foster road draft cross-section alternatives evaluation 2.19.13

7/29/2019 Foster Road DRAFT Cross-Section Alternatives Evaluation 2.19.13

1/21

FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

Portland Bureau of Transportation

DRAFT FOSTER ROAD CROSS SECTIONALTERNATIVES 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.

RECOMMENDATIONSStaff 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.


2/21




East Segment: 80th to 90th

Existing configuration:Four general travel lanes (with generally unused protimeparking), 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


3/21




WEST SEGMENT OPTION 1

Three general travel lanes, 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, on-street parking on both sides andbicycle lanes

WEST SEGMENT OPTION 2


4/21




WEST SEGMENT OPTION 6(NEW)

Four general travel lanes, on street parking on both sides, and 17-17.5-ft sidewalks withbicycle facilities



5/21





Four general travel lanes (protime parking on both sides), 17-17.5-ft sidewalks, andbuffered bike lanes


6/21




Central SegmentCENTRAL SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION

Existing configuration with four travel lanes (with generallyunused protimeparking),13-15-ft sidewalks and on street parking on one side, no bicycle lanes

CENTRAL SEGMENT OPTION 2


7/21




CENTRAL SEGMENT OPTION 5(NEW)

Four general travel lanes instead of four, 13-15-ft sidewalks, no parking and bicyclelanes

CENTRAL SEGMENT OPTION 6(NEW)


8/21




East Segment

EAST SEGMENT EXISTING CROSS SECTION

Existing configuration with four travel lanes (with generallyunused protimeparking), 5-ft sidewalks and on street parking on one side, no bicycle lanes


9/21




EAST SEGMENT OPTION 3

Three general travel lanes instead of four, 5-ft sidewalks, parking on one side, andbicycle lanes

EAST SEGMENT OPTION 7(NEW)


10/21




EVALUATION OF CROSS SECTION OPTIONSFoster 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 11options (including existing conditions) for cross sections for Foster Rd. The SAC also agreed to ageneral set of criteria to evaluate them. Staff has applied relevant measures to each criterion. Themeasures include quantitative and qualitative information. The information has beenstandardized 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. Itincludes a score at the bottom, to be compared with the maximum score possible. Note that thehigher 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 developfull 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 crosssections 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 allthree segments.

The existing conditions option scored lowest in the west segment and higher in the othersegments It received high scores for cost and traffic and scored lowest on providing bicycle


11/21




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 forthe west segment, the longest.) Option 2 in the west segment, which moves the curb backfrom 17 ft to 12 ft was the most expensive option (over $4 million). The cycle track costestimate 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 forall modes by about 30%.

Pedestrian

The east segment options scored lowest due to the narrow sidewalks and lack of bufferbetween pedestrians and moving traffic.

West segment options scored highest due to the wide sidewalks and bigger buffers providedby on-street parking and bicycle lanes.

Wider sidewalks allow for larger trees and stormwater management. The east segment is themost limited in this regard.

Motor vehicles

Existing options and options with four lanes scored highest in terms of higher speed of trafficand less traffic delay and congestion at intersections.

Options with three lanes scored lowest, as the effects of going from four to three lanes aresignificant, lowering travel speeds and increasing travel times and delay.

The options with three lanes lead to significant diversion of traffic that otherwise would be onFoster to Rd onto other roads. The impact on other roads is not large, with the exception ofHolgate that would see a doubling of traffic during the PM peak hours. Holgate would stilloperate under traffic capacity.


12/21




THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


13/21

FOSTER ROAD STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE | DRAFT CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION


Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13

3-laneNarrow sidewalk

to 12ftCycletrack

Parking one

side

3-lane

parking one

side

No parkingNo

parking

3-lane parking

one side

0 1 2 Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 6 Opt 7 Opt 2 Opt 5 Opt 2 Opt 3

Streetscape,

Business Street furniture, improvements to

the business environment

Sb1 Adequate clear space for sidewalk cafes and lingering

(8' for 17ft sidewalk, 6' for 12ft sidewalk or less)

D oe s no t co mp ly C om pl ie s on ly a t

corners/curb extensions

Complies

2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

Pk1 Amount of parking loss All parking lost One third to half parking

lost

No parking loss2 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 1

P k2 E ff ec t o f p ar ki ng lo ss on ex is ti ng la nd us es P ar ki ng lo st in

high/moderate use area

Parking lost in low use

area

No parking loss2 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1

Pk3 Effect of parking on future land uses based on current

zoning/comp plan designations

Removes parking in

high growth area

Removes parking in

moderate growth area

No parking loss2 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0

C

ost Estimated costs and funding

feasibility

C1 Pla nning- level cost estimat e > $3 million $1 - $3 million < $1 million2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

S1 Likelihood of type and severity of all types of crashes

(from AASHTO report on effect of change from 4 to 3

lanes)

No change N/A 30% decrease in

injuries 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

S2 C ro ss in g d is ta nc e a nd nu mb er o f l an es > 60 ft wi th 4 l an es 5 0- 60 ft wi th 4 l an es 5 0- 60 ft wi th 3 l an es1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2

Pd1 Sidewalk width per Pedestrian Design Guideline Does not comply (5 ft or

less)

Partially complies

(between 6 and 11.5ft)

Complies (12ft and

over)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

Pd2 Buffers from auto lanes from pedestrian through zone 8ft or less on one or

both sides

9-14ft for both sides of

the street

More than 14ft on

both sides of the

street

2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

Pd3 Opportunities for stormwater management, large trees

and other green features

N one Only wit h curb ext ensions I n plant er st rip and

curb extensions2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1

Pd4 Allows median islands No Yes, but with parking loss Yes, using center

turn lane and

without parking loss

1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 2

M V1 C ha ng e i n t ra ve l s pe ed ( MP H, P M p ea k) S ig ni fi ca nt d ec re as e M od er at e d ec re as e N o c ha ng e/ in cr ea se 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

M V2 T ra ff ic div ers io n a s p erce nt ag e o f t ot al tra ff ic M od era te to hi gh Lo w t o mo de ra te N o ch an ge 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0

M V3 I ncr ea se d/ de cre as ed ac ce ss vi a l ef t t ur n N o c en te r l an e a nd tw o

opposing lanes

Center turn lane and one

opposing lane

N/A0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

MV4 Level of Service for signalized intersections (level of

traffic delay)

Does not comply (over

acceptable congestion

levels)

Marginally complies (close

or at limit for acceptable

congestion levels)

Complies

2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

T1 Tra vel lanes accommodate st reet car (11' min) D oes not Could with some

modifications

Does2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 0 1

T2 Corridor speed effect on transit reliability and

scheduling

May require more buses

or longer headways

Longer travel time but

mitigation may be

No change2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1

T3 Allows for enhanced transit stops via wide sidewalk at

bus stops

Narrow sidewalk and no

curb extension possible

One side using standard

sidewalk/no curb

extension, or narrow

sidewalk/curb extension

Both sides using

wide sidewalks plus

potential for curb

extension

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1

B 1 B icy cl e f acil it y a nd de gre e o f s ep ara ti on D oe s n ot co mp ly (n o

facility)

Complies minimally (5ft

bike lane)

Complies (6 ft bike

lane or

buffered/separated)

0 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 2

B2 Increased cyclists on Foster Rd at key locations 2010-

2035

U p to 1/ 3 g ro wt h 1 /3 t o 2 t im es gr ow th 2 t im es t o 8 t im es

growth0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2

B3 Connections into existing bicycle network Zero fewer than 3 3 or more 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2

B4 Change in bicycle travel distance No change < 30% decrease 30% or more

decrease0 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 2

Max score: 46 30 38 35 31 32 29 32 26 22 19 25

Existing 3-laneNarrow sidewalk to

12ftCycletrack

Parking one

sideExisting

3-lane parking

one sideN o pa rk in g E xi st in g N o pa rk in g

3-lane parking one

side

Key

Existing Existing Existing

West Segment

Transit

Accommodates present and future

transit, including Streetcar per the

Portland Streetcar System Concept

Plan

Pedestrian

MotorVehicles

Provides smooth travel for vehiclesand access opportunities

Improves the pedestrian

environment, including crossings

and sidewalk conditions

Middle Segment

Provides adequate on-street

parking for commercial patrons and

loading uses

East Segment

Bicycle

Implements bicycle facility along

the Foster corridor per the Portland

Bicycle Plan for 2030

DRAFT

Specific Measure

On-streetparking

Safety

Provides safety improvements

Criteria


14/21




THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


15/21




CORRIDOR-WIDE CROSS SECTION OPTIONSThis 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.


16/21





17/21




Plan view of cross section options

Four lane cross section (withprotime parking) from SE 52nd

Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue

includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks

and buffered bike lanes

Cross section from SE 72ndAvenue to SE 80th Avenue to be

developed and evaluated

Cross section from SE SE 80thAvenue to SE 90th Avenue to bedeveloped and evaluated


18/21





Three lane cross section from SE52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue

includes 17-17.5ft sidewalks,

bike lanes and parking on both

sides

Three lane cross section from SE72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue

includes 13-15ft sidewalks, bikelanes and parking on one side

Three lane cross section from SESE 80th Avenue to SE 90th

Avenue includes 5ft sidewalks,

bike lanes and parking on one

side


19/21





Four lane cross section from SE52nd Avenue to SE Holgate


cycle tracks and parking on both

sides

Three lane cross section from SEHolgate to SE 72nd Avenue


bike lanes and parking on both

sidesThree 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 SESE 80th Avenue to SE 90th



side


20/21




Plan view of cross section westsegment sub-options

Between SE 52nd Avenue to SE72nd 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 with17-17.5ft sidewalks, cycletracks and parking on both

sides

Four lane cross section with12ft sidewalks, bike lanes,

and parking on both sides


21/21





Four lane cross section from SE52nd Avenue to SE 72nd Avenue



side

Four lane cross section from SE72nd Avenue to SE 80th Avenue

includes 13-15ft sidewalks, bike

lanes and no parkingFour lane cross section from SE

SE 80th Avenue to SE 90th


bike lanes and no parking

foster road draft cross-section alternatives evaluation 2.19.13

Documents