERSEY WARRANT STUDY
On July 14, 1998 a warrant study was commenced at the intersection of Oak and Hersey Streets. The
study was conducted under the guidelines of signal warrant studies as set forth in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.
The following warrants are to be considered in authorizing traffic signal installations:
Warrant I Minimum Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 4 School Crossing
Warrant 5 Progressive Movements
Warrant 6 Accident Experience
Warrant 7 Systems (not analyzed)
Warrant 8 Combination of Warrants (not analyzed)
Warrant 9 Four Hour Volumes(not analyzed)
Warrant 10 Peak Hour Delay(not analyzed)
Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volumes (not analyzed)
A signal is warranted when any one of the above listed warrants is met.
The following data collection methods were utilized in gathering information to assess these warrants:
1. Mechanical traffic volume counts (road tube counters)
2. Manual traffic counts
3. Manual pedestrian counts
4. Manual bicycle counts
5. Manual turn movement counts
6. Spot speed study (radar gun)
7. Accident history research
8. Personal observation
9. Analysis of traffic composition
The following is a brief summary of the warrants considered under this study:
GDawnMd,Oak-Hussy fidersectm Wurant Study.wpd
WARRANT NO. 1 - MINInNM VEHICULAR VOLUME
The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting
traffic is the principal reason for signal installation. This warrant is met when the volume on the major
street is 500 vehicles per hour and the minor is 300 vehicles per hour.
Actual counts show hourly major street volumes of 417 (avg.) and minor volumes of 302 (avg.). While
the minor street volumes meet warrant minimums, the major volume is slightly less then the required
500 vehicles per hour. Warrant No. 1 is not met.
WARRANT NO. 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
The warrant applies to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that
traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in crossing the major street. This
warrant is not met at this intersection as both streets are nearly equal in traffic volumes and neither
approach has a traffic volume in excess of 750 vehicles per hour.
WARRANT NO. 3 -MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
A traffic signal may be warranted when pedestrian volume exceeds 100 per hour for any four hour period
or 190 for any one hour. At 24 pedestrians per hour, this warrant is not met.
WARRANT NO. 4 - SCHOOL CROSSING
A traffic control signal is warranted if the crossing is a major student crossing near a school. This
warrant is not met.
WARRANT NO. 5 - PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
Progressive movement control sometimes necessitates traffic signal installations in order to maintain
proper grouping of vehicles and to effectively regulate speed. This warrant does not apply to this
intersection.
WARRANT NO. 6 -ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE
This warrant is satisfied when:
a. An adequate trial of less restrictive measures has been put into place to attempt to lessen
accident occurrences.
b. Five or more accidents involving personal injury or property have occurred within a 12
month period.
C. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than 80% of the
requirements specified either in the minimum vehicular volume warrant, the interruption
of continuous traffic warrant or the minimum pedestrian volume warrant.
d. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Current traffic records indicate that 5 accidents have occurred during the past 12 months. Following is
a brief review of those accidents:
03hwn\TmA0ak-Haley GOasedim Wumnt SWdy.wpd 2
1 8-6-97 Vehicle westbound on Hersey,"did not see stop sign" and continued across Oak
St. and was struck by vehicle northbound on Oak Street.
Two Vehicles - No Injuries
Cited: Failure to obey traffic control devices
2 8-7-97 Vehicle northbound on Oak St. was rearended by bicycle.
One Vehicle/ One Bicycle - No Injuries
Cited: None
3 5-7-98 Vehicle westbound on Hersey stopped at sign then proceeded across Oak St. and
was struck by a vehicle northbound on Oak St.
Two Vehicles/Possible Injuries
Cited: None
4 5-12-98 Vehicle northbound on Oak St. crossed over centerline and struck oncoming
vehicle southbound on Oak Street.
Two Vehicles/No Injuries
Cited: None
5 7-14-98 Vehicle northbound on Oak St. stopped at Hersey for pedestrian on skateboard
and was rearended by second northbound vehicle.
Two Vehicles/Possible Injuries
Cited: Following too Closely
The intersection does meet the requirement for 80% of the minimum traffic volumes as required in
paragraph C above.
The final element of this warrant is also met in that the signal would not seriously hamper progressive
traffic flow. Since there are no signalized intersections within 1000 feet and even non-signalized
intersections are very widespread this requirement has little bearing on this intersection.
The signal warrant is most closely met under this warrant. Accidents at this intersection tend to be our
most common and troublesome problem. In viewing the intersection traffic infractions most commonly
appear in the following three forms:
1. Failure to stop at stop sign
2. Failure to keep to the right of centerline
3. Failure to observe approaching traffic or failure to judge traffic speed after stopping
At nearly every visit to the intersection at least one or more of the above situations was encountered. Of
the five listed traffic accidents all of them most likely could have been avoided with the addition of stop
signs on Oak St.
It is required of this warrant that additional methods of traffic control be implemented and observed prior
to signal authorization. If the new controls fail to improve the intersections accident history then the
signal is considered to be warranted.
SUMMARY
G:Daw UraNGak-Healy Inhnxtim Wa[razd Swdy.wpd 3
The remaining-warrants,the systems warrant,the combination ofwarrants,the four hour volume warrant,
the peak hour delay warrant and the peak hour volume warrant were not considered due to the non-
applicability or inadequate data gathering ability.
Although a traffic signal is not warranted a this time, the warrants were very narrowly missed under two
of the categories. The warrants for a 4-way stop, however, are fully met and it is highly recommended
that this be implemented as quickly as possible.
The intersection is further complicated by the fact that the turn movements (movements No.
1,3,4,6,7,9,10 & 12) constitute 51.3% of the traffic flow through this intersection. The left turn
movements at No. 12 and 9 represent the 31 and 41 highest movements, surpassed only slightly by the
straight through north-south movement along Oak Street(Nos. 2 and 8). This is a clear indication of the
need of traffic channelization to provide separate lanes for left turn movements on each approach of the
intersection. The channelizations provides drivers with a clear interpretation of other drivers intent
irregardless of the presence of an operating turn signal. The dual lanes would also allow traffic through
the intersection with less delay.
If current traffic volumes continue to rise at the historical rate it is anticipated that the signal warrant may
be met within five years. With the turn lanes already in place, no additional intersection modifications
will be required. Signal poles and most arms can easily be installed at existing comers with even the lane
striping and cross-walks being in the proper location and alignment. To further accommodate future
signal construction conduits can be placed under the proposed concrete in set crosswalks.
G:Dawn\TmtiGak-Hurry Intersection Wartarrt Sady.wpd 4
OAK/HERSEY INTERSECTION STUDY
No. Attributes Oak St. Oak St. Hersey St. Hersey St.
(North) (South) (West) (East)
1. Classification Collector Collector Collector Collector
2. Configuration 4-Way 4-Way 4-Way 4-Way
3. Direction N-S N-S E-W E-W
4. Street Width 40' 40' 40' 48'
5. Grade 2% 2% 9% 1%
6. Parking Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted
7. Bike Lanes No No Yes Yes
8.- Sidewalks No East Side South Side North Side
9. Surface Condition Good Good Good Good
10. Posted Speed 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph
11. Design Speed 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph
12. Ebsting Traffic Controls None None Stop Stop
13. Visibility Good Fair Fair Good
14. Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 3960 4105 2200 3760
15. Truck Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 120 80 80 320
16. Pedestrian Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 24 0) 24 0) 24 0) 24 0)
17. Bicycle Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 21 09 21 0) 21 0) 21 r')
18. Reported Accidents(4 year period) 9 0) 9 0) 9o) go)
19. Observed Speeds
A Max Speed mph 41.0 35.5 N/A N/A
B.8r Percentile mph 31.3 29.9 N/A N/A
C.Avg.Speed mph 27.3 26.0 N/A WA
20. Percent of Traffic Movement Observe Percent
(See intersection diagram) Volume
A. Movement No. 1 24 7.7%
B. Movement No. 2 46 14.7%
C. Movement No. 3 6 1.9%
D. Movement No.4 7 2.2%
E. Movement No. 5 34 10.9%
G:Dawn\Trafk0ak-Hmey Intarswtion Wurard Study.wpd _ 5
' i
F. Movement No.6 14 4.5%
G. Movement No.7 13 4.2%
H. Movement No. 8 42 13.5
1. Movement No. 9 32 10.3
J. Movement No. 10 28 9.0
K.Movement No. 11 30 9.6
L. Movement No. 12 36 11.5
21. Observed Vehicle Conflicts 1 collision,6 near collisions
22. Observed Traffic Violations 15 in 214 hours of observation
23. Peak Traffic Volume(vehicle per hour) 388 446 230 374
24. 4 Hour Peak Traffic Volumes N/A N/A N/A N/A
( Volume for entire intersection- no breakdown for street or direction.
G:Dawn\TraNGak-Hersey 1Naaectian WartarR Study.wpd 6
OAKMERSEY INTERSECTION STUDY
No. Attributes Oak St. Oak St. Hersey St Hersey St.
(North) (South) (West) (East)
1. Classification Collector Collector Collector Collector
2. Configuration 4-Way 4-Way 4-Way 4-Way
34 Direction N-S N-S E-W E-W
4. Street Width 40' 40' 40' 48'
5. Grade 2% 2% 9% 1%
6. Parking Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted
7. Bike Lanes No No Yes Yes
8. Sidewalks No East Side South Side- _ North Side
9. Surface Condition Good Good Good Good
10. Posted Speed 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph
11. Design Speed 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 25 mph
12. Existing Traffic Controls None None Stop Stop
13. Visibility Good Fair Fair Good
14. Traffic Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 3960 4105 2200 3760
15. Truck Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 120 80 80 320
16. Pedestrian Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 24(l) 24 0) 24 0) 24 r')
17. Bicycle Volumes(Vehicles per Day) 21 ") 21 (l) 21 r') 21 0)
18. Reported Accidents(4 year period) 9 M 9") 9") 90)
19. Observed Speeds
A. Max Speed mph 41.01 35.5 N/A N/A
B. 85°1 Percentile mph 31.3 29.9 N/A N/A
C.Avg. Speed mph 27.3 26.0 N/A N/A
204 Percent of Traffic Movement Observed Percent
(See intersection diagram) Volume
A. Movement No. 1 24 7.7%
B. Movement No.2 46 14.7%
C. Movement No. 3 6 1.9%
D. Movement No. 4 7 2.2%
E. Movement No.5 34 10.9%
G:Daw \TraflOak-Hurry IiAmatian Wamurt Swdympd 5
. 1
F. Movement No.6 14 4.5%
G. Movement No. 7 13 4.2%
H. Movement No. 8 42 13.5
I. Movement No. 9 32 10.3
J. Movement No. 10 28 9.0
K. Movement No. 11 30 9.6
L. Movement No. 12 36 11.5
21. Observed Vehicle Conflicts 1 collision,6 near collisions
22. Observed Traffic Violations 15 in 254 hours of observation
23. Peak Traffic Volume(vehicle per hour) 388 446 230 374
24. 4 Hour Peak Traffic Volumes I N/A I N/A N/A N/A
O)Volume for entire intersection- no breakdown for street or direction.
G:Dewn\TmIAOak-Hasty Into=ion We t Study.wpd
TRUCK TRAFFIC ONLY
PEDESTRIANS:
H
W
W
BICYCLES:
N
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS U
RUN STOP SIGN O
CROSS CENTERLINE 1
FAIL TO YIELD 2 2
f
0 4 O
v Z
MERSEY _ STREET
u
0 �
� S
p�t�vraQ Z n.ea�'
OAK / HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
TURN MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
DATE: 8 Z °> TIME: .. -`S : 02 -f0 -3 : 30
PEDESTRIANS: f3 -
H
W
uj
BICYCLES: /¢
I-
N
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ,
RUN STOP SIGN
CROSS CENTERLINE z
FAIL TO YIELD 40
f
NERgEy - STREET
�\ zg
0 ,
(REAP- F-A/p GULLL/S/OAl
th GCCueza cp /Z : i5
II r
40 CQ
OAK / HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
TURN MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
DATE: -//A /l*�8 TIME: ..-1Z 1126
-PEDESTRIANS:
F
W
uj
BICYCLES: 7
N
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS , Q
RUN STOP SIGN 4
CROSS CENTERLINE 25
FAIL TO YIELD O 46
f
__7 4 OI
MERSEY STREET
�\ -
3%
u ZB
40
rG
J
N
OAK / HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
TURN MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
DATE: . TIME: .41O6 - 4, -3
PEDESTRIANS: 14
H
W
uj
BICYCLES: 13
N
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS
RUN STOP SIGN I
CROSS CENTERLINE I Zb
FAIL TO YIELD
70 1
S 4 \ 0
MERSEY - STREET
43
Z8
0 43
19 4
45 pQ
OAK / HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
TURN MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
DATE: l5 f ll TIME: .. -71160 - l Z 130
PEDESTRIANS: -
f-
W
Lu
BICYCLES: l?) (QoL 7 ( l- y�
N
TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS Z
RUN STOP SIGN
CROSS CENTERLINE O
I'
FAIL TO YIELD U Zv
8 4 \ 0
MERSEY STREET
�\ 3 Z
_ _ u
� 35
th
lI Is OQ
OAK / HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
TURN MOVEMENT DIAGRAM
DATE: 7/lGI9Y, TIME ..-7, 3() - f'"0014�/7
S1P0T, SPEED STUDY
DAY 1l4J RSb l'--f DATE
LOCATION O?r� 51 �IEt. 1a 1 A
� l �� — E.�kitiK MRf. iLNE fEN 100 t P�
� L�� T �f'
TRAFFIC CONOIilON2 �ZVL2 � Of FLOW
�`�����"`�- OItE C(11N N I E f
fEATNC4
tr SK,�
RUNIER OF OISCRTIMRS CUMULATfYE
$FEED fOTAI• PERCENT REMARKS
FASSERCCR CARS fR:c TO1AL
so
59
sl Posted limit Pace limits
57 $ Above l imi t `�'.S % in pace
SK ' oo i
ss
Max. speed 3 85% speed Z4
s1 =
s7 I
• s2
sT
sa
A9 °
/[
AT
1[ ^
Y
{5
{1
12 °
Y
li
{1
l0 °
09
O �
37
06
35 „«
j4 I l� b ~
33 3 43 h
�� 3 Cl
5 0 (a 9
20
21
27 12
21 7 4 3 5 ri °
3F 45 —
25 � 2 '1
24
23
27 5 3 1
21 S g 10
20 3 �
4 S o
vo
11 —
' 17 1 1 41719 171r7I11(l tlllt 11 17
19113Ar11 17171434 71 IN13177
It
17
t 13
SPOT SPEED STUDY
Date: o-I ( 16 gPLocation: Direction: 1�
= Time Period Frog: "l To: �j _ Weather:
Road Surface Cond.: hS? �f JUG cu
1 2 3 4 5 -
Speed Group " Percent Cumulative Group
(mi/h) Frequency *of Total Percent Mean 01 x 4
0-4 2
5-9 7
10-14 12
" = 15-19 S 5 17
rz 20-24 22 633
Fy -
r 30-34 T 13 Io0 32 3 -- -
" :�_ 4-39 37
3
4 _
42
40-44
47
45-49
-Ln 1. 50-54 52 .
55-59 57
`60-64 62
65-69 67 "
Total
Total Count r7
85% Percentile L9 w1Z
Average Speed 5 Total =
25 2—
OLa
:�tw
spar SPEED STUDY
,J TL{J "oL' 041E 07I lL' q �
LOCATION t]�L. Sl iL.l_ 2�°�•��'R•SC oij
n
` .L NaS. Tltf IEMIOO �I •��A it
W(ATMER so",? - ��1`'^
aM p(tJCyti:.F..'� DIRECTION OF FLOW MCE t
TRAFFIC [ONpiT IONS
IT
NUttER Df OtSCeYITIUS CUWLAT IYE
MEO TOTAL• REX4RIS
tASSE"ER CARS TCLC TOTAL PERCENT
eo �
s9
so Posted limit ZS" Pace lirits
57 % Above limit % in pace
se ' oz�
• 33 Max. speed 85% speed jo
3(
S] I •
52 ..
31
30
(9 0
AJ
47
1e n
(3
(7 °
L1 I I V loo
(0 � `.
� too 9R
29
]1
]7
36
I 98
33
]2 «
71 1 9t 43
70
Z9
zt � sq
27
26
25
14
23 1e
6 u o
' 73 c s
21 J
20
10 1 0 0 0
1t 7 ° � o
wit SILT711M1 11136 II IF
IT 111111ATt1 51131M1A is 1X13111
1/
15
t 15
SPOT SPEED STUDY
. ; Date: Location: Direction: S
:- Time Period From: n To: A. Weather:
Road Surface Cond.:
1 2 3 d 5 ,
Speed Group Percent Cumulative .Group
. (mi/h) Frequency of Total Percent Hears Q1 z 4
0-4 2
: . 5-9 7
a 4T 10-14 12
17 SI
x20-24 3 Z 3 L 3S 22
ar 25-29 27
='30-34 { 1 `° I 1 �.'7 32 3S2
=g 34-39
40-44 f :.(lam C> 42 �2
-}
55-59 57
6x-64 62
65-69 67
Total t63�
Total Count IQ 1
_ a LS2
85% Percentile 3
1o81
Average Speed = =
L(o
5 Total
ota
SPOT SFEED STUD r
l>)ro.�cson•i O9 IIS(R�
LOCATION VA"— 51 — R 'fL 'Ca, 1�Gt�t Y W DATE
---r _
i
%EATNER 5 V JN�f
F�cT NRS. TIME 1[[100 �• -T 7/ 5 ��
' RQG A - OIRECTIIN OF FLOI OM f E R
D c-
TAAFFIC CONOItIONS
NURIER OF OIS(ITATI"S CU%OLAT TYE 1T
SPEED TOTAL• RENARSS
FASS EN CCR CAti r.
tC TOTAL PERCENT
so
90
61 Posted limit 25 Pace limits
37 % Above l i m i t S(o % in pace
311 3
85$ speed LSo�
Max. speed `I eed Z`4 .
55 _
9<
s]
• sz
91
50
49 °
..
11
17
IS
t<
/2 r
42
4t
n
10
09
31 °
37
36
35 1 1 3 L too
3/
33 2 011 Ke>3 2 It �Sc 9 29 21 27 `E
St 22 5`I •t3
18 41 3°29 1 3 Z 2.3
2/
21 12 20 IS
S 1 5 ( ..
17
21 5 10 1
20 1 1
IO 2 1.
117!1 I71T211N1 R117t to 11
17 IN113AI11 23131KIA if 1%1711!
1/
13
t TS
SPOT SPEED STUDY
Date: 07 i5 gbLocation: Ors-Si. - RI R. ro 14A-iscY Direction: i
�' Weather:
`- Time Period Frog: `�
To 5
all
Road Surface Cond.: tiy �t P")&ti
1 2 3 4 5
Speed Group . Percent Cumulative Group
Ami/h) Frequency of Total Percent Mean &C4
4
0-4 2
5-9 . 7
c=10-14 12
20-24 3 3O 22
r 25-29 7
_ X30-34 ICSc 32
T 37
34-39
M. . 42
.t _ .. 47
45-49
50-54 52 .
-; 57
55-59
;<. fit
'60-64
65-69 67
Total 3(0 3Srp .
Total Count 13(�
• `ao`
85% Percentile 2 `I •
_ Average Speed $Total = LS .
So93
ota
a
SPOT SrEEO STUOf
ST OiY ��`::aN2se h`� DATE
L9 CA T IOK . -,
1CAiKCK SU N V� �'�
L Ml t. TIKE PERIOD T1 � TI
iR lfFlC COMpIT IOKS '��- �1' Atl@.In„+.� DIRE CiIOK 0 FLOW M 1 f 1
17 Ll, rll
MUMICR Of OISCRTITIUS CUMOLAT ITE
TOTAL- REMARKS
SPEED
PASS EK hER CAtt TICC TOTAL PERCCKL
/0 I •
50
61 Posted limit 2S Pace limits
37 % Above Iimit�D $ in pace
sd '• �a�z
ss
Max. speed 3 E 85% speed 3 0,
s1 -
ss '
. st
30
<9 0
n
It
47
IS
1/
/2
/2
♦1
w
AO
29
21 0 .
27
26
75
j1 «
z— R
33 ,C�O 9
it s H-7 99
31 J3 9
70 Its /z5 8z
29
I1 105 '71
2 9
21
21 I �fS 30 0
i5 10 3.S 2-3
z t 9 2(0 l
22 Io. I(, 10
2 2 1 9 6 ..
21 3 3
� 3
20 I 2 0 0
11 — 117/t 1111211K1 A ws 11 lY
I7 I 1MI1711t1
117101KIA /1 1M72171
11 I
15
< is
SPOT SPEED STUDY
Date: o4 1,S;-(qg Location: Wirt_ io a cc ?Direction: S
JJ
Time Period Frog: �_ To: S� Weather. S O uyY
- Road Surface Cond.: `JR9? cJ +-f
1 T11 2 � 3 4 5
Speed Grouprcent Cumulative Group
(mi/h) Frequenc Total Percent 11ean @x 4
0-4 2
5-9 7" .
10-14 12
- 15-19 �. — 17 S
- -
'20-24 20 2Z 22 �w
:, •=•" -
_ -
Is
25-29 12ASO
a ''30-34 '1:. `� ( c�"U 32 91 8
34-39 37
r, 42
40-44
47
45-49
50-54 52 .
55-59
60-64 62
65-69 fi7
Total � SZ yo69 .
Total Count
_ 85% Percentile 3o '�QSi
hL9h
Average Speed 5 Total 2✓0 ,
OLa
11 SPoT SFEEO STUOIT .
. . - I�cn.Sc�-t iJ CLSC�U car W�D�CSn ham; DATE
LOCI TOOK `/34k-�\ j
tEATKER
�JVH� NRL. Tlt[ fER100 l�'• A. TI t��
TRAFFIC CONOIiIONS �R'J -r hJEO-kc-- DIRECTION OF T M L E t
IT Kt i L
NOUER OF OISEITITIbai [U WL4T17C
flEEO TaT1L• C RErI[tf
ft1SENCER C1[S T[CC TOill ffRENT
(0
so
61 Posted Iinit �`� Pace limits
57 % Above linit (el % in pace
st '. 05
Max. speed 4C> 85; speed 31 —
SS
3/
32
52
31
30
.r
AS
17
16 �
13
17 0
.r
t2
t IrI4 Ioo
10 1 ^
70
31 °
o �
37 ..
26
23 2 1'10 Ri3
71 3
37 3 91
32 G 15
71 5 153 88
70 I Y 13
I i 12.z '10
20 ^
21 I o8 �2
27 L7- so
21
25
/Z s5
2!
22
22
21 S
20
0
to
II
' 071E (71T]IINI U 771 NI 1
17 IrllllTll 17131X71 if 1r77171
1(
13
<
15
SPOT SPEED STUDY
Date:oli h 9°0 Location: Oily- •5i, - 1A=iLsa e 7o C,A,sr ,Direction: /J
Time Period From: — To: t- —T Weather:
Road Surface Cond.-
1 2 3 a 5
Speed Group . Percent Cumulative Group
(mi/h) Frequency of Total Percent Mean Q1 x 4
0-4 2
5-g 7•
Y~ ;= 10-14 12
- 15-19 17
22 `..
20-24
27 '
y25-29
r 30-34
34-39 40-44
- -
47
50-54 52 .
57
z 60-64 fit
='65-69 67
Total
Total Count n
85% Percentile 31 s
- 'Average Speed 5 Total 2 l • �o
oca
:S
'r
SPOT SrEEO STUOT a
ORI�
LocarloM S - l�6t�� r' \JCIISP r� 0AIr ��otiesoh� DATE O1 IS 9
i _ TIME rEMIQQ tl To 11-
}° i
5 uu t - t��r ran — ■RS. ' r . ' t
WEATMER C Y1W VItECTIOX OF FLOM M(DS
TA AFFIC COMOI T IOKS ``12
1T
MVMIER OF OISERT ICAS CU MV LATI7E
AT
if EEO TOTAL• REIIAR[S
FASSEMCER CARS IIC( TOTAL FERCEMT
60
79
d limit �`� Pace limits
66 Poste
37 % Above I i m i t 'I c;Y. % in pace
se '• speed 31 • c,s
Max. speed 1}�--. 85�
33
7< +
33
72
SS
70
<3 °
41
41
46 $
IS
IE
13 I 153 IEK>
42
�t
t0 157- 59
1
30
1 /S� 9 °
31 7- IqS 91
36 1 I'l'l
33 2 145 QS
3< 1q 143 911
37 5 Iba 90
32 '.5 135
31 7 I t(e o�.
30 10 L 1v
10 � l09 '71
23 SL
76 2-1 G5 3
27 11 L4 30 °
31
73 IS 3 ( 30
It 11
34
13 3 ..
3. I
7 7 2 L 2-
71
70
o +
je - U71i 171r311M1 hill it It
17 1M113 A1t1 i)131R74 le 1111717)
16
13
< 13
SPOT SPEED STUDY
Date: o t i5 q Location: ( >p{ v T, 41 e, e.; To C.,.s, .,,Direction:
Time Period Fran: �1 a To: •' a_ Weather.
Road Surface Cond.:
1 2 3 4 5
Speed Group Percent Cumulative Group
(mi/h) Frequency of Total Percent Mean @X C4
0-4 2
5-9 7
v 10-14
15-19 I. i I 17
_'20-2acl 9 2p 22 (,38 _
27
r 25-29 �5.. S(o . `l(o LL
'; a x'30-34 . . q : .• 19 322,a --
?"y 34-39 1'; . 5 IDS 37 .33
j.
40-44 42
45-49 47
50-54 52 .
55-59 57
60-64 62
- 65-69 67
: _ . .. Total
Total Count 153
855 Percentile 3 I ,
522.9
Average Speed 5 Total 2 .
GFro
APPENDIX B
CITY OF ASHLAND r'oFASN'
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division y+
MEMORANDUM ' •.°REGOa.:''
DATE: April 15, 1998
TO: Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
RE: OAK STREET-HERSEY STREET INTERSECTION
REQUEST
Following last month's Traffic Safety Meeting,traffic volumes and trends were analyzed for
both Oak and Hersey Streets. Current counts show a slight decline in Oak Street traffic
along with a significant increase (over 15%) in the Hersey Street traffic. Hersey Street has
shown a constant and steady increase to the point where warrants are now met for the
installation of a 4-way stop.
In discussion with the Oak Street sub-committee last week it was decided that a request
should be made for the installation of a 4-way stop at Hersey and Oak Streets.
BACKGROUND
With the creation of a 4-way stop, the intersection could be configured for the installation
of a traffic signal. By the creation of a dedicated left turn lane on each leg of the
intersection, virtually no additional changes would be required when a signal is installed.
It would, of course, be necessary.to restrict parking for a short distance from each
intersection.
The committee further recommended construction of 8-foot wide concrete at-grade cross-
walks at all legs of the intersection. The creation of a turn lane precludes the use of an
extended curb on the west side of the street to accommodate a sidewalk. The walk has
been shifted to the east side of the street from Hersey Street nearly to Crispin Street.
Another concrete cross-walk is shown near Crispin to accommodate this shift in sidewalks.
Changes are shown on the full sized plan available at the Traffic Safety Commission
meeting.
G:Dawn\Trafkoak-Hersey Street Intersection nnenno.wpd
A public/neighborhood meeting is tentatively planned for April 29'" at which time the
modified plan will be presented to the neighborhood and interested public.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff*recommends that the following actions be approved for the Oak/Hersey Street
intersection:
1. Concrete, at-grade cross-walks be installed on all four legs of the intersection.
2. Stop signs be installed at the four legs of the intersection.
3. Left turn lanes be marked at each of the four approaches.
4. Parking be prohibited on each street for the length of the lane transitions.
The above work to be installed in conjunction with the Oak Street Traffic Calming Project.
G:Dawn\TraftOak-Hersey street Intersection memomm
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATE FOR OAK STREET --
PEDESTRIAN & TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
by
CITY OF ASHLAND, ENGINEERING DIVISION
APRIL 27, 1998 (Revised August 14, 1998)
rrM DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT AMOUNT
NO. PRICE
1 Site work and mobilization Lump Sum $10,000.00 $10,000.00
2 Excavation 350 cy $20.00 $7,000.00
3 314'-0'Crushed Rock 200 cy $15.00 $3,000.00
4 Top soil 100 cy $20.00 $2,000.00
5 Concrete curb&gutter 170 LF $7.00 $1,190.00
6 Concrete walk 4'thick 12,000 SF $3.00 $36,000.00
7 Concrete walk,6' thick 4,400 SF $3.75 $16,500.00
8 Reinforced concrete surfacing,8' thick 1,800 SF $8.00 $14,400.00
9 Asphalt paving 40 tons $50.00 $2,000.00
10 Rubber speed hump 4 each $3,500.00 $14,000.00
11 Saw-cut asphalt 450 LF $1.50 $675.00
12 Asphalt removal 2,000 SF $1.50 $3,000.00
13 Concrete curb&gutter removal 120 LF $4.00 $480.00
14 Type C curb 120 LF $10.00 $1,200.00
15 Catch basin 4 each $700.00 $2,800.00
16 12' storm drain 80 LF $25.00 $2,000.00
17 Raised concrete intersection Lump Sum $20,000.00 $20,000.00
18 Asphalt grinding 600 SF $2.00 $1,200.00
19 Removal of concrete surfacing 400 SF $2.00 $800.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $138,245.00
ENGINEERING&ADMINISTRATION $13,825.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $152,070.00
G:DawdStreWOak SL Fstimate for Ped&TC P`ojca Revised 8-14.wpd '
APPENDIX D
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Public Works
+'pF ASN�
Engineering Division
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 1998 °REGO� '
TO: Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer
RE: Oak Street Traffic Calming & Truck Routing
REQUEST:
At the May 19'" City Council meeting, Mr. Greg Williams presented the attached memo to
the Council. In summary,the petition called for an analysis of the traffic flow on Oak Street
to see if the calming measures on Oak would increase traffic on Heiman Street. In
addition, the petition asked for a reestablishment of truck traffic on Oak Street.
BACKGROUND:
TRAFFIC VOLUMES:
In compliance with the petitions first request the Engineering staff was able to immediately
set out traffic counters on Oak, Heiman and adjacent streets and was able to get some
good data prior to the end of the school year. We will continue to monitor volumes on a
yearly basis.
TRUCK ROUTE:
Originally,this section of Oak Street between Hersey and Nevada Streets was constructed
to County standards. At that time a 1%2" oil mat was placed over a 6" rock base. The
street was improved in 1972. Although the street was widened, curbs and storm drains
added the structural section was only marginally improved. The section then consisted of
2" of asphalt on a 6" rock base. This design was not adequate to handle heavy truck
volumes and a weight limit was placed on the street. In 1974, Ordinance No. 1811 was
passed limiting the single axle weight to 20,000 pounds and tandem axle weights to 30,000
pounds. In 1987, the Engineering Staff prepared an asphalt overlay design to bring the
street's carrying capacity to full collector standards. The design assumed a 20 year life
span with a 5% growth rate and a 50% truck saturation. In 1988 Oak Street was overlaid
with a 2.5" overlay in accordance with design requirements.
When efforts were made by the Public Works crews to remove the weight limitations,
Council intervened to maintain the current limits in place.
Mr. Williams has asked the issue of truck routing again be addressed by the Council with
a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission.
The Oak Street, Eagle Mill Road route is one of the main routes to the central business
district and is a very busy route for passenger cars as well as trucks.
Truck drivers traveling south on Oak Street and who are not familiar with local truck routes
find their only alternative is to travel west on Nevada Street and continue south on Heiman
Street. Heiman Street, as pointed out in the petition is not a particularly desirable truck
route for the following reasons:
a. There are virtually no sidewalks on Heiman Street.
b. Heiman School is located on Heiman Street at Laurel Street.
C. Heiman Street is narrower than Oak Street with unrestricted parking.
d. The structural section on Heiman Street is less adequate than that of Oak
Street.
On the opposite side of the argument, Heiman Street does offer a better entrance to the
central business area with the signal at North Main Street.
It is hoped the Commission might draft a position statement or recommendation that can
be presented to the Council for its consideration.
G:Oawn%Traftoak Street Truck Traffic Memo.wpd
Chanter 11.60
TRUCK ROUTES
Sections:
11.60.010 Regulations.
11.60.015 Restricted hours.
11.60.020 Oak Street.
11.60.030 Emergency Vehicles.
11.60.040 Penalties.
11 60.010 Regulations. Based on ORS 483.542, u. S. Highway 99 and Oregon State
Highway 66 are hereby designated as truck routes within the City of Ashland and
motor vehicles having a licensed gross vehicle weight of over 19,999 pounds, shall not
use, travel, or be parked upon any other streets in the City of Ashland except where
such motor vehicles are using said streets for the purpose of making a delivery or
picking up a load, or traveling to and from a fueling facility in the City of Ashland, by
the most direct route possible. Nothing contained herein shall prevent an owner or
operator from taking a motor vehicle to the residence of such owner or operator so
long as the motor vehicle is not left here for a period longer than is reasonably
necessary for owner or perators (Ord: 1813 S1; Ord. 1816gS1, 1974; Olyd.n2226 S1, 1982)or the
11. 0.015 Restricted Hours. The City Council may, by Resolution, specify certain
streets that must be used for access to and from commercial and industrial areas, and
may specify the hours that trucks may be confined to the use of such streets. (Ord.
2226 S2, 1982)
11.60.020 Oak Street. Oak Street between Hersey Street and Nevada Street shall
only be used by delivery trucks, as set forth in the preceding section, that have a
maximum weight of the combined load and vehicle which does not exceed the
following limits:
A. The combined gross weight in pounds bearing on the surface of the road
at contact with the tread of the wheels of any single axle of a truck or
truck-tractor shall not exceed twenty thousand (20,000) pounds.
B. The combined gross weight in pounds bearing on the surface of the road
at contact with the tread of the wheels of dual or tandem S2, axles shall not
exceed thirty thousand (30,000) pounds.
11 60 030 Emergency Vehicles. Nothing contained herein shall limit the use of the
City streets by emergency vehicles or by municipal vehicles when necessary for
municipal purposes. (Ord. 1811 S3, 1974).
Title 11 Page 47
'Traffic Calming Measures on Oak Street May Have the Unintended Effect
of Increasing Traffic at Heiman School & on Heiman and Laurel Streets .
May 16, 1998
The Concern
• That after traffic calming measures, planned for this year, are implemented on Oak Street,
traffic on Heiman and Laurel streets may significantly increase, due to diversion of traffic
from Oak Street.
• After street improvements are completed, there will be sidewalks and, improved street
crossings on Oak Street. Yet all truck traffic will continue to be diverted by City ordinance,
mainly to Heiman Street, where there is an elementary school and no sidewalks.
• That it will not be clear that we support Oak Street residents improving their neighborhood,
as long as improvements there do not significantly impact our neighborhood.
Given These Concerns, We, the Undersigned, Urge the City Council to Take the
Following Steps:
1) The City take a comprehensive look at how changes on Oak Street may change traffic flow
from Eagle Mill Road to downtown Ashland. At a minimum, we ask that the City undertake
simultaneous traffic counts, before school ends, and before construction on Oak Street begins,
on Oak, Heiman, and Laurel streets. In approximately one year, the counts be retaken at the
same locations. If the ratio of traffic changes significantly towards more traffic on Heiman and
Laurel Streets, that the City Council re-evaluate the traffic calming measures on Oak Street.
2) The truck route section of City ordinances (Chapter 11.60.020) singling out Oak Street for
reduced truck traffic, be deleted, and the weight limit signs be removed.
aignatu a Printed Nam Address
A 3 eV
L. 1 K 3015
///LL(i/4�C./ `��il�C�{ /�L /"� /C ? OT/Z/✓t�'2 ��l^/ L
'l
`" In /�I'6 ?12 f-1,W7r , 11
Traffic Calming Measures on Oak Street May Have the Unintended Effect .
of Increasing Traffic at Helman School & on Heiman and Laurel Streets
May 16, 1998
The Concerns
• That after traffic calming measures, planned for this year, are implemented on Oak Street,
traffic on Heiman and Laurel streets may significantly increase, due to diversion of traffic
from Oak Street.
• After street improvements are completed, there will be sidewalks and, improved street
crossings on Oak Street. Yet all truck traffic will continue to be diverted by City ordinance,
mainly to Heiman Street, where there is an elementary school and no sidewalks.
• That it will not be clear that we support Oak Street residents improving their neighborhood,
as long as improvements there do not significantly impact our neighborhood.
Given These Concerns, We, the Undersigned, Urge the City Council to Take the
Following Steps:
1) The City take a comprehensive look at how changes on Oak Street may change traffic flow
from Eagle Mill Road to downtown Ashland. At a minimum, we ask that the City undertake
simultaneous traffic counts, before school ends, and before construction on Oak Street begins,
on Oak, Heiman, and Laurel streets. In approximately one year, the counts be retaken at the
same locations. If the ratio of traffic changes significantly towards more traffic on Heiman and
Laurel Streets, that the City Council re-evaluate the traffic calming measures on Oak Street.
2) The truck route section of City ordinances (Chapter 11.60.020) singling out Oak Street for
reduced truck traffic, be deleted, and the weight limit signs be removed.
-1 a0 )C C✓,02- Q%j (�e
i tore Tinted ame ddress C
V-� �
Gi~L4
I A I DKq
��cant p,-uC-✓�'
�7- c[/!�/
/ /J
ti 1 jai v JPr17C Sou �?I IU,11('
rlyu e-120
�. eC _ �GJ./.,� i_dl_ -- � S�LL1_� .•,�fiv_.yn�il�,c�a y/.Q'' .vs.�.uA�! /1Sf/[l7.uDG� 97.5�a
. Traffic Calming Measures on Oak Street May Have the Unintended Effect
of Increasing Traffic at Heiman School & on Heiman and Laurel Streets
May 16, 1998
The Concerns
• That after traffic calming measures, planned for this year, are implemented on Oak Street,
traffic on Helman and Laurel streets may significantly increase, due to diversion of traffic
from Oak Street.
• After street improvements are completed, there will be sidewalks and, improved street
crossings on Oak Street. Yet all truck traffic will continue to be diverted by City ordinance,
mainly to Helman Street, where there is an elementary school and no sidewalks.
• That it will not be clear that we support Oak Street residents improving their neighborhood,
as long as improvements there do not significantly impact our neighborhood.
Given These Concerns, We, the Undersigned, Urge the City Council to Take the
Following Steps:
1) The City take a comprehensive look at how changes on Oak Street may change traffic flow
from Eagle Mill Road to downtown Ashland. At a minimum, we ask that the City undertake
simultaneous traffic counts, before school ends, and before construction on Oak Street begins,
on Oak, Helman, and Laurel streets. In approximately one year, the counts be retaken at the
same locations. If the ratio of traffic changes significantly towards more traffic on Helman and
Laurel Streets, that the City Council re-evaluate the traffic calming measures on Oak Street.
2) The truck route section of City ordinances (Chapter 11.60.020) singling out Oak Street for
reduced truck traffic, be deleted, and the weight limit signs be removed.
i ature Printed Nam Address
.s ;D(, ,.� �jat/; c�#sk►rt�— 468 awe,
i,� L N bb ge ,.1owJ t{� L4
Traffic Calming Measures on Oak Street May Have the Unintended Effect
of Increasing Traffic at Helman School & on Heiman and Laurel Streets
May 16, 1998
The Concerns
• That after traffic calming measures, planned for this year, are implemented on Oak Street,
traffic on Helman and Laurel streets may significantly increase, due to diversion of traffic
from Oak Street.
• After street improvements are completed, there will be sidewalks and, improved street
crossings on Oak Street. Yet all truck traffic will continue to be diverted by City ordinance,
mainly to Helman Street, where there is an elementary school and no sidewalks.
• That it will not be clear that we support Oak Street residents improving their neighborhood,
as long as improvements there do not significantly impact our neighborhood.
Given These Concerns, We, the Undersigned, Urge the City Council to Take the
Following Steps:
1) The City take a comprehensive look at how changes on Oak Street may change traffic flow
from Eagle Mill Road to downtown Ashland. At a minimum, we ask that the City undertake
simultaneous traffic counts, before school ends, and before construction on Oak Street begins,
on Oak, Helman, and Laurel streets. In approximately one year, the counts be retaken at the
same locations. If the ratio of traffic changes significantly towards more traffic on Helman and
Laurel Streets, that the City Council re-evaluate the traffic calming measures on Oak Street.
2) The truck route section of City ordinances (Chapter 11.60.020) singling out Oak Street for
reduced truck traffic, be deleted, and the weight limit signs be removed.
i nature Printed Name Address
Nice
O
'F"4 0n1 �-
,SC.c� c�JG r)
uSM) 0
,/ 4�
uw l� c sr lies fLi ?mil . r
y I I A �
Traffic Calming Measures on Oak Street May Have the Unintended Effect
of Increasing Traffic at Heiman School & on Heiman and Laurel Streets
May 16, 1998
The Concerns
• That after traffic calming measures, planned for this year, are implemented on Oak Street,
traffic on Heiman and Laurel streets may significantly increase, due to diversion of traffic
from Oak Street.
• After street improvements are completed, there will be sidewalks and, improved street
crossings on Oak Street. Yet all truck traffic will continue to be diverted by City ordinance,
mainly to Heiman Street, where there is an elementary school and no sidewalks.
• That it will not be clear that we support Oak Street residents improving their neighborhood,
as long as improvements there do not significantly impact our neighborhood.
Given These Concerns, We, the Undersigne4, Urge the City Council to Take the
Following Steps:
1) The City take a comprehensive look at how changes on Oak Street may change traffic flow
from Eagle Mill Road to downtown Ashland. At a minimum, we ask that the City undertake
simultaneous traffic counts, before school ends, and.before construction on Oak Street begins,
on Oak, Heiman, and Laurel streets. In approximately one year, the counts be retaken at the
same locations. If the ratio of traffic changes significantly towards more traffic on Helman and
Laurel Streets, that the City Council re-evaluate the traffic calming measures on Oak Street.
2) The truck route section of City ordinances (Chapter 11.60.020) singling out Oak Street for
reduced truck traffic, be deleted, and the weight limit signs be removed.
atu a Printed Name Address
c� �L N Sa cw A.,EV,4 CfI4
am
a v
JAd
L A S
R S �---
s Sas'� gran
RECYCLED APPENDIX E
Technology, Inc . ■
19475 SW TETON AVENUE •TUALATIN,OREGON 97062 •TEL 503 6915845 • FAX 503 692 9503
Finally '. The correct solution to controlling traffic speeds!
Recycled Technology's
�a rubber traffic speed
control device Model
RTSR-25 calms traffic
to 25 MPH.
Recycled Technology's portable, recycled rubber speed restrictor provides the solution
traffic engineers have sought:
• Quickly installed, easily removed and relocated
• Unaffected by the weather
• Parabolic profile unchanged by traffic or heat
• Uniform, consistent performance
• Adaptable to speeds between 20 - 50 MPH
Provides an efficient, cost-effective safe traffic environment wherever excessive speed
and safety is a concern:
• Residential communities • Construction areas
• School zones • Parking lots
• Shopping malls • Special events
• Arterials • Parks and Playgrounds
ow
Manufacturers of Recycled Rubber Products to
Technology, Inc . a
. 19475 SW TETON AVENUE •TUALATIN,OREGON 97062 •TEL 503 6915845 • FAX 503 692 9503
SPECIFICATIONS
• Density -68 pounds per cubic foot
• Tensile -254psi
• Durometer Shore A 62 - 65
• Elongation - 140%
Panel dimensions 2' W x 7' L. measuring 3" H at center seam and 1/8"
at approach edge
Anchor plates and edge restraints A-36 steel
Paintable surface
Skid resistant surface Edge Restraint
7'
40 00000 (D00000000
TO0000 .0000000000
; 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000 02.
Y) 00000000000000
000000000000000
00000000000000
3
Anchor Plate Detail Edge Restraint Detail
INSTALLATION
1. Establish centerline perpendicular to curb
2. Lay anchor plates on centerline, drill through holes in anchor plates, and
attach to roadway
3. Attach panels, back to back, to anchor plates beginning at one edge of
speed restrictor
4. Install leading edge restraints on traffic approach side
- 10 year conditional warranty -
Manufacturers of Recycled Rubber Products
) 00000
X, 0
0000
0000 0
E
0 a
0
0 0 0-"
=6
'D o
o 0 00 0
000 0
1000 Q
--
z ) 00e9 a W
F0
m a
P4 0 ®� 0 3
Ek
a 0 o N
000 a H
n 6000000 0 0
ca
1 O a
c
O
W N
�' a
®00 0000 H
w
) 0 X00 0 0
a
000 0000
00 0000 0000
0 0 00 000
00 0000 0000 OM ..
1 000 00 0
0 00 0 00
) 00 000 000 000
D 0 000 0 00
00 0000
000 0000
0000000000 00 00
�O r)
Council Communication
Public Works Department
August 19, 1998
(Study Session)
Submitted by: Paula Brown(
Approved by: Mike Freeman Af-
Title:
Request for Closure of Winburn Way on Summer Sundays
Synopsis:
At the June 25, 1998, Traffic Safety Commission meeting, staff received a request from Mr.
Frank Binelle (240 Hersey Street#9)to close vehicular access on Winburn Way from Nutley
Street to Granite Street on Sundays during the Summer months. The Traffic Safety Commission
determined that the issue was not strictly a traffic safety issue and recommended the request be
reviewed by the City Council.
Recommendation:
It is City Staff and Parks Department recommendation that Winburn Way remain open as a
through street for all modes of transportation throughout the year.
Background Information:
Winburn Way serves as a main connection to Lithia Park,the upper parks areas, and to
downtown. Although there was great cooperation from local merchants and others during the
street closure for the bridge reconstruction it was also viewed as quite disruptive to the park and
downtown areas.
Mr. Binelli's proposal cites benefits to the non-vehicular users of the street, as well as air quality,
noise pollution and safety benefits if the street is closed to vehicular traffic on Sundays. Mr.
Binelli suggests that the street could be left open to electric vehicles which would further
complicate enforcing the closure.
Staff, with the help of the Parks Department, researched past requests for Winburn Way closures
and found the proposal to be particularly unpopular. The Police Department expressed concern
with the ability to enforce the closure, especially with the proposal to allow electric or other non-
petroleum operated vehicles.
Council Communication
Public Works Department
August 19, 1998
(Study Session)
Submitted by: Paula Browne
Approved by: Mike Freem �'�
Title:
Status Update on the Off-Site Portion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Synopsis:
Staff will update Council on the current status of the off-site portion of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements.
Recommendation:
Information only. Council is not being requested to take action other than providing feedback
and direction to staff.
Background Information:
Design is currently approximately 60%complete and is expected to be finalized in February. We
anticipate final DEQ review and approval in April 1999. Upon receiving approvals,the project
will be bid and construction should start in late spring or early summer 1999. This project is tied
to our DEQ Mutual Agreement and Order which requires the entire wastewater treatment
operation to be in full compliance with our new permit by December 31, 2000.
Staff will be prepared to discuss the following portions of the off-site spray irrigation and
biosolids management and reuse programs:
► Project History
► DEQ Regulatory Processes
► TID Concerns
► Neighbors Concerns
► Jackson County Issues
► Proposed Options for Farming the Property
► Next Steps
Your input on these matters, or questions regarding related issues are greatly appreciated. Staff
will continue to periodically update you on this portion of the project, as well as the Process
Improvements of the "On-Site"portion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements.
` .
Z ; ` 2
�\ / � � : WZ
� �22
. � . . � x ` 10(
Z � . § ` nm ; ; ■ ~�
BLJ & & / / ®
| .
k § § 29w §
= �) §, cr
2 .
m�
/ . !
-� . . 2
S
j W 2-
\ k§ ƒ +
�§d
■• W.
\ \a/
�
— ° )
. �
� s 2
Ri
�p
r
( j� O
§
§ ° !§ ' \
r i ) `
w 9§�
- zx\ /'1 §
gr .
.M7 — + + ' \ + / + B|"M® (\
Z