Foster Road DRAFT Cross-Section Alternatives Evaluation 2.19.13

FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Portland Bureau of Transportation
DRAFT FOSTER ROAD CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

As part of the process of selecting potential cross section alternatives, PBOT staff, with assistance from the projects Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), developed a range of options for different segments along Foster Road. This report summarizes the recommended cross section options to be further evaluated using a multimodal evaluation framework. This framework is designed to narrow the range of alternatives based on goal-oriented metrics and determine the combination of alternatives that provide the greatest benefit to the corridors users.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff proposes the following alternatives for further analysis. This range allows a wide range of options to be analyzed and for potential refinements as the process moves on. West Segment: 50th to 72nd Existing configuration: Four general travel lanes, 17-foot sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides, and no bicycle lanes Option 1: Three general travel lanes, 17-ft sidewalks, on street parking on both sides, and bicycle lanes Option 2: Four general travel lanes, 12-foot sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides, and bicycle lanes Option 6 (new): Four general travel lanes, 17-ft sidewalks with bicycle facilities, and on street parking on both sides Option 7 (new): Four general travel lanes, 17-ft sidewalks, on street parking on one side only, and bicycle lanes Option 8 (new): Four general travel lanes (with protime parking on both sides), 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes Existing configuration: Four general travel lanes (with generally unused protime parking), 13-15-ft sidewalks, on street parking on one side, no bicycle lanes Option 2: Three general travel lanes instead of four, 13-15-ft sidewalks, parking on one side, and bicycle lanes Option 5 (new): Four general travel lanes, 13-15-ft sidewalks, no parking, and bicycle lanes Option 6 (under development for future evaluation): Four general travel lanes (with protime parking on both sides), 13-15-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1
Central Segment: 72nd to 80th
FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Portland Bureau of Transportation East Segment: 80th to 90th Existing configuration: Four general travel lanes (with generally unused protime parking), 5-ft sidewalks, on street parking on one side, and no bicycle lanes Option 2: Four general travel lanes, 5-ft sidewalks, no parking, and bicycle lanes Option 3: Three general travel lanes instead of four, 5-ft sidewalks, parking on one side, and bicycle lanes Option 7 (under development for future evaluation): Four general travel lanes (with protime parking on both sides), 5-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes
To reiterate the methodology were using, these are typical cross sections that would apply generally for much of a particular segment. At intersections and other locations with unique design challenges (e.g., driveways, areas with limited sightline, etc.), special designs and modifications may be needed to address issues of road geometry, adjacent land uses, traffic volumes and other characteristics.
West Segment WEST SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION
Existing configuration with four travel lanes, 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides and no bicycle lanes
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
WEST SEGMENT
OPTION 1
Three general travel lanes, 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides and bicycle lanes
WEST SEGMENT
OPTION 2
Four general travel lanes, 12-foot sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides, and bicycle lanes
WEST SEGMENT
OPTION 6 (NEW)
Four general travel lanes, on street parking on both sides, and 17-17.5-ft sidewalks with bicycle facilities
WEST SEGMENT
OPTION 7 (NEW)
Four general travel lanes, 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, on-street parking on one side only and bicycle lanes
WEST SEGMENT
OPTION 8 (NEW)
Four general travel lanes (protime parking on both sides), 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes
Central Segment CENTRAL SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION
Existing configuration with four travel lanes (with generally unused protime parking), 13-15-ft sidewalks and on street parking on one side, no bicycle lanes
CENTRAL SEGMENT
OPTION 2
Three general travel lanes instead of four, 13-15-ft sidewalks, parking on one side and bicycle lanes
CENTRAL SEGMENT
OPTION 5 (NEW)
Four general travel lanes instead of four, 13-15-ft sidewalks, no parking and bicycle lanes
CENTRAL SEGMENT
OPTION 6 (NEW)
UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR FUTURE EVALUATION
Four general travel lanes (with protime parking on both sides), 13-15-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes
East Segment EAST SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION
Existing configuration with four travel lanes (with generally unused protime parking), 5ft sidewalks and on street parking on one side, no bicycle lanes
EAST SEGMENT
OPTION 2
Four general travel lanes, 5-ft sidewalks, no parking, and bicycle lanes
EAST SEGMENT
OPTION 3
Three general travel lanes instead of four, 5-ft sidewalks, parking on one side, and bicycle lanes
EAST SEGMENT
OPTION 7 (NEW)
UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR FUTURE EVALUATION
Four general travel lanes (with protime parking on both sides), 5-ft sidewalks, and buffered bike lanes
EVALUATION OF CROSS SECTION OPTIONS

Foster Rd for each of the three segments (west, center, east)
How to interpret the results

At the last SAC meeting in December 2012, City staff and stakeholders agreed to advance 11 options (including existing conditions) for cross sections for Foster Rd. The SAC also agreed to a general set of criteria to evaluate them. Staff has applied relevant measures to each criterion. The measures include quantitative and qualitative information. The information has been standardized using a ranking from 0 to 2 to provide a total score. A table on page 13 is provided with some generalized information about each measure used. It includes a score at the bottom, to be compared with the maximum score possible. Note that the higher the number between 0 and 2, the better the option performs under a measure/criteria. Finally, the evaluation analysis and its results are to be used as guidelines to help us develop full corridor length alternatives, from west to east. The results indicate general tendencies and are not to be interpreted as showing the preferred option or the worst option since the cross sections for each segment ultimately need to work together.
Summary of results
Below is a summary of the results. Given the number of options and measures, it is not practical to address all measures.
Total score
The options with three lanes of traffic consistently score the highest number of points in all three segments. The existing conditions option scored lowest in the west segment and higher in the other segments. It received high scores for cost and traffic and scored lowest on providing bicycle facilities and safety. The west segments scored higher, reflecting the more opportunities provided by the wider right-of-way and wide sidewalks. On the other hand, the east segment options scored much lower, due primarily to its deficient pedestrian and streetscape environment and parking loss.
Streetscape
Options that retain wide sidewalks (12ft or wider) scored highest. The cycle track option partially provides space, primarily at the corners where the bicycle facility leaves the sidewalk. The east segments scored lowest since they dont provide sidewalks wide enough to allow sidewalk cafes and lingering (though it would be provided with redevelopment.)
Parking
Options that provide parking on both sides of the street scored highest. Options that dont provide parking scored lowest (option 5 in the central segment and option 2 in the east segment). The cycle track option could take out as much as a third of the available on-street parking; no parking on one side removes roughly half the parking supply.
Cost
Cost for each option varied significantly. The existing condition options had the lowest cost. The options with three travel lanes had the second lowest estimated cost (up to $600,000 for the west segment, the longest.) Option 2 in the west segment, which moves the curb back from 17 ft to 12 ft was the most expensive option (over $4 million). The cycle track cost estimate is about $2 million. Note: these are rough preliminary figures subject to change.
Safety
Options that narrow the crossing distance and number of travel lanes scored better. Options with three lanes scored better than options with four lanes. National studies indicate that a change in a corridor having four travel lanes to three generally decreases incidents for all modes by about 30%.
Pedestrian
The east segment options scored lowest due to the narrow sidewalks and lack of buffer between pedestrians and moving traffic. West segment options scored highest due to the wide sidewalks and bigger buffers provided by on-street parking and bicycle lanes. Wider sidewalks allow for larger trees and stormwater management. The east segment is the most limited in this regard.
Motor vehicles
Existing options and options with four lanes scored highest in terms of higher speed of traffic and less traffic delay and congestion at intersections. Options with three lanes scored lowest, as the effects of going from four to three lanes are significant, lowering travel speeds and increasing travel times and delay. The options with three lanes lead to significant diversion of traffic that otherwise would be on Foster to Rd onto other roads. The impact on other roads is not large, with the exception of Holgate that would see a doubling of traffic during the PM peak hours. Holgate would still operate under traffic capacity.
Transit
Options that provide 10 ft travel lanes do not accommodate streetcar. Options that provide 10ft travel lanes and 6 ft bicycle lanes could be converted to 11 ft travel lanes, but at the expense of cyclists. Several options accommodate a potential future streetcar. The three lane options, by increasing travel time along Foster, may have impacts on transit performance, though they may be mitigated. Options that provide wide sidewalks or curb extensions could allow for transit stop amenities such as bus shelters.
Bicycle
Options that provide bicycle facilities (bicycle lanes or cycletracks) scored better than the existing cross section options as they meet bicycle policy and provide safer and more convenient options for cyclists. Providing bicycle facilities lead to a significant increase in the number of cyclists riding on Foster Rd and the study area. Bicycle facilities allow for a shorter way to travel (instead of zigzagging through the neighborhood), and a more complete bicycle network in the area, with multiple connections to adjacent bikeways.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
West Segment
Middle Segment
East Segment
No parking Opt 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3-lane parking one side Opt 3 0 1 1 0 2 2
DRAFT
Criteria
Streetscape, Business
Street furniture, improvements to Sb1 the business environment Provides adequate on-street Pk1 parking for commercial patrons and Pk2 loading uses Pk3 Estimated costs and funding feasibility Provides safety improvements C1 S1
3-lane FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION one Key Narrow sidewalk Parking 3-lane Cycletrack parking one No parking Portland Bureau of Transportation Existing to 12ft side Existing Existing side 0 1 2 Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 6 Opt 7 Opt 2 Opt 5 Adequate clear space for sidewalk cafes and lingering Does not comply Complies only at Complies (8' for 17ft sidewalk, 6' for 12ft sidewalk or less) corners/curb extensions 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0
Specific Measure
On-street parking
Amount of parking loss Effect of parking loss on existing land uses Effect of parking on future land uses based on current zoning/comp plan designations Planning-level cost estimate
All parking lost
Cost
One third to half parking lost Parking lost in Parking lost in low use high/moderate use area area Removes parking in Removes parking in high growth area moderate growth area > $3 million $1 - $3 million N/A
No parking loss No parking loss No parking loss < $1 million 30% decrease in injuries 50-60ft with 3 lanes
2 2 2 2 0
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 2 0
2 2 2 2 0
1 1 1 2 2
0 1 1 2 0
2 2 2 2 0
S2 Improves the pedestrian environment, including crossings and sidewalk conditions Pd1 Pd2
Likelihood of type and severity of all types of crashes No change (from AASHTO report on effect of change from 4 to 3 lanes) Crossing distance and number of lanes > 60ft with 4 lanes Sidewalk width per Pedestrian Design Guideline Does not comply (5 ft or less) Buffers from auto lanes from pedestrian through zone 8ft or less on one or both sides Opportunities for stormwater management, large trees None and other green features Allows median islands No
Safety
50-60ft with 4 lanes Partially complies (between 6 and 11.5ft) 9-14ft for both sides of the street
1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
0 2 2 2
1 2 2 2
1 2 2 2
1 2 1 2
2 2 1 2
1 2 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 1
Pd3 Pd4
Complies (12ft and over) More than 14ft on both sides of the street Only with curb extensions In planter strip and curb extensions Yes, but with parking loss Yes, using center turn lane and without parking loss Moderate decrease No change/increase No change N/A Complies
Pedestrian
1 2 2 0 2
2 1 0 1 1 2 1
1 2 2 0 2 2 2
1 2 2 0 2 2 2
1 2 2 0 2 1 2
1 2 2 0 2 2 2
2 1 0 1 1 2 1
0 2 2 0 2 0 2
1 2 2 0 2 2 2
0 2 2 0 2 0 2
2 1 0 1 1 1 1
Motor Vehicles
Provides smooth travel for vehicles MV1 and access opportunities MV2 MV3 MV4
Change in travel speed (MPH, PM peak) Traffic diversion as percentage of total traffic Increased/decreased access via left turn
Significant decrease Moderate to high No center lane and two opposing lanes Does not comply (over acceptable congestion levels) Does not
Transit
Accommodates present and future T1 transit, including Streetcar per the Portland Streetcar System Concept T2 Plan T3
Low to moderate Center turn lane and one opposing lane Level of Service for signalized intersections (level of Marginally complies (close traffic delay) or at limit for acceptable congestion levels) Travel lanes accommodate streetcar (11' min) Could with some modifications Corridor speed effect on transit reliability and May require more buses Longer travel time but scheduling or longer headways mitigation may be Allows for enhanced transit stops via wide sidewalk at Narrow sidewalk and no possible using standard One side bus stops curb extension possible sidewalk/no curb extension, or narrow sidewalk/curb extension Bicycle facility and degree of separation Does not comply (no facility) Up to 1/3 growth Zero No change Complies minimally (5ft bike lane) 1/3 to 2 times growth fewer than 3 < 30% decrease
Does No change Both sides using wide sidewalks plus potential for curb extension Complies (6 ft bike lane or buffered/separated) 2 times to 8 times growth 3 or more 30% or more decrease Max score: 46
2 2
Bicycle
Implements bicycle facility along B1 the Foster corridor per the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 B2 B3 B4
0 0 0 0 30
2 2 2 2 38
2 2 2 2 35 Narrow sidewalk to 12ft
2 2 2 2 31 Cycletrack
2 2 2 2 32 Parking one side
0 0 0 0 29 Existing
1 2 2 1 32 3-lane parking one side
1 2 2 1 26 No parking
0 1 0 0 22 Existing
1 2 2 2 19 No parking
2 2 2 2 25 3-lane parking one side
Increased cyclists on Foster Rd at key locations 20102035 Connections into existing bicycle network Change in bicycle travel distance
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 133-lane Existing
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CORRIDOR-WIDE CROSS SECTION OPTIONS

This section summarizes the proposed cross section options applied across the Foster Road corridor in plan view as unique corridor design options. These corridor design options are based on dimensional constraints and right-of-way demands at major commercial nodes. The graphics on the following pages summarize these options.
Plan view of cross section options Four lane cross section (with protime parking) from SE 52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks and buffered bike lanes Cross section from SE 72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue to be developed and evaluated Cross section from SE SE 80th Avenue to SE 90th Avenue to be developed and evaluated
Plan view of cross section options Three lane cross section from SE 52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on both sides Three lane cross section from SE 72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue includes 13-15ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on one side Three lane cross section from SE SE 80th Avenue to SE 90th Avenue includes 5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on one side
Plan view of cross section options Four lane cross section from SE 52nd Avenue to SE Holgate includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks, cycle tracks and parking on both sides Three lane cross section from SE Holgate to SE 72nd Avenue includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on both sides Three lane cross section from SE 72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue includes 13-15ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on one side Three lane cross section from SE SE 80th Avenue to SE 90th Avenue includes 5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on one side
Plan view of cross section west segment sub-options Between SE 52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue, cross sections may shift interchangeably based on competing demands for sidewalk space and economic activity using two four-lane cross sections variations, including a: Four lane cross section with 17-17.5ft sidewalks, cycle tracks and parking on both sides Four lane cross section with 12ft sidewalks, bike lanes, and parking on both sides
Plan view of cross section options Four lane cross section from SE 52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and parking on one side Four lane cross section from SE 72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue includes 13-15ft sidewalks, bike lanes and no parking Four lane cross section from SE SE 80th Avenue to SE 90th Avenue includes 5ft sidewalks, bike lanes and no parking

Foster Road DRAFT Cross-Section Alternatives Evaluation 2.19.13

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Foster Road DRAFT Cross-Section Alternatives Evaluation 2.19.13

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Portland Bureau of Transportation

DRAFT FOSTER ROAD CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Central Segment: 72nd to 80th

West Segment WEST SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5

Central Segment CENTRAL SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6

UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR FUTURE EVALUATION

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7

East Segment EAST SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8

UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR FUTURE EVALUATION

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9

EVALUATION OF CROSS SECTION OPTIONS

How to interpret the results

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12

All parking lost

2 2 2 2 35 Narrow sidewalk to 12ft

2 2 2 2 32 Parking one side

1 2 2 1 32 3-lane parking one side

2 2 2 2 25 3-lane parking one side

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 133-lane Existing

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14

CORRIDOR-WIDE CROSS SECTION OPTIONS

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 15

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 16

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 17

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 18

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 19

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 20

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 21

Вам также может понравиться