appendix b. public involvementpontiaclivability.org/pdfs/draft_final_reports/appendix...suburban...

Prepared for by

Appendix B. Public InvolvementDowntown Pontiac Transportation Assessment

DRAFT • June 28, 2013

DRAFT • Appendix B • i

Table of Contents

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN ................................................................... 3

1.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPROACH ..................................................................... 3

1.1 Public Outreach Summary ..................................................................................... 5

1.2 Project Team Meetings ............................................................................................ 7

1.2.1 Project Advisory Team ............................................................................... 7

1.2.2 Community Advisory Group .................................................................... 7

1.2.3 Public Agency Meeting .............................................................................. 8

1.3 Public Meetings Summary ...................................................................................... 9

1.3.1 Community Workshop #1, March 17, 2012 ............................................. 9

1.3.2 Community Workshop #2, June 12, 2012 .............................................. 10

1.3.3 Community Workshop #3, September 26, 2012 .................................... 11

1.4 Online Survey and Comment Forms .................................................................. 11

2.0 URBAN DESIGN CHARRETTE REPORT ............................................................... 18

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 18

2.1.1 Why Is The Loop Wrong For The Future Of Pontiac? ......................... 18

2.1.2 Why Craft A Vision? ................................................................................ 19

2.2 Overview of Recommended Improvements ...................................................... 19

2.2.1 Specific Opportunities – A Neighborhood Approach ......................... 22

2.2.2 The Southern Gateway ............................................................................. 22

2.2.3 Parke Street ................................................................................................ 23

2.2.4 Lafayette Neighborhood .......................................................................... 24

2.2.5 Woodward Ave ......................................................................................... 25

2.3 Huron Street (M‐59) ............................................................................................... 26

2.4 Complete Street Design Components ................................................................. 27

2.4.1 What are Complete Streets? .................................................................... 28

2.4.2 Achieving State Complete Street Goals ................................................. 28

2.5 Kickstarting the Process ........................................................................................ 29

3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 45

DRAFT • Appendix B • ii

List of Tables Table B‐1: Combined Questionnaire Results ........................................................................... 13

Table B‐2: Online Survey Questionnaire Results .................................................................... 14

Table B‐3: Community Workshop # 1, March 17, 2012 Questionnaire Results .................. 15

Table B‐4: Community Workshop # 2, June 12, 2012 Questionnaire Results ..................... 16

Table B‐5: Community Workshop # 3, September 26, 2012 Questionnaire Results........... 17

List of Figures Figure B‐1: Project Home Page .................................................................................................... 5

Figure B‐2: Idea Map .................................................................................................................... 9

Figure B‐3: Recommended Alternative .................................................................................... 21

Figure B‐4: Southern Gateway .................................................................................................. 23

Figure B‐5: Parke Street .............................................................................................................. 24

Figure B‐6: Lafayette Neighborhood ........................................................................................ 25

Figure B‐7: Woodward Avenue ................................................................................................ 26

Figure B‐8: Huron Street (M‐59) ................................................................................................ 27

Acronyms Used in this Document

DDA Downtown Development Authority

ADA American with Disabilities Act

ADT Average Daily Traffic

APTA American Public Transportation Association

FTA Federal Transit Administration

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

LID Low Impact Development

LOS Level of Service

SMART Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit

SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

DRAFT • Appendix B • 3

Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan

The purpose of this study is to improve the connectivity between downtown Pontiac, the

adjacent neighborhoods, and the broader community by adapting the Woodward Loop

transportation network. This transportation network includes the street, sidewalk, and bike

path system. It is envisioned that adapting the network will improve livability and the long

term economic health of the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Oakland County

Planning & Economic Development Services, in partnership with the City of Pontiac, applied

for and was awarded a TIGER II program of the USDOT Grant in October 2010, from which this

study is funded.

Appendix C: Public Involvement Plan (PIP) (1) summarizes Oakland County’s and City of

Pontiac’s commitment to public involvement and (2) identifies the array of public involvement

activities focused on informing the broad range of stakeholders at specific stages during the

Downtown Pontiac Transportation Assessment Study. The plan defines the methods relied

upon to invite public inquiry and comment. A comprehensive outreach program was used to

inform residents and project stakeholders of the study’s progress and provide the forum to

receive questions and comments that were reviewed as part of the decision‐making process.

This material is based upon work supported by the FHWA under Cooperative Agreement No.

P‐27. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the FHWA.

1.0 Public Involvement Approach

Starting in November 2011, over 400 stakeholders including

residents and nearly 30 groups have participated in the

Project Advisory Team (PAT), Community Advisory Group

(CAG), community workshops, planning charrette and other

local meetings. Oakland County has presented the project

findings and recommended improvements to the Pontiac

City Council, Pontiac Downtown Business Association,

Pontiac Planning Commission and to numerous Pontiac

groups including, Golden Opportunity Club, Pastoral

Alliance and Rotary.


The evaluation methodology in the Public Involvement Plan was divided into three evaluation

stages, with three community workshops:

Community Workshop #1, March 17, 2012 ‐ Explain the study and identify alternatives

for the Woodward Loop.

Community Workshop #2, June 11‐13, 2012 ‐ Three day charrette to refine the

alternatives.

Community Workshop #3, September 26, 2012 ‐ Present the recommended alternative to

the public.

Prior to the public meetings and at key stages in the project schedule, the Project Advisory

Team (PAT) held six meetings to brief Oakland County, MDOT, SEMCOG, and other agencies.

Additionally, Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings were held open to the public seven

times at the CroFoot in downtown Pontiac. An agency meeting was held on September 26,

2012, in the morning prior to Public Workshop #3. Project updates and public meeting

presentations are posted at www.pontiaclivability.org.

Public survey and comment forms were provided at Public Meetings #1 and #2. The same

survey was also made available at other meetings and on the project web site. One hundred

and eighty six (186) surveys have been collected. Survey respondents supported the following

objectives:

Make it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross Woodward

Improve sidewalks and bike paths

Improve the connection between the neighborhoods and downtown

Improve transit

Convert the Loop to two‐way traffic

Connect Saginaw to the Loop

Objectives derived from meetings include:

Improve navigation for drivers into and out of downtown

Improve accessibility to the downtown, as the Loop serves the interest of pass through

drivers better than local drivers

Figure B.1 illustrates the project home page (http://www.pontiaclivability.org/).


Figure B‐1: Project Home Page

1.1 Public Outreach Summary

Oakland County hosted three public meetings on March 17, 2012, June 12, 2012 and September

26, 2012 to present the findings and evaluation results at each stage of the study. Oakland

County placed advertisements to inform the community of the proposed project and upcoming

meetings through local community newspapers and distributed notices to churches, community

groups and other affected groups in Pontiac. The community newspapers included The

Oakland County Press, Detroit News and Detroit Free Press at least one and two weeks prior to

the public meetings.


Prior to the public meetings and at key stages in project schedule, the Project Advisory Team

held six meetings to brief Oakland County, MDOT, SEMCOG and other agencies during the

study. Additionally, a Community Advisory Group meeting was held open to the public seven

times during the study at the Crofoot in downtown Pontiac.

Three public meetings were held in the study area at the Crofoot, March 17, 2012 from 9‐11 a.m.,

Bowen Senior Center June 12, 4‐7 p.m. and at the Bowen Center from September 26, 2012 from

5:00 – 7:00 p.m. Public comment forms were provided at each meeting.

Oakland County chose community meeting locations that met the following criteria: the facility

must be within the study area, free of charge, wheel chair accessible, accessible by transit and

can accommodate an audience of at least 100 people. Over 300 people attended the three public

meetings and provided contact information on a sign‐in sheet.

An open house meeting format with display boards, 15‐20 minute PowerPoint presentation, and

question and answer (Q&A) period was used. Oakland County staff, members of the Project

Advisory Team, Community Advisory Group and the consultant team attended each meeting.

Attendees were given the opportunity to talk independently with project team members,

participate in Q&A and/or submit a pre‐addressed comment card.

The presentation and meeting materials were made available on the project website within

three days after each of the three public meetings.


1.2 Project Team Meetings

1.2.1 Project Advisory Team

A Project Advisory Team (PAT) was formed to provide guidance throughout the feasibility

study process and provide feedback on existing conditions, economic development

opportunities, and public participation. The PAT aided in the selection of the preferred

alternative. A total of six PAT meetings were held during the project approximately bi‐

monthly. Meetings were held in public location at the Oakland County offices on the following

days.

November 3, 2011 March 1, 2012 June 13, 2012

January 12, 2012 May 17, 2012 September 6, 2012

The PAT includes representatives from Oakland County, City of Pontiac, SEMCOG, and

MDOT:

Amtrak

City of Pontiac

Federal Highway Authority

Michigan Department of Transportation

Oakland County Office of the Water Resource Commissioner

Oakland County Parks & Recreation

Oakland County Planning & Economic Development Services

Pontiac Downtown Business Association

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

Suburban Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART)

1.2.2 Community Advisory Group

A Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed to provide guidance throughout the study

process and provide feedback on technical studies developed during the project. The CAG

aided in review of the Woodward Loop alternatives and the selection of the preferred

alternative. A total of seven CAG meetings were held open to the public at Crofoot at 1 South

Saginaw, Pontiac, MI on the following days.

December 1, 2011 March 8, 2012 June 13, 2012 September 6, 2012

January 19, 2012 May 24, 2012 July 26, 2012

The CAG includes stakeholders representing Churches, Community and Neighborhood

Groups, Schools, Local Agencies, business and property owners, and other groups from the

Pontiac community:

All Saints Episcopal Church

Baker College

Boʹs Smokehouse

CAO Arts & Technology Academy of Pontiac


Crofoot

DeCook Government & Policy Strategies

Director of Community Services and Advocacy, St. Josephʹs Oakland

Doctors Hospital of Michigan

First Presbyterian Church

Future Help Designs

Genisys Credit Union

Goldner Walsh Nursery

Greater Pontiac Sesquicentennial Commission

Grace Gospel Fellowship

HAVEN

Henk Studio

JDʹs Dueling Pianos

K&R Architectural Design

Lighthouse of Oakland County

McClaren Hospital

Murphy House

OLHSA

Oakland Community College‐ Economic & Workforce Development

Oakland University

Pontiac Chamber of Commerce

Pontiac Creative Arts Center

Pontiac School of Excellence

St. Vincent DePaul Church

TDGA Architects

Thomas Duke Realty

Todd Enterprises

Transform Pontiac Now

Urban League Director

West Construction

1.2.3 Public Agency Meeting

A Downtown Pontiac Transportation Assessment Public Agency meeting was held on

September 26, 2012 at the Bowen Center. At this meeting, background information and project

recommendations were presented to representatives from eighteen agencies. Following the

presentation, project staff was available to discuss the project in more detail with agency

representatives. A final draft of the Executive Summary Report was posted on the project

website at http://www.pontiaclivability.org/ for agencies to review and provide comments to

Oakland County by November 2, 2012. The following agencies sent representatives to the

Agency meeting:


Road Commission for OC

OC Parks & Recreation

OC Water Resources Commission

OC Sheriff’s Office

MDOT

MDCH

SEMCOG

SMART

MEDC

OC Board of Commissioners

MSHDA

Senator Stabenow’s Office

Representative Tim Greimel

Pontiac Library Board

Auburn Hills

Bloomfield Township

Waterford Township

OC Executive Office

1.3 Public Meetings Summary

1.3.1 Community Workshop #1, March 17, 2012

The first public meeting was held at the Crofoot on

March 17, 2012 from 9:00am to 11am. One hundred

and six (106) people attended the meeting. The

purpose of the public meeting was to gather and

consider community input on possible alternatives to

be studied during the project. The project study area

was defined and an overview of existing conditions

on the study area was presented. A project newsletter

was distributed approximately two‐weeks before the

public meeting via email and posted on the project

website.

The majority of participants said that making it easier for

pedestrians to cross the Woodward Loop was very important,

as was connecting neighborhoods with downtown and

improving transit along Woodward Avenue to connect Pontiac

with Detroit. Pedestrian safety, improved sidewalks and bike

paths also rated high. Restoring Saginaw Street as a through

street by connecting it to the Woodward Loop rated high as a

suggestion, along with more signalized pedestrian crossings

and the addition of bike lanes on certain streets. Many people

were also interested in the economic benefits the Downtown

would gain. Another common comment was on the project

timeline with people wanting the project to move forward more

rapidly.

Participants were given a printed 11x17 Idea Map (Figure B‐2)

of the study area and asked to provide comments and suggest

alternatives to be studied on the handout.

Ninety‐one (91) comment forms were collected and reviewed by

Figure B‐2: Idea Map


Oakland County staff and responses were summarized in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

document and posted to the project website.

Once posted, participants received an email, phone call or letter notifying them that the

comments and responses were now available on‐line. A contact list was created to inform

attendees on project updates and notices of upcoming community workshops.

An online survey was made available on the project web site, between March 17, 2012 and

October 31, 2012. A total of 30 responses were submitted during this period. The Online

Survey Report results are available in Section 3.4.

1.3.2 Community Workshop #2, June 12, 2012

Community Workshop #2 was held in the study area at the Bowen Center, June 12, 4pm‐7pm.

Over seventy‐five people attended the workshop. This meeting was held during a three‐day

planning Charrette held at Bowen Center, June 11‐13. During the Charrette, the project team

worked on site, complete with drafting equipment, supplies, and computers, to develop and

refine the Woodward Loop roadway alternatives. Concept plans were developed and placed

on walls for public review during the workshop. Prior to the workshop, focus group meetings

were held for local agencies, Pontiac City Council and Planning Commission. For an overview

of Charrette process see Section 2.0.

Many of the alternatives were identified and developed

from the public comments received at the March 17, 2012

workshop. A project newsletter was distributed

approximately two‐weeks before the public meeting.

The workshop presentation and display boards focused

on eleven initial alternatives and the preliminary

evaluation of the alternatives. Three roadway

alternatives were identified for further detailed analysis

and a recommendation was given for the preferred

alternative. For further information on the alternatives

see Appendix B: Transportation Assessment.

The most common comments received were in regard to three indentified alternatives and the

concept vision developed during the Charrette process. There was a strong level of support

voiced for a recommended alternative that included the two‐way conversion of Woodward

Avenue, Saginaw Street to be reconnected, and “Local” and “Main” routes for the Loop.

Participants were given a printed 11x17 map of the study area and asked to provide comments

and suggest alternatives to be studied on the handout. Nine comment maps and sixty comment

forms were received and reviewed by the project team. A contact list was created to inform

attendees on project updates and notices of upcoming public meetings.


1.3.3 Community Workshop #3, September 26, 2012

The final community workshop was held in the

study area at the Bowen Center, September 26,

7pm‐9pm. Thirty seven (37) people attended the

public meeting. The presentation and display

boards focused on the detailed evaluation of the

recommended alternative from workshop #2.

The most common comments received were in

regard to what happens next, how people can

help, recommended alternative costs and how

long it could take to be constructed.

Attendees were also encouraged to continue their support of the project and to continue to

submit comments. The comment period would remain open and draft executive summary

report was announced to be posted on the project web site. Five comment forms were collected.

A contact list was created to inform attendees on any future project updates.

1.4 Online Survey and Comment Forms

Three comment forms with survey questions were developed and made available at community

workshops during the study. An online survey was also made available on the project web site

between March 17, 2012 and October 31, 2012. After each community workshop and online, the

public was asked the following questions:

What is Important to you?

(Very Important, Important, Neutral/Not Sure, Not very Important, and Not Important At All)

Making it easier for pedestrians to cross the Woodward Loop

Slowing down traffic speeds along the Woodward Loop

Improving sidewalks and bike paths

Improving safety for pedestrians

Better connecting neighborhoods with downtown

Improving transit along Woodward to connect Pontiac with Detroit and places in

between

What do think of the ideas below?

(Prefer it, Worth Considering, Neutral/No opinion, I need convincing, and Oppose the idea)

Keep the Woodward Loop as is

Convert the Woodward Loop to 2‐way traffic

Reduce the number of traffic lanes in the Woodward Loop

Restore Saginaw as a through street by connecting it to the Woodward Loop

Add bike lanes to certain streets

Make all streets in downtown Pontiac for 2‐way traffic

Add more signalized pedestrian crossings along the Woodward Loop

Add more on‐street parking downtown


A total of one hundred and fifty six (156) comment forms and thirty (30) survey responses were

submitted during the project. The responses to the above questions were reported at intervals

during the project and summarized in total, as shown in Table C‐1.

During the Community Workshop #2, the public was also asked to evaluate the three

recommended alternatives on the comment form:

What do you think of the 3 recommended Alternatives?


Alternative 5: Woodward Road Diet/Two Way, and Saginaw Reconnected

Alternative 7: Woodward Two Way and Saginaw Reconnected

Alternative 10: Woodward Two Way, Saginaw Reconnected, “Local” and “Main” Routes

During the Community Workshop #3, the public was asked to evaluate the recommended

alternative:

What do think of the Recommended Alternative?


Woodward Two Way with ʺLocalʺ and ʺMainʺ Routes Saginaw Reconnected

Tables B‐2 to B‐5 summarizes the public responses for the online survey and the comment forms

at the three community workshops.


Table B‐1: Combined Questionnaire Results

Note: *No response indicates the questionnaire was blank


Table B‐2: Online Survey Questionnaire Results



Table B‐3: Community Workshop # 1, March 17, 2012 Questionnaire Results



Table B‐4: Community Workshop # 2, June 12, 2012 Questionnaire Results



Table B‐5: Community Workshop # 3, September 26, 2012 Questionnaire Results



2.0 Urban Design Charrette Report

2.1 Introduction

From June 11th – 13th, 2012, a three‐day intensive

planning and design workshop was held at the

Bowen Senior Center in Pontiac, Michigan. The

purpose of the event was to develop and analyze

potential improvements for the Woodward Loop

in downtown Pontiac for improving connectivity,

enhancing livability and creating economic

opportunity. To that end, existing roadway

infrastructure and traffic patterns were examined

in an effort to identify solutions for reconfiguring

the Loop to improve the public realm and experience for all modes of travel and to create a

more conducive climate for attracting economic development into downtown Pontiac.

The workshop brought together planners, designers, transportation specialists, government

officials and engineers to collaborate on‐site with key stakeholders. Members of the public were

invited to participate throughout through meetings and open houses. An interactive dialogue

was cultivated and public input was factored into the design process as the team developed

visions for every quadrant of the downtown and for the project area as a whole.

2.1.1 Why Is The Loop Wrong For The Future Of Pontiac?

The rationale for constructing the Woodward Loop in the 1960’s Loop may well have been

warranted based the degree of growth expected in this region in the latter half of the 20th

Century. However, demographic and economic trends have changed, resulting in far lower

traffic volumes along this arterial than once projected. Today, rather than connecting Pontiac’s

neighborhoods and destinations, as a key transportation corridor should, the Loop segregates

Downtown Pontiac from surrounding neighborhoods and communities – choking economic

growth, cutting off the businesses from surrounding neighborhoods, and leaving small

residential pockets isolated from community context and amenities.

Early on in the Downtown Transportation Assessment, the Pontiac community identified the

Woodward Loop as a major barrier to both access and activity in Downtown Pontiac. The one‐

way four‐lane right‐of‐way promotes high‐speed travel, creating a formidable physical barrier

to pedestrians and motorists who want to access downtown.

Confusing or non‐existent connections to downtown streets result in a lack of connectivity to

downtown from surrounding areas. . The Loop consists of two one‐way pairs formed by

Woodward Avenue and the Woodward Loop Road (formerly Parke Street). These one‐way

arterials are very effective at moving traffic quickly around downtown Pontiac. The

configuration actually forces travelers to go out of their way or double‐back to get to


downtown. A series of one‐way streets within the downtown and limited wayfinding further

hamper access. The result is a once vibrant economic center that has become an isolated island,

cut‐off from surrounding communities. Additionally, there are no clear or celebrated entrances

to downtown Pontiac on the Loop road; without prior knowledge, one might not even know

that a downtown Pontiac exists.

2.1.2 Why Craft A Vision?

In order to enhance livability in the vicinity of downtown Pontiac, this study seeks to improve

connections to downtown, neighborhoods and the broader community by readapting the Woodward Loop

and improving the street, sidewalk, public open space and bike path system.

Roads are a critical element in shaping the

character of any place. In that capacity, in

addition to carrying traffic, they should

emphasize their ability to access destinations;

make connections, enable community and

economic activities and serve as a vital

component of the public realm. The Woodward

Loop, while it functions effectively as a travel

through‐route for traffic, fails to achieve this goal

of enhancing a larger sense of place. By looking

at the road network as a component of the larger urban context, the workshop set out to

articulate and visualize what the proposed changes to the Loop could do to enliven downtown,

reconnect it to surrounding neighborhoods, foster pedestrian and bicycle movement and

catalyze economic development.

In crafting the vision, the team emphasized building upon past studies to set the stage for future

efforts, as well as community input over the course of the workshop.

2.2 Overview of Recommended Improvements

Multiple alternatives for changing the vehicular traffic patterns for the Loop road were

envisioned and analyzed. Of these, Alternative 10 emerged as the most effective approach to

the Loop over the course of the workshop. In June 2012, Alternative 10 was chosen as the

Recommended Alternative from the original 11 alternatives developed and shall be known as

‘the Recommended Alternative’ in the remainder of this appendix. The Recommended

Alternative is a balanced improvement that serves the needs of all; including Pontiac, the State,

surrounding communities, DBA, and neighborhoods. The Recommended Alternative consists

of:

A two‐way conversion of the entire Woodward Loop

o a four to five lane cross section on the west side serving as a through route and

retaining the name Woodward Avenue


o a two to three lane cross section with parking (where appropriate) on the east

side serving as a local street named Parke Street. This type of facility fits the

downtown and neighborhood context and functions as a local street with an on‐

road cycle track and some on‐street parking.

Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian amenities

o completion of the sidewalk network

o two‐way on‐road cycle track on east side (Parke Street)

o two‐way shared use path on the west side (Woodward Avenue)

o addition of a narrow landscaped median where feasible

o rerouting the Clinton River Trail through downtown Pontiac using Pike Street

Connection of Wesson Street across Woodward Avenue

Creation of a “Gateway” at the southern end of the Woodward Loop

For further information on the Recommended Alternative see Appendix A: Transportation

Assessment.


Figure B‐3: Recommended Alternative


2.2.1 Specific Opportunities – A Neighborhood Approach

The Recommended Alternative allows the Loop flexibility in response to the different parts of

the City, adapting to surrounding contexts whether a corporate office area, mixed‐use

downtown, government area or residential community.

Currently, the area within the Loop, which is easily traversed by a ten minute walk, is

bifurcated into three distinct sections, the Southern gateway, downtown and the Lafayette

Neighborhood. Each distinct zone struggles to survive without the benefit of connections to the

surrounding community, or even to each other despite their close proximity. The proposed

changes to the traffic patterns, roadway design and streetscape for each of the areas can bring

these disparate communities together to operate as a single diversified economic engine and can

help catalyze the vision for development and public realm improvements for each area.

The sections in the following pages show how changes to the Loop road might catalyze larger

change for downtown. In addition to this visioning process, the team examined the Loop road

segment by segment, considering the desired design improvements in the context of the

anticipated vehicular traffic requirements based on the traffic analysis of the recommended

alternative. The following sections illustrate recommended conceptual designs for each distinct

segment of the Loop road.

2.2.2 The Southern Gateway

Due to the configuration of the Loop, local land uses and disconnected street patterns, the

southern end of downtown is completely cut‐off from the remainder of the City. Several

opportunities for developing the Southern gateway exist, including two large office buildings

that could become the core of the business district, a number of vacant and underutilized

parcels, and proximity to the newly renovated Amtrak Station. Long‐term plans to bring in Bus

rapid transit (BRT) at or near this location are currently being studied, potentially positioning

the Southern Gateway as a major regional transit‐ node. With improved access, visibility and a

stop for both rail and BRT, this area could become a strong gateway into Pontiac from the

South, supporting a Main Street oriented downtown with its own set of attractions.


Figure B‐4: Southern Gateway

2.2.3 Parke Street

The main idea behind the Parke Street plan is to reduce the width of the road to better integrate

it into the surrounding neighborhoods. In this plan, the eastern side of the Loop has been

downsized to respond to the adjacent land uses and to integrate into the surrounding

community. Renamed Parke Street to correspond to the pre‐Loop road designation, this urban

boulevard concept would allow two‐way traffic, one lane in each direction, as opposed to the

current four lane one‐way condition. This segment passes by many current and past civic

destinations in Pontiac, including the library, the former city hall, and the complex of

government buildings which are perched on a grassy promontory adjacent to Parke Street.

Parke Street is also the proposed location for a critical connector the Clinton River Trail bicycle

route. Re‐envisioning the Clinton River in some form will help to integrate nature and

historical context and could serve as a significant park amenity that could be carried through

much of downtown. The presence of the trail, concentration of civic uses, and large amount of

underutilized land adjacent to the road (parking and vacant), make this a prime opportunity for

expanding Pontiac’s open space system and connecting a series of open spaces through Parke

Street. The Loop road is re‐envisioned as the central hub of this park corridor with bicycle and

pedestrian facilities and variety of parks and civic spaces along the route. The prime open space


becomes a desirable front door to new development and a welcoming gateway to downtown

from the east.

Figure B‐5: Parke Street

2.2.4 Lafayette Neighborhood

The Lafayette neighborhood is sandwiched between M‐59 (Huron Street) and the northern

swing of the Loop. M‐59 (Huron Street) creates a barrier between the downtown and the

Lafayette Neighborhood. The northern section of the Loop cuts through a large, primarily

residential community that once fed the downtown, creating two isolated residential enclaves.

Cut‐off from schools, parks and other neighborhood amenities, these residential islands have

suffered abandonment and lost any sense of the larger community that they were once

connected to. Re‐envisioned as an urban Boulevard with a planted median, wide sidewalks, a

cycle track, enhanced crosswalks, and some on‐street parking, the Loop is transformed from an

barrier to a connector, providing neighborhoods with aesthetic and recreational amenities, and

opening up the northern end of downtown for residential and neighborhood‐oriented retail

development. Reconnecting Lafayette Street between the two isolated residential areas will help

to solidify the northern section of Pontiac as an emerging residential district and establish a

main east‐west connection through this part of town. There is ample room to create larger


density residential developments in order to create a critical mass to support local retail,

restaurants and neighborhood‐scaled boutique shopping opportunities. The expansion of the

residential neighborhoods so close to the center of town will help to create a 24‐hour presence in

downtown and establish a market for neighborhood‐scale commercial development.

Figure B‐6: Lafayette Neighborhood

2.2.5 Woodward Ave

The western segment of the Loop will need to carry the bulk of through traffic and

accommodate connections to key east‐west corridors such as Huron Street. However, it can still

function as a complete street that enhances the overall connectivity of Pontiac’s downtown

street network. Creating safe, legible intersections for all road users (pedestrians and cyclists as

well as cars). Will be critical to enhancing the connectivity and encouraging development of

vacant parcels along Woodward Avenue. A legible street hierarchy can help prioritize

intersections for different modes of travel, with east‐west crossings for pedestrians being most

critical at the train and potential future BRT stations. An important consideration will be

connecting across downtown to tie together the neighborhoods east and west of the Loop.


The properties located the internal eastern side of Woodward Avenue is a large parking lot (Lot

9) that has high potential for development. On the western side of Woodward Avenue, the land

area between Woodward Avenue and the Amtrak line serve minimal utility due to their

compromised lot depth, topographical issues and proximity to the rail.

However, one vision developed as part of the visioning exercise created a linear park space

along Woodward Avenue. A bus rapid transit intermodal terminal was also recommended a

possible alternative on west side of Woodward.

Figure B‐7: Woodward Avenue

2.3 Huron Street (M-59)

Like the vision for the Loop Road, the vision for Huron Street / M‐59 corridor is to make it a

route to downtown Pontiac while accommodating through traffic. While efficient through

vehicular traffic movement needs to be maintained as it is a key component of the local and

regional roadway network, the road needs to serve downtown Pontiac as well. Street and urban

design elements will be used to slow traffic within the Loop road and indicate to drivers their

arrival in downtown. The notion would be to provide cues along Huron Street as you enter,

traverse and exit Pontiac that clearly show that as a driver, you have entered a unique location


or place within the longer corridor. Street furniture, landscaping, pavement treatments and the

introduction of on‐street parking can fundamentally change the experience for the driver

without altering roadway capacity and change the complexion of the area and the perception of

the driver. Improvements to the pedestrian realm and the redevelopment of strategic lots as

open space can signalize renewed public investment in Pontiac and provide physical

infrastructure to catalyze developer interest and investment in downtown.

Figure B‐8: Huron Street (M‐59)

2.4 Complete Street Design Components

A street redesign alone cannot generate the changes envisioned for downtown and its

surrounding neighborhoods – this will take action and investment of time and resources from

many partners. That being said, improvements to Pontiac’s transportation infrastructure can set

a strong framework and form the basis for future change. Investing in the infrastructure to

create a livable downtown can be a key catalyst for development and further reinvestment.

A key step in rethinking the Loop and opening up new opportunities for downtown will be the

actual design of the roadway corridor. In order to foster the development and livability

improvements envisioned for the neighborhoods surrounding it, the Loop road must become a

complete street.


2.4.1 What are Complete Streets?

Complete streets are “…roadways planned, designed, and constructed to provide appropriate

access to all legal users in a manner that promotes safe and efficient movement of people and

goods whether by car, truck, transit, assistive device, foot, or bicycle” (Michigan Public Act 135).

Attention to the design of both the roadway and the streetscape, particularly the amenities

offered pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike, will be critical in transforming the Loop into a

complete street and achieving the connectivity and use goals of the project. Key elements for the

redesign of the Loop road and downtown street network include:

Safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the entire Loop road and

connect them to a city‐wide bicycle and pedestrian network

A street hierarchy for downtown that allows streets to be prioritized for different modes

of travel to assist in developing a better bicycle, pedestrian and transit network.

Intersections that are safe and accessible for all users by using a variety of techniques

including

Wide and well‐marked crosswalks,

Pedestrian‐friendly signal timing,

Enhancements at intersections that reduce crossing distances for pedestrians including

bump outs and refuge islands

Minimal curb radii for the local (Parke Street) area

Open space integration into the roadway corridor by using underutilized land within

the ROW as well as vacant adjacent parcels for parks, playgrounds and other public

uses.

Wayfinding that directs travelers on the Loop to destinations in downtown Pontiac

Incorporating these elements into roadway improvements will enable transportation

investments to catalyze a larger revitalization vision for downtown Pontiac. Keeping in mind

the Loop’s importance as a connector and a place that serves all modes of travel and provides

access to destinations in the city will help guide roadway design decisions to support the larger

vision for downtown.

2.4.2 Achieving State Complete Street Goals

On July 26, 2012, the State Transportation Commission approved Michigan’s new Complete

Streets Policy, which provides the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) with

guidance for “the planning, design, and construction or reconstruction of roadways or other

transportation facilities in a manner that promotes complete streets as defined by the law, and

that is sensitive to the surrounding context” (State Transportation Policy on Complete Streets).

Under this new Policy, MDOT will need to “pursue a proactive and consistent approach to the

development of complete streets” and will be required to “consider complete street features for


roadways and other transportation facility construction or reconstruction projects it

undertakes.”

As a state road, any changes or alterations to the Loop road will be subject to the requirements

of the Complete Streets Policy. So, in addition to helping Pontiac set the public realm

framework to achieve the development vision for downtown, the recommendations made in

this study will also help the state achieve its vision for complete streets, which includes:

A transportation network that is accessible, interconnected, and multimodal and that

safely and efficiently moves goods and people of all ages and abilities throughout the

State of Michigan.

A process that empowers partnerships to routinely plan, fund, design, construct,

maintain and operate complete streets that respect context and community values.

Outcomes that will improve economic prosperity, equity, accessibility, safety, and

environmental quality.

for the complete text of the state’s Complete Streets Policy see:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_CS_Policy_390790_7.pdf

For further information on complete streets see Appendix D: Complete Streets Best Practices

Report.

2.5 Kickstarting the Process

While big visions can take a long time to realize, and change in Downtown Pontiac may not

happen tomorrow, many of the opportunities identified during the workshop are projects that

can be implemented in stages, building to a sum that is greater than its parts. There was a

conscious effort during the workshop to identify improvements that might be made in the

short‐term with relatively minimal investment that can then be expanded or enhanced as

funding and permits become available, such as:

1. The proposed bicycle facilities on the Loop. On the east side of the Loop, the proposed

traffic reconfigurations and cycle track can be accommodated within the existing curb

dimensions of the roadway, through signal changes and restriping; no physical

reconstruction of curbs or roadbed would be required.

2. The cycle track (on the route of the existing greenway) could be separated from traffic by

a landscaped buffer and other enhancements made, improvements that could be phased

in over time while the basic amenities are put in place early on.

This strategy, of setting interim versions of the traffic and streetscape changes in place, while

the necessary resources are mobilized for more permanent improvements can help kickstart the

process in a more rapid time frame. Events and temporary projects that pilot more involved

transportation changes can also be effective strategies for engaging stakeholders, testing

interventions, and garnering support for more permanent interventions. By giving people a

sense of what changes can be like in real space, they can help make visions and planning ideas

more real and test the real‐world feasibility and suitability of proposed interventions.


This approach can be applied to both the roadway and other public realm opportunities.

Relatively inexpensive suggestions that can be implanted in the short term but have the

potential include:

Reducing lanes and restriping segments of the Loop to include a bicycle path (two‐way

cycle track)

Hosting open street events on the Loop or downtown streets that close segments of

roadway for a day, or regularly over a season

Pop‐up parks in vacant or underutilized land along the Loop

Events, such as summer movies in underutilized parking areas of vacant sites

downtown and along the Loop

The following resources provide many examples and useful information about how to

implement your own pilot projects, tactical interventions, and events in the public right‐of‐way:

The Open Streets Project: Open streets initiatives temporarily close streets to automobile

traffic, so that people may use them for walking, bicycling, dancing, playing, and socializing.

With more than 80 documented initiatives in North America, open streets are increasingly

common in cities seeking innovative ways to achieve environmental, social, economic, and

public health goals. (http://openstreetsproject.org/)

Build a Better Block: Cities around the U.S. are looking for tools to help redevelop communities

that enable multi‐modal transportation while increasing economic development, and reducing

carbon emissions. The “Better Block” project is a demonstration tool that acts as a living

charrette so that communities can actively engage in the buildout process and provide feedback

in real time. (http://betterblock.org/)

Tactical Urbanism reader, volumes 1 & 2: Improving the livability of our towns and cities

commonly starts at the street, block, or building scale. While larger scale efforts do have their

place, incremental, small‐scale improvements are increasingly seen as a way to stage more

substantial investments. This approach allows a host of local actors to test new concepts before

making substantial political and financial commitments.

(http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative)

Building Communities through Transportation: The Project for Public Spaces provides

resources for how the planning and design of transportation networks and streets can be

reshaped to encourage economic vitality, civic engagement, human health, and environmental

sustainability, in addition to serving peoples’ mobility needs. (http://www.pps.org/reference‐

categories/building‐community‐through‐transportation/)


3.0 List of References

City of Pontiac and the Downtown Development Group. 1962. Downtown Pontiac, Book I,

Dynamics: The Decisive Facts Program of Action for Rebuilding.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 1997. SEMCOG Traffic Safety Manual,

2nd Edition.

State of Michigan UD‐10 Traffic Crash Report Instruction Manual, revised in September 1994.

Transportation Research Board National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.

Michigan Traffic Crash Facts. 2012. State of Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.

<http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org>

appendix b. public involvementpontiaclivability.org/pdfs/draft_final_reports/appendix...suburban...

Documents