HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Main Street-McVay Highway Transit Study Phase 2 Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/16/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Tom Boyatt, DPW Emma Newman, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-744-3373
541-726-4585 Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: MAIN STREET/MCVAY HIGHWAY TRANSIT STUDY PHASE 2 UPDATE
ACTION
REQUESTED:
None request. Staff will provide a project update to Council.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Phase 2 of the Main – McVay Transit Study seeks to identify a Locally Preferred Solution to implement EmX bus rapid transit on Main Street and South ‘A’ St
between the Lane Transit District Springfield Station and the Thurston Station at
Bob Straub Parkway; and Enhanced Bus treatments on McVay Highway south through Glenwood to Lane Community College. The Project is a joint effort
between the City of Springfield and LTD to evaluate and select the most promising
transit and associated roadway improvements to address growing concerns about roadway safety, congestion, and quality of life in the corridor.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo
2. Sample Letter to Business and Property Owners (East of 21st) 3. Alignment and Cross Section Options
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
In March staff provided Council with information about intensive efforts to reach out
to Main Street business and property owners to share the narrowed range of
solutions proposed by the Governance Team. Since that time, staff has worked hard to associate every address along the Main Street/S. A corridor with a business name
and phone number. In April staff began contacting all the businesses by phone to explain the project and offer to visit with each business and/or property owner. As of early May, staff had identified 325 businesses along Main Street and S. A Street.
Over 450 phone calls have been made, and contact was established with 253
businesses leading to over 35 sit down meetings with owners or managers so far in the process. In several cases multiple discussions have occurred with the same
business owner as they have had a chance to absorb and think about the information and bring more detailed questions to the discussion. Staff is continuing to identify correct business names and phone numbers for businesses not yet reached.
The week of May 2nd the Project partners began mailing letters to each identified
business and property owner on Main Street east of 21st St, and next week similar
mail will go out to the Main Street/S. A Street business and property owners between 21st and 5th Streets. Each outreach letter contains an invitation to meet with
project staff, a summary of the study, a description of the narrowed options being
considered, cross section diagrams, and an aerial image of the address range of the recipient that shows the approximate location of widening as proposed. The letter
for the two-way segment of Main Street also includes sketches of the concepts for
that area (See Attachment 2).
The attached Council Briefing Memo provides information about project design
concepts forwarded by the Governance Team for public consideration and an initial summary of input and feedback received to date. Staff expects to continue to
schedule one-on-one meetings with businesses and property owners once they receive the outreach letter inviting them to meet. These meetings will continue throughout spring and will start focusing on more design solutions oriented
discussions throughout summer.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 5/6/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW
Tom Boyatt, DPW
Emma Newman, DPW
BRIEFING
Subject: MAIN STREET/MCVAY HIGHWAY TRANSIT STUDY PHASE 2 UPDATE MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
Phase 2 of the Main – McVay Transit Study seeks to identify a Locally Preferred Solution to
implement EmX bus rapid transit on Main Street and South A St between the Lane Transit District Springfield Station and the Thurston Station at Bob Straub Parkway; and Enhanced Bus treatments on McVay Highway south through Glenwood to Lane Community College. The
Project is a joint effort between the City of Springfield and LTD to evaluate and select the most promising transit and associated roadway improvements to address growing concerns about
safety, congestion, and quality of life in the corridor.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
For the past several years the Main Street Corridor has been studied by the City, ODOT and
Lane Transit District to address significant safety challenges, opportunities to make transit system improvements, and a vision for the overall future land use and development of the
corridor looking into the future. The Corridor Vision approved by the Council last year
identified strong community values for improving the look and feel of Main Street to make it a safer and more attractive place for the community. ODOT’s 2013 Safety Study has resulted in
the construction of enhanced pedestrian crossings in the corridor. The City partnered with LTD
to complete Phase 1 of the Main-McVay Transit Study in 2014-2015, which resulted in a Council and LTD Board decision to go forward and assess EmX in the corridor and Enhanced
Corridor treatments along McVay Hwy. The goal of Phase 2 of the Transit Study is to reach a Locally Preferred Solution for transit improvements that could be carried into project development under the Federal Transit Administration process.
In early 2016, staff from both agencies and a consultant team kicked off Phase 2 with the
development of a number of cross sections for each of the Project segments: the two-way
portion of Main Street; the one-way couplet pair of Main and South A Street; and the McVay Hwy from the Springfield Station to Lane Community College. City staff provided cross section
detail for urban sidewalk widths, separated bike lane standards, setback sidewalk, planter strips,
landscaped median treatments and roundabout intersection concepts.
In February a suite of potential design options for the Project Corridor was presented to the Governance Team (Mayor Lundberg, Councilor Woodrow, LTD Board Members Pierce and Nordin, and ODOT Area 5 Manager Brindle). Each of these design concepts was evaluated at a
high level, and a recommendation made to the Governance Team on which options to advance
for discussion with the community and further analysis. The high level evaluation criteria are:
• Capital Cost
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM 5/10/2016 Page 2
• Operating Cost
• Transit travel Time
• Car Travel Time
• Property Impacts
• Safety Impacts
In March the Governance Team advanced a subset of the design options for dialogue with business and property owners and presentation to the larger community. After the Governance
Team decision on which potential solutions to advance, staff provided Council with information in the Communications Packet about the initial and narrowed range of solutions and the intensive efforts to reach out to Main Street business and property owners to share the narrowed
range of solutions. Since that time, staff has worked hard to associate every address along the Main Street/South A corridor with a business name and phone number. In April staff began contacting all the businesses by phone to explain the project and offer to visit with each business
and/or property owner. As of early May, staff had identified 325 businesses along Main Street and South A Street. Over 450 phone calls have been made, and contact was established with
253 businesses leading to over 35 sit down meetings with owners or managers so far in the
process.
The week of May 2nd the Project partners began mailing letters to each identified business and
property owner on Main Street east of 21st St, and next week similar mail will go out to the Main Street/South A Street business and property owners between 21st and 5th Streets. Each outreach
letter contains an invitation to meet with project staff, a summary of the study, a description of
the narrowed options being considered, cross section diagrams, and an aerial image of the address range of the recipient business/property that shows the approximate location of widening
as proposed. The letter for the two-way segment of Main Street also includes sketches of the concepts for that area (See Attachment 2).
At the May 16 work session staff will provide a Project update focused on a review the design concepts put forward for discussion with the community, and the initial feedback from business and property owners.
Key Project Dates going forward are:
• May 16, 2016 – City Council Work Session; update regarding work completed to date.
• May 18, 2016 – LTD Board Meeting; update regarding work completed to date.
• May 2016 – Governance Team meeting; if needed based on City Council and LTD Board meetings.
• Summer 2016 – Governance Team meeting; present technical analysis and public feedback with recommendation of preliminary locally preferred solution.
• Fall 2016 – City Council meeting; public hearing.
• Fall 2016 – City Council meeting; decision on locally preferred solution.
Design Concepts
Attachment 3 shows the set of design options proposed by the Project team, the results of the
high level evaluation of those options, and the Governance Team’s direction on which options to bring forward for community engagement. There are three distinct segments in the Project
corridor: LCC to Springfield Station through Glenwood, Downtown one way couplet of Main
Street and S. A Street, and the two-way section of Main Street from about 21st Street to Bob Straub Parkway. Concepts for these three segments are further described below. Each category
of concept also includes a no-change or no-build option. At this stage of concept development none of these concepts currently include station locations, and further widening would be
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
MEMORANDUM 5/10/2016 Page 3
necessary at varying widths depending on how the stations are designed into each particular concept.
LCC to Downtown Station
The first thing to be aware of is that much of this segment falls outside of the Springfield urban
growth boundary, and for that reason the City’s focus is along McVay Highway in Glenwood.
In this section the Project is considering non-EmX type of improvements known as Enhanced Corridor treatments. These are the types of changes that can help improve transit service
without major capital investment. Enhancements are typically intended to reduce transit travel
times, improve the convenience and reliability of the service, and increase passenger comfort. For the McVay Highway corridor, possible enhancements include things like queue-jump and
bus signal priority at traffic signals, bus shelters, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, re-thinking station locations, improved frequency of service and increasing the span of service (nights, weekends). EmX is not presently being considered for this segment at this time, but
may be considered in the future when the southern portion of Glenwood redevelops or there is opportunity to route EmX serving LCC from Eugene back through Glenwood to make a system connection.
Downtown Station to 21st St. (one-way couplet pair)
There are two different considerations in this section which work together to form options:
route alignment and the cross section detail of each alignment. In each of the two route alignments the eastbound EmX would travel in a traffic lane on S. A Street with other vehicles.
In one of the options the westbound EmX would run in a dedicated lane in the opposite direction
of traffic, or ‘counter-flow’, from 21st Street to Springfield Station. In the other alignment the westbound EmX travels west on Main Street to 14th Street, turns left on 14th and then right onto
S. A where it would then enter a dedicated counter-flow lane to Springfield Station.
The Main Street to 14th to S. A option considers widening Main Street between 21st and 14th by up to 20 feet, from 60’ to either 77’ or 80’. In one concept parking is removed from one side of
the street in this segment and EmX would travel in a BAT lane (business access and transit
lane). In the other concept for this segment parking would be maintained and the bus would travel in mixed traffic with the other vehicles. The South A counter-flow options considers
widening S. A Street by 7 feet, most likely on the south side of the roadway where space is generally more available.
Each of these options considers a landscaped planter strip adjacent to the sidewalk and a wider
separated bike facility to help control traffic speed and improve both safety and comfort for people riding and walking in the corridor.
21st St. to Bob Straub Parkway (two-way)
There are three build concepts put forward for this section of Main Street. Two of the concepts
are ‘mixed traffic’ options where the EmX would share a travel lane with regular traffic. Each
of these concepts proposes to widen the right of way by 16 feet, from 80’ to 96’. The difference with the two mixed traffic options is the lane that the bus would travel in. In the ‘outside’ or
curbside lane, the route will be evaluated with stations to the property side of the corridor. EmX
in mixed traffic in the ‘inside’ lane will evaluate center or median stations. The third concept lays out EmX in dedicated bus-only center running lanes, and would widen the right of way by
36 feet, from 80’ to 116’.
All three concepts include a center landscaped median to help control traffic speeds and improve vehicle safety and that of pedestrians crossing Main Street. The median design would include
left turn pockets with left and U-turns for most vehicles. In each of the concepts, roundabouts are being analyzed at the locations of the signalized intersections (21st, 28th, 32nd, 42nd, 54th). These concepts also include a landscaped planter strip adjacent to the sidewalk and a wider
separated bike lane to help control traffic speed and improve both safety and comfort for people
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
MEMORANDUM 5/10/2016 Page 4
riding and walking in the corridor.
Property and Business Owner Feedback
Staff from the City and LTD are currently in-process meeting with business and property
owners. As the letter with ‘lines on a map’ just went out last week, the project team expects to
have more one on one meetings to take input, answer questions and gain site access and circulation information from businesses. So far the majority of engagement with business
owners and operators has been along the two-way segment of Main Street, and staff has also met
with several important businesses along S. A Street. City and Springfield Utility Board staff have also met several times and plan to continue to meet as concepts are narrowed and refined.
The following summarizes feedback to date. Later in the summer or early fall, staff will bring back to Council a complete set of input and feedback, both summarized and a copy of each log sheet capturing notes from each meeting.
Overall, people have expressed appreciation for the early and open communication from the project team staff and the concerted effort being made to sit down with business and property
owners to share project information, get their feedback, and understand their questions and concerns. Responses from people have been across the spectrum from very concerned with any
change and/or additional investments in transit service, to excited about the safety improvements
and the benefits a project could bring to the community.
The majority of businesses staff has met with so far have strong concerns about their ability to
continue to operate their particular business with impacts to parking, circulation and access that may result from a decision to move a transit project forward. There has been a consistent
message about maintaining the business’ current operating conditions. While most agree that
there is a safety problem along Main Street, and many have provided eye witness accounts of crashes and near misses, there is mixed thinking on how to address the issue. A majority of
business owners have expressed concerns about access to their businesses if there is a raised median in the corridor; most believe that this would hurt their business. Others see the safety benefit and could adjust to new circulation patterns.
In many cases, any widening of the corridor impacts on-site parking, with that impact being more dramatic in limited cases and workable in other cases depending on site layout and how
each site is used. The ability for large freight to access sites on both sides of the street is a significant need, and varies along the entire corridor. Examples of this include Knecht’s Auto
Parts, Rosboro, and Square Deal Lumber.
There are mixed feelings about implementing roundabouts in the corridor in place of the
signalized intersections. Some people are comfortable driving roundabouts while others
question the safety of roundabouts and how they work or are supposed to work. Some see roundabouts benefitting the corridor from a safety and travel time perspective; others question
how well they would work for large freight and at constrained intersections like 28th and 42nd.
With near unanimity, people that staff spoke with do not believe that the corridor is ready for the 116’ wide street with center running dedicated EmX lanes as the impact to parking and buildings
would be significant all along the corridor.
Staff will continue to meet with business and property owners, and continue to identify concerns
and ways to mitigate for impacts. As this first series of in depth conversations wraps up this summer and fall, staff will return to Council for a discussion of the values to carry forward in design refinement which can balance the larger public concerns of roadway safety, transit
improvements, and the evolution of the built environment along the Main St corridor with impacts to existing properties and businesses. At that point staff will have examples from along
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
MEMORANDUM 5/10/2016 Page 5
the corridor of how potential widening, median treatments, and roundabouts could look, and how impacts to businesses might be addressed. Ultimately, the Governance Team will make a
recommendation to Council and the LTD Board of Directors for a Locally Preferred Solution.
Should this be a Build option, then LTD will apply to Federal Transit to officially enter project development, work to complete NEPA requirements and further refine design to minimize
impacts to the extent possible, and begin seeking funding from Federal Transit Administration
and matching funding through the State of Oregon.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. Staff will present this information and answer questions
as an update to Council on this Project.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
This letter is available in alternative formats. If you require any special language accommodations, including alternative
formats of this letter, please contact LTD’s Administration office at 541-682-6100 (voice) or 7-1-1 (TTY, through Oregon
Relay, for persons with hearing impairments).
Arreglos de accesibilidad, servicios de interpretación y traducción se pueden hacer para todos los eventos del Estudio de
Tránsito Main-McVay. Para más información llamar al 541-682-6100 (voz) ó 7-1-1 (TTY).
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
P.O. Box 7070
Springfield, Oregon 97475
May 6, 2016
Dear Property Owner/Business Owner:
We are reaching out to you to let you know that the City of Springfield and Lane Transit District would like to
hear your thoughts on the potential transportation solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor that are currently
being considered to address growing concerns about safety, congestion, and quality of life. As an owner of
[property] [a business] adjacent to a design option, your input is critical to both the analysis and to the
ultimate design of the project as your property may be affected by one or more of the potential options being
considered, including No-Change, Enhanced Corridor, and EmX.
Please contact us if you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the details of the design options under
consideration, provide feedback, and receive answers to questions you might have. We are interested in
scheduling a face-to-face meeting with you in May. If you are unavailable to meet face-to-face, we welcome
the opportunity to talk with you over the telephone.
To schedule a meeting, please contact Kelly Perron at 541-682-6106 or via e-mail kelly.perron@ltd.org.
Included in this letter you will find a summary about the Main-McVay Transit Study with a list of key project
dates. Additionally, included with this letter is a map that shows your [property] [business] adjacent to the
Main-McVay Corridor that is part of the study area, a table that lists the options being considered and a cross-
section of each option with a rendering showing how it would look if implemented.
If you have questions or comments before scheduling a time to meet, you can contact either project manager
at the City of Springfield or LTD. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Emma Newman
Springfield Project Manager
enewman@springfield-or.gov,
541-726-4585
Sasha Luftig
LTD Project Manager
sasha.luftig@ltd.org,
541-682-6135
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4
Main–McVay Transit Study Summary
The purpose of the Main-McVay Transit Study is to identify
and evaluate the most appropriate and promising
transportation solutions for the Main Street - McVay
Highway Corridor to address growing concerns about
safety, congestion, and quality of life. The Study includes
Main Street from Thurston to Glenwood and McVay
Highway to Lane Community College.
The safety and transportation improvements being considered as part of
this Study have been coordinated with other Main Street projects.
Further, the Study supports the goals and objectives of the Main Street
Vision process and are consistent with the community’s vision for the
seven-mile Main Street Corridor. These improvements are aimed at
improving safety, leveraging Springfield’s local economy, fostering long-
term quality of life for the community, and balancing mobility for people
driving, walking, biking, and taking transit.
The Study began in April 2013. In Phase 1, residents, business and property owners, education representatives,
community organizations, agency staff, and elected and appointed officials met to learn and understand the
growing concerns about safety, congestion, and quality of life that could be addressed by transportation
improvements. Further, Phase 1 considered technical analyses, reviewed a range of promising transit options and
identified the most promising transit options. In Spring 2015, Springfield City Council and the LTD Board of Directors
recommended a variety of most promising transit options for more design development, analysis, and community
review to identify a locally preferred solution. EmX options will be compared to a No-Change option along Main
Street. The Enhanced Corridor option will be compared to a No-Change option along McVay. Safety improvements
for pedestrians and bicyclists are also being considered. The Study now moves forward with Phase 2 to evaluate the
most promising transportation options.
Phase 2 is focused on design elements including safety improvements, types of service, lane configuration and
street designs, impacts to properties, and transit benefits that will inform the decision-making process and
determine the community’s choice for a locally preferred solution. Over the course of Phase 2, the project design
team will work directly with business and property owners to address the needs of the site and/or reduce potential
impacts as practical along the Corridor.
Key Project Dates:
• May 16, 2016 – City Council Work Session; update regarding work completed to date.
• May 18, 2016 – LTD Board meeting; update regarding work completed to date.
• May 2016 – Governance Team meeting; if needed based on City Council and LTD Board meetings.
• Summer 2016 – Governance Team meeting; present technical analysis and public feedback with
recommendation of a preliminary locally preferred solution.
• Fall 2016 – City Council meeting; public hearing.
• Fall 2016 – City Council meeting; decision on locally preferred solution.
For more information, specific meeting times/dates, to provide feedback,
and to sign up for e-mail updates, please visit www.ourmainstreetspringfield.org Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4
Options Being Considered
Transit Solution Options
Main
Street
Segment
McVay
Highway
Segment
The option to continue existing bus service, called the No-Change option, will be carried
forward to compare all options to a future scenario without making any major changes
in existing transit service. Under this option, there is no change to existing service
connections, lane configurations, routing, termini, or station locations.
Enhanced Corridor options typically include features to improve reliability, reduce
transit travel times, and increase passenger comfort. These features include queue
jumps, which are lanes for buses that allow the bus to “jump” ahead of other traffic at
intersections using a separate signal phase. Enhanced Corridors include frequent
service, and stop amenities like shelters. Buses generally share lanes with other
vehicles.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options under consideration include extension of LTD’s EmX
system from Springfield Station to Thurston Station (Main Street). A range of different
street configuration options are being considered that include shared bus and
automobile travel lanes as well as transit-only, dedicated transit lanes.
Main Street Design Configurations under Consideration
No Change (Existing) – 80 ft. Right-of-Way
Mixed Traffic EmX – 96 ft. Right-of-Way
Median Transit Lanes – 116 ft. Right-of-Way
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2,
Pa
g
e
4
of
4
Main Street/South A Street Segment
Route Alignment Options
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
P
k
w
y
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
SPRINGFIELD
STATION
South A Street
Main Street
Option A: 5th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: Baseline
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
P
k
w
y
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
SPRINGFIELD
STATION
South A Street
Main Street
Option B: 10th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: 15–20 seconds faster than baseline
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
P
k
w
y
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
SPRINGFIELD
STATION
South A Street
Main Street
Option C: 14th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: 20–25 seconds faster than baseline
5
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
P
k
w
y
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
SPRINGFIELD
STATION
South A Street
Main Street
Option D: Two-way South A Street Westbound travel time: 75–85 seconds faster than baseline
BRT Station Area
Phase 1
Recommended
Alignment
✔✔
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
to
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
b
y
Go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
T
e
a
m
✔✔
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
to
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
b
y
Go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
T
e
a
m
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 4
Main Street/South A Street Segment
Lane Configuration Options
Main Street: West of 20th Street
Option Right- of-Way Cross-Section
High-Level Assessment
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
b
y
Go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
T
e
a
m
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
r
a
v
e
l
Ti
m
e
Ca
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
Ti
m
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Figure 8:
No Change
(existing)
60 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk7 ftParking 7 ftParking11 ftTravel Lane
4 ft Bike Lane
60 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
▲●▼●▲▼✔✔
Figure 8:
Enhanced
Corridor
60 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk7 ftParking 7 ftParking11 ftTravel Lane
4 ft Bike Lane
60 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
▲●▼●▲▼✔
Figure 9:
BRT Mixed
Traffic
77 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk8 ftParking 8 ftParking11 ftTravel Lane
5 ft PlantBed
5 ft PlantBed
77 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
WB
9 ftBike
2 ft
●▲●●●▲✔✔
Figure 10:
BAT Lane:
Parking
Removed
80 feet
2 ft
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk8 ftParking 11 ftBAT Lane11 ftTravel Lane
5 ft PlantBed
5 ft PlantBed
80 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
9 ftBike
WB
●▲▲▲●▲✔✔
Figure 11:
BAT Lane:
Parking
Retained
88 feet
2 ft
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk8 ftParking 8 ftParking11 ftBAT Lane11 ftTravel Lane
5 ft PlantBed
5 ft PlantBed
88 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
9 ftBike
WB
▼▲▲▲▼●
Figure 12:
BAT Lane:
Angle Parking
90 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ft Sidewalk18 ftAngled Parking 11 ftBAT Lane11 ftTravel Lane
5 ft PlantBed
5 ft PlantBed
90 ftTOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB WB
9 ftBike
2 ft
▼▲▲▲▼●
South A Street
Figure 13: No Change (existing)60 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ftSidewalk12 ftTravel Lane
60 ftTOTAL
EB
12 ftTravel Lane 5 ftBike
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
▲●▼▲▲▼✔✔
Figure 13: Enhanced Corridor 60 feet
10 ft Sidewalk 10 ftSidewalk12 ftTravel Lane
60 ftTOTAL
EB
12 ftTravel Lane 5 ftBike
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
▲●▼▲▲▼✔
Figure 14: Transit Only Contraflow Lane
67 feet
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ftPlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ftPlantBed12 ft
67 ftTOTAL
WB
11ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
9 ftBike
2 ft
●▲▲●●●✔✔
Figure 15: BAT Lane: Eastbound 67 feet
2 ft
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ftPlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ftPlantBed12 ftBAT Lane
67 ftTOTAL
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
9 ftBike
●▲▲●●▲✔✔
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 4
Main Street: East of 20th Street
Option Sidewalk Width Median Width
Total Right- of-Way Intersection Type Cross-Section
High-Level Assessment
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
o
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
b
y
Go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
T
e
a
m
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Co
s
t
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Co
s
t
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Tr
a
v
e
l
T
i
m
e
Ca
r
T
r
a
v
e
l
Ti
m
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Figure 16:
No Change
(existing)
6 feet None 80 feet Signalized
6 ft Sidewalk 5 ftBike 5 ftBike 6 ft Sidewalk12 ftTravel Lane
80 ftTOTAL
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftTurn Lane11 ftTravel Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
▲●▼●▲▼✔✔
Figure 16:
Enhanced
Corridor
6 feet None 80 feet Signalized
6 ft Sidewalk 5 ftBike 5 ftBike 6 ft Sidewalk12 ftTravel Lane
80 ftTOTAL
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftTurn Lane11 ftTravel Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
▲●▼●▲▼✔
Figure 17:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Right Lane
10 feet 12 feet 106 feet Signalized
10 ft Sidewalk 11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
5 ft PlantBed 10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
106 ft TOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
EB
12 ftTravel Lane 12 ftMedian
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲●●●✔
Figure 18:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Right Lane
7 feet 12 feet 100 feet Signalized
7 ft Sidewalk 11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
100 ft TOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
EB
12 ftTravel Lane 12 ftMedian
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲●●●✔
Figure 19:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Right Lane
7 feet 8 feet 96 feet Roundabout
7 ft Sidewalk 11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
96 ft TOTAL
WB
11 ftTravel Lane / BRT
EB
12 ftTravel Lane 8 ftMedian
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲▲▲●▲✔✔
Figure 20:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Left Lane
10 feet 12 feet 106 feet Signalized
10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
106 ft TOTAL
12 ftTravel Lane / BRT
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
12 ftTravel Lane / BRT
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲●●●✔
Figure 21:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Left Lane
7 feet 12 feet 100 feet Signalized
7 ft Sidewalk 11 ft5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
100 ft TOTAL
WB
11 ft
EB
12 ftTravel Lane Travel Lane / BRT 12 ftMedian
WB
12 ft Travel Lane Travel Lane / BRT
EB
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲●●●✔
Figure 22:
BRT Mixed
Traffic:
Left Lane
7 feet 8 feet 96 feet Roundabout
7 ft Sidewalk 11 ft5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
96 ft TOTAL
WB
11 ft
EB
12 ftTravel Lane Travel Lane / BRT 8 ftMedian
WB
12 ft Travel Lane Travel Lane / BRT
EB
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
●▲▲▲●▲✔✔
Figure 23:
BAT Lanes 10 feet 12 feet 128 feet Signalized
10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
128 ft TOTAL
12 ft
WB
11 ft Travel Lane BAT Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftBAT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲▼●
Figure 24:
BAT Lanes 7 feet 12 feet 122 feet Signalized
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
122 ft TOTAL
12 ft
WB
11 ft Travel Lane BAT Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftBAT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲▼●
Figure 25:
BAT Lanes 7 feet 8 feet 118 feet Roundabout
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
118 ft TOTAL
12 ft
WB
11 ft Travel Lane BAT Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
12 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftBAT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
8 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲▲▲▼▲
Figure 26:
Median
Transit
Lanes
10 feet 12 feet 126 feet Signalized
10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 10 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
126 ft TOTAL
11 ft
WB
11 ft BRT Lane Travel Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
11 ftBRT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲●▼●
Figure 27:
Median
Transit
Lanes
7 feet 12 feet 120 feet Signalized
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
120 ft TOTAL
11 ft
WB
11 ft BRT Lane Travel Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
11 ftBRT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
12 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲●▼●
Figure 28:
Median
Transit
Lanes
7 feet 8 feet 116 feet Roundabout
7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed 7 ft Sidewalk
5 ft PlantBed
116 ft TOTAL
11 ft
WB
11 ft BRT Lane Travel Lane
WB
11 ftTravel Lane
WB
11 ftBRT Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
11 ftTravel Lane
EB
8 ftMedian
2 f
9 ftBike
t 2 f
9 ftBike
t
▼▲▲▲▼▲✔
Figure 29:
Median
Transit
Lanes
6 feet None 92 feet Signalized
6 ft Sidewalk 5 ftBike 6 ft Sidewalk5 ftBike12 ftTravel LaneEBWBWB
12 ftTravel Lane WB
12 ftBRT Lane EB
12 ftBRT Lane EB
11 ftTravel Lane11 ftTravel Lane
TOTAL92ft
●▲●●▼
Main Street: East of 20th Street
2
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
3
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
4
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
4
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
4
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
5
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
5
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
o
b
S
t
r
a
u
b
P
k
w
y
3
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
THURSTONSTATION
Main Street
Lane Configuration Options
BRT Station Area
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 4
McVay Highway: Enhanced Corridor
Enhanced Corridors are designed to improve the quality
of transit service without major capital investment. The
enhancements are intended to reduce transit travel
times, improve the convenience and reliability of the
service, and increase passenger comfort. For the McVay
Highway corridor, possible Enhanced Corridor elements
include:
• Transit signal priority at signalized intersections.
• Queue-jumps, most likely to be considered
approaching the 30th Avenue and McVay
Highway intersection from the north and/or west.
• Evaluation of station spacing to optimize access
and travel time. Stations on McVay Highway are
already spaced fairly far apart, so there may not
be a significant reduction in the number of stops.
• Improved service frequency and span. Currently,
the service schedule is oriented to Lane
Community College, and operates every 30
minutes on weekdays with no evening or
weekend service. Improvements in the frequency
and span for service will be largely determined by
new development along the corridor that
generates additional ridership potential and the
need for evening and/or weekend service.
• Enhanced stations, including shelters at key
stops.
As part of the earlier study, there was consideration of
using Old Franklin on the east side of Interstate 5
instead of McVay Highway, the current bus route on the
west side of Interstate 5. The analysis at that time did not
point strongly to one option over the other. The current
McVay Highway Enhanced Corridor option assumes
continued use of McVay Highway. The possible
realignment to Old Franklin should be reconsidered if
and when there is new development in that area.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 4