HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 1371RESOLUTION NO.�_
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EAST PINE STREET CORRIDOR REFINEMENT
PLAN DATED JANUARY 2013 WITH THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: ENHANCED FOUR -LANE
EAST PINE STREET IN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
RECITALS:
A. The Central Point City Council (the "Council") embarked on this corridor refinement plan to
objectively evaluate the multimodal performance of alternative design options and to develop
consensus on a preferred plan for East Pine Street that is consistent with the community's vision
and policies; and
B. It is the intent of the Council to use the outcome of the analysis and conclusions of the East Pine
Street Corridor Refinement Plan to provide direction for the City's Urban Renewal efforts in the
future; and
C. The Council's action to adopt the above described plan is the first of several steps to
institutionalize the East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan for use in Urban Renewal and
Transportation planning; and
The City of Central Point resolves as follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Central Point, Oregon adopts the East Pine Street Corridor
Refinement Plan of January 2013 with the Preferred Alternative, Enhanced Four -Land Street.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this a7 day of,J
2013.
nCouncil President Bruce Dingier
ATTESTa' ./
City Recorder
Resolution No. L3 7
06272013
a
This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation Growth Management '
(i'GM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed,
in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A ,
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and State of Oregon Funds.
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of ,
Oregon.
Acknowledgements
' This report was prepared through the collective effort of the following people:
City of Central Point
' Don Burt, Planning Manager
Chris Clayton, Assistant City Manager
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
' Dave Jacob, Community Planner
Matt Samitore, Parks and Public Works Director
Consultant Team
John Bosket, DKS Associates
Ray Delahanty, DKS Associates
Brad Coy, DKS Associates
Tom Litster, Otak
Kaitlin North, Otak
Technical Advisory Committee
Lisa Cortes, Oregon Department of Transportation
Allie Knill, Oregon Department of Transportation
Paige Townsend, Rogue Valley Transportation District
John Vial, Jackson County
Vicki Guarino, Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Ed Moore, Department of Land Conservation and Development
Chuck Newell, Central Point Police
Public Oversight Committee
Rick Bettenburg, Chamber of Commerce
June Brock, Chamber of Commerce
Bruce Dingler, City Council
Kelly Geiger, City Council
Gary Hall, freight representative
David Painter, Citizen Advisory Committee
Chuck Piland, Planning Commission
Dave Rainey, freight representative
Barry Robino, downtown merchant representative
Rick Samuelson, downtown merchant representative
Hank Williams, Mayor
iii
This page left blank intentionally
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...................................................................... 3
PROCESS .........................
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..
POLICY BACKGROUND
COMPLETE STREETS ......
9
EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................. 13
STUDYAREA..................................................................................................................................................13
EXISTING FACILITIES.....................................................................................................................................13
CORRIDORSAFETY.......................................................................................................................................18
MOTOR VEHICLE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.................................................................................................18
FUTURE CONDITIONS AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES .................. 21
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................21
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON...................................................................................24
STREETSCAPE DESIGN................................................................................................39
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 39
STREETSCAPE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED..............................................................................................40
THE PREFERRED STREETSCAPE ALTERNATIVE............................................................................................41
IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................................47
APPENDIX..............................................................................Volume 2
v
This page left blank intentionally
vi
tExecutive Summary
' The City of Central Point embarked on this corridor refinement plan to objectively evaluate
multimodal performance of alternative design options and to develop consensus on a
preferred plan for East Pine Street that is consistent with the community's vision and
' policies. The East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan documents the project background,
public involvement, technical analysis of alternative designs, and the final, preferred concept
for East Pine Street.
Preferred Alternative: Enhanced Four -Lane East Pine Street (I" Street to 6°i Street)
This street design alternative was widely supported by the public, local stakeholders, and
decision makers. The design maintains four travel lanes but reduces their widths from 12
feet to 11 feet. The four feet gained from the travel lane reductions are used to widen the
sidewalks by two feet each. Several improvements are recommended along with the widened
sidewalks:
■ Intersection bulb -outs at Yd Street, 5th Street, and 6th Street to improve pedestrian
visibility and crossing
• Specially paved crosswalks at each intersection, using durable concrete materials
rather than stamped concrete or thermoplastic treatments
■ Sidewalks reconstructed to a consistent finish and pavement detail throughout, with
a four -foot amenity zone for street trees and furniture
• Ornamental street lights from 1" Street to 6s' Street, matching those already in place
between Front Street and 1" Street
■ Painted sharrow markings in the outside travel lanes and bike racks located within
intersection bulb -outs or the widened amenity zone
The proposed cross section is illustrated below.
Figure 1: Cross Section for Preferred Streetscape Alternative (I" Street to 6th Street)
Executive Summary
Other Recommended Improvements
In addition to the streetscape improvements between 1" Street and 6`h Street, the following
improvements are also recommended as part of this plan.
■ 6`h Street —10`s Street Sidewalk Improvements. For this segment, no reduction in
the width of roadway lanes, or in the number of lanes, is assumed. Existing sidewalks
could be widened to 10 feet or 12 feet in width by acquiring additional right-of-way
or easements from property owners with front yard setbacks between buildings and
the current sidewalks. With wider sidewalks, street trees could be introduced into the
streetscape.
■ Enhanced Bus Bulb -Out on 6's and East Pine Street. The existing bus stop at
6th and Pine Streets should be improved by adding a street corner extended bulb -out
approximately 30 -feet in length, a small shelter, and an ADA -compliant landing with
the bulb -out and at the front door loading area. Smaller bulb -outs should be
constructed at the other three corners of the intersection with specially paved
crosswalks.
• Second Street Plaza. There was a strong consensus that a small plaza along Pine
Street, adjacent to Ray's Food Place, would be a very desirable amenity. The Plaza
was designed into the public right-of-way to minimize the loss of on -street parking,
and to retain all of the grocery store's parking. Landscaping, street furniture, art, and
shade structures were all envisioned for the site.
Figure 2: Rendering of Recommended Second Street Plaza
Executive Summary
' Introduction and Background
' Developing a plan for the Pine Street corridor with wide support depended on a strong
interagency and public involvement process, as well as a close review of existing plans,
policies, and best practices. This chapter summarizes the planning process and key
' background information.
Process
' The involvement of local stakeholders and technical staff was key in the development of this
plan. Two committees, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Public Oversight
Committee, were formed to help provide technical and policy direction and oversight, and to
' provide guidance on the trade-offs involved in different future configurations of East Pine
Street.
' Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The purpose of this committee was to provide procedural and technical input to the project
team. The TAC included representatives from:
• ODOT
■ Rogue Valley Transportation District
' ■ Jackson County
■ Rogue Valley Council of Governments
• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
' ■ City of Central Point Planning
■ City of Central Point Public Works
' Public Oversight Committee (POC)
The purpose of this committee was to provide feedback on policy issues and input on design
options. The POC included representatives from:
' • Downtown merchants
■ Chamber of Commerce
' ■ Central Point Planning Commission
■ Central Point City Council
■ Central Point Citizen Advisory Committee
' ■ Freight trucking industry
Public Involvement
Involving community members and other stakeholders was key in helping to determine
existing issues on East Pine Street, and understanding what kind of information and analysis
people would want to consider in discussing future alternatives.
Introduction and Background
Stakeholder Interviews
At the outset of the project, a roster of stakeholders and a set of interview questions were
developed in order to gain a variety of perspectives on the current and future function of
East Pine Street. Stakeholders included representatives from businesses on or near East Pine
Street and Central Point City Council members.
Recurring themes from the stakeholder interviews include the following:
The most often cited problems with East Pine Street were pedestrian crossing safety
and a perceived poor business environment
Potential street improvements most often mentioned were pedestrian crossing
enhancements, sidewalk improvements, and a signal at 2"d Street
Perceptions of whether or not a three -lane East Pine Street would work better than
the existing four lanes were mixed
More detail on the stakeholder interviews is available in the appendix to this report.
Public Walking Tour
Early in the project, a walking tour was held
in order to help identify issues and
brainstorm ideas for improving East Pine
Street. A group of about 20 people gathered
at City Hall, and the consultant team
provided a short overview of the project
and the purpose of the tour, providing
comment cards for tour participants to use
as they saw fit. The group followed the
route shown in Figure 3.
Key observations from the walking tour Figure 3: Route for Public Walking Tour
include:
■ Many obstructions in the sidewalk, including an excessive number of parking '
restriction signs that may no longer be needed
■ Visibility of pedestrians at comers can be poor
■ 2nd Street pedestrian crossing safety is a concern '
■ General support for decorative street lighting
■ Some interest in creating a plaza in front of Ray's Food Place '
More detail on the walking tour can be found in the appendix to this report.
Additional Public Involvement '
Public outreach occurred throughout the process, with the following events (Table 1) being
key in development and selection of the preferred alternative.
Introduction and Background
Table 1: Key Public Involvement Events
Introduction and Background
Brainstorm streetscape concepts
January 2012
Public Workshop
Review Streetscape Alternatives
July 2012
Planning Commission
Recommend streetscape
September 2012
alternative
Citizen Advisory Committee
Review Background and Existing
August 2011
Conditions
Recommend streetscape
October 2012
alternative
Project Overview
May 2011
Review Comparison of Future
Review Background and Existing
August 2011
Conditions
Public Oversight Committee
Review Comparison of Future
January 2012
Street Configurations
Review Streetscape Alternatives
July 2012
Recommend streetscape
October 2012
alternative
Introduction and Background
Policy Background
This corridor refinement plan included a review of local and regional planning documents.
These documents contain existing goals, policies, and strategies, as well as additional
background information relevant to evaluating, comparing, and discussing alternative
configurations for East Pine Street.
The following documents were reviewed:
■ Regional Freight Study (2006)
■ 2009-2034 Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2009)
■ Jackson County Transportation System Plan (2005)
■ Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan (2005)
■ Rogue Valley Transit District Plan (2007)
• Highway 99 Corridor Plan (2005)
■ East Pine Street Transportation Plan (2004)
• Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) (2008)
• Central Point Downtown Revitalization Plan, Public Hearing Draft (1999)
• Central Point Forward — Fair City Vision 2020 (2007)
■ Access Management Plan for Front Street / Pine Street (2003)
Detailed summaries are included in the appendix to this report, and key policies considered
as part of the corridor plan are shown in Table 2.
Introduction and Background
Table 2: Policies Considered for Alternatives Evaluation
Policy
Source
1.2 Landscaping and other amenities to encourage people to walk
RTP
6-2 Facilitate alternative parking strategies to encourage walking, bicycling, carpooling,
RTP
and transit
6-3 Enhance bicycle and pedestrian systems
RTP
9-1 Accommodate travel demand to support the local economy
RTP
2.5.4. Regional Freight Study, 2006: The Regional Freight Study identified the section of
TSP
Pine Street through the downtown as a freight route. As stated in the City's 2000 TSP
and its Vision 2020, the preference is that freight be diverted from that section of Pine
Street within the Central Business District.
5.1.1 Maintain mobility standard at LOS D
TSP
5.1.2 Facilitate implementation of bus bays
TSP
7.1.8 Incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into streetscape of public rights-
TSP
of -way
7.1.9 Reconstructed streets should be designed to the adopted street standards
TSP
7.1.13 Design street improvements to accommodate anticipated travel demand for
TSP
next 20 years
8.1.3 Develop linked bicycle network focusing on, but not inclusive to, the arterial and
TSP
collector system
8.1.4 Use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with road reconstruction
TSP
and re -striping
11.2.2 Design and improvement of streets designated on Freight System shall
TSP
accommodate large vehicles
Introduction and Background
Policy
Source
Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects —Short Term (5-10 years):
East Pine Street is the primary east -west route through Central Point. The
designation of bicycle lanes on Pine Street would negatively impact parking and
access to local businesses. To preserve the character of the downtown it is
suggested that E. Pine Street be designated a bicycle route through the downtown
TSP
area. Traffic speeds through the downtown should be reduced through traffic
calming, on -street parking, and other site design strategies that make this section of
Pine Street compatible with bicycle users. Under no circumstance should on -street
parking on Pine Street, within the downtown, be removed to accommodate bicycle
lanes.
DRB -3a Implement recommended and locally acceptable street improvements and
Central Point
traffic controls in Central Business District to reduce driving speeds and make walking
safer and more desirable
Forward
DRB -3c Emphasize both form and function when selecting traffic control devices
Central Point
(signals, crosswalks, bulb -outs, etc.)
Forward
MGI -3a Include pedestrian and bicycle friendly options in every plan, and retrofit
Central Point
existing streets and neighborhoods whenever possible
Forward
T-11 Implement recommended and locally acceptable street improvements and traffic
Central Point
controls in the Central Business District (includes Highway 99) to reduce driving speeds
Forward
and make walking safer and more desirable.
T -1c Re-examine one-way streets on Manzanita and Oak
Central Point
Forward
T -2a Develop codes and enforcement to prohibit semi trucks on Pine Street.
Central Point
Forward
T -2a Create alternate truck route through downtown.
Central Point
Forward
T -3b Create safe pedestrian passage across Highway 99 and East Pine Street
Central Point
Forward
Introduction and Background
Complete Streets
In recent years, many communities across the U.S. have taken a Complete Streets approach
when constructing new streets or reconstructing existing streets. While this approach
recognizes the need or safe and efficient operation of vehicles, it strives to balance all the
transportation choices and improve mobility for people of all ages and abilities. On a
Complete Street, children can safely travel to school, those who choose to walk or bike will
have convenient routes to their destinations, and public transportation will be easily
accessible to everyone.
Potential Benefits for Central Point
A Complete Streets approach to East Pine Street could help address a number of issues and
concerns already identified by the community at -large through past planning and by key
stakeholders in this planning process. Designing and substantially rebuilding East Pine
Street, or the parallel streets of Manzanita and Oak, could improve mobility for all users,
improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and help revitalize and diversify the business
community.
All communities will increasingly need to address the issues of climate change, sustainability,
and public health. Implementing Complete Streets will have a significant role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, improving water quality through better
stormwater management practices, and promoting more active lifestyles for better health.
' Design Objectives and Guidelines
Design objectives for Complete Streets generally apply to new and substantially rebuilt
streets. Figure 4, below, illustrates the zones that typically make up a Complete Street. If East
Pine Street remains a four -lane facility, then the application of these guidelines is necessarily
limited. For a four -lane to three -lane conversion, this zone system could help guide the
reallocation of street right-of-way in meeting the needs of all users.
Sidewalk Zone. Sidewalks serve multiple functions. They should be designed to support the
activities expected of a thriving downtown and business district. At a minimum, the sidewalk
must provide a continuous, unobstructed path that is 5 feet wide in order to meet
contemporary ADA requirements. Within a downtown or a mixed-use area, a width of 7 to
10 feet is preferred.
Amenity Zone. The amenity zone complements the sidewalk and provides pedestrians with
a buffer from the moving traffic. It includes many of the features that contribute to an
attractive streetscape and image for downtown and the neighborhoods. The amenity zone
also provides space to exit from a parked car and board a bus without conflicting with other
sidewalk activities. Widths of 4 to 6 feet are the minimum. In some locations even wider
widths can be achieved by using curb extensions.
Introduction and Background
a`
Ade .k
Amenity Parking
Bicyde Tm.Vrnndt
Center tam f Median
Ndntmn
Street
Owaaeetpank g;
5s111, bide
M.e t sehirka
Dues earn nsaaeme.n
naoevnent
fi.niahiogs
tnN
�urluLng b�ck. drLreay
Bdb-ouv
protide smfvgr Fot pcdrmi.
B.w.. ivtec6ce
street toes
...3 the sem(Pem rlady at
Bm stops
id.ti6ed mid -block rsosamgs)
CaE<snu.g
Cukues
0.-s1iat Mcyrk
gg
signet,
sunt.
parking
G
nm n
uPavten
❑ur for
e
Puked an
Bk3-k Puk'°g
B. scop
Tm i. Sig.V
l;.obsrrrr.Mpuh
Hands.6ce
Fste.vo. of the
l*sulk
df.. W3,16,mhik
Isfivisixeevniog..Ricts
C
for 2-7 abrnst
except
erne]/traeit.=
m d..gs
secommoda6nglugu
a .... noduing lug¢r.ehide, such as
llan disu.rtire
ste nere.
iadicaeng
aetudn oath n ernagrn,,,
emergency; Right and trunit
P-9
P6-1upuau
u
height and u t
U
P. pmn
Shand k.e
m ee gran
Figure 4: Complete Streets Zones
Parking Zone. On -street parking adds to the activity of the street. It provides motorists
access to businesses and creates an additional
buffer for pedestrians. This zone can also
provide space for freight loading zones, bus
stops, bicycle parking, and curb extensions.'
Parking zones should be 7 to 8 feet wide. la
Bicycle Zone. The bicycle zone makes cyclists
visible to vehicles and indicates how cyclists
should use the roadway. Facilities for exclusive
bike travel are usually striped lanes that are 5 to
6 feet wide. Buffered or raised bike lanes could
be considered if the right-of-way is available. In
some cases, bikes share the travel zone with
cars as a shared lane or sharrow.
Introduction and Background
I
' Bicycle Parking. The availability of bicycle parking or end -of -trip facilities can be a
determining factor in the decision to pedal rather than drive. Providing "place to park", both
long-term and short-term, is fundamental to a good bicycle system. It creates a more
attractive and organized streetscape, preserves pedestrian space and helps equalize the
transportation modes and choices. There are numerous bike parking solutions that can be
tailored to the specific needs of the businesses and the community at -large.
' Travel Zone. The efficient movement of vehicles will always be a priority in a Complete
Streets policy. This zone should emphasize safe travel and turning for vehicles, including
delivery trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles. But it is also a crossing area for pedestrians,
and the shorter distances from curb to curb create more favorable crossing conditions. It
must balance the needs of cyclists and pedestrians with street function and capacity. Typical
lanes widths for downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are 11 to 12 feet.
Medians. Medians can be striped or raised with curbs. Striped medians provide continuous
opportunities to make left turns without being in the travel lane. Raised medians can provide
the same opportunity at more limited locations. Raised medians also accommodate attractive
landscaping and provide temporary refuge for pedestrians trying to cross the street at mid -
block. Typical median widths are 10 to 14 feet Widths less than 6 feet do not provide
adequate waiting space for pedestrian crossings.
Intersections. Intersection design is often influenced by unique conditions or contexts,
including the need to accommodate delivery trucks within a business district However,
intersection design should always consider
the tradeoffs between vehicular capacity
and pedestrian and bike mobility. How
intersections accommodate pedestrians is as
important as the sidewalk system.
Guidelines for pedestrian -friendly
intersection design include:
• Shorten the crossing distance from
curb to curb.
• Enhance the pavement or crosswalk
markings.
• Provide a separate walk phase for
traffic signals in high pedestrian volume areas.
• Calibrate the walk phase to meet ADA standards for slower moving pedestrians.
• Provide good illumination at all four comers.
Introduction and Background
Stormwater Management. Communities
are rethinking street drainage systems
engineered to collect run-off in
underground pipes and carry it away as
untreated wastewater. The Green Street
approach is more sustainable by achieving
natural hydrological functions for
stormwater falling within the right-of-way,
achieving multiple goals of being cost-
effective, improving water quality, and
creating new streetscape amenities. Many
of these facilities emphasize bio -retention
and can be attractively integrated into the
amenity zone.
Additional information on Complete Streets best practices can be found in the appendix to
this report.
Introduction and Background
Existing Conditions
This section summarizes the existing transportation conditions for the study area. It includes
an inventory of the existing transportation network, a safety evaluation, and an analysis of
how the transportation system is currently operating.
Study Area
The primary study area includes East Pine Street between Front Street (Highway 99) and
' 10th Street/Freeman Road. However, the corridor solution could include use of the parallel
routes on Manzanita and Oak Streets, and changes made to East Pine Street could have
impacts on the surrounding street network. Therefore, the study area was extended west to
' Haskell Street and east to Hamrick Road. Figure 5 illustrates this study area, including key
places of interest.
' Existing Facilities
The following sections will provide an inventory and analysis of the conditions for parking,
' pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and public transit throughout the study area.
Parking
' On -street parking is generally available throughout the study area. Parking is permitted
within about 15 feet of crosswalks in many locations along East Pine Street, which can create
problems with pedestrian visibility. On -street parking between Front Street and Yh Street
' tends to be well -utilized particularly during the mid-day. Off-street parking is available in
several lots along East Pine Street East of 5a' Avenue, on -street parking appears to be often
underutilized.'
1
I DKS Associates. observation Mav 17-19.2011.
Existing Conditions
T r �
m
r Z
o n l o cb _ v cC�i A
O
N 3RD ST O
�• v' p Z
Iry
a
*yid n ,n i�, y •v���\/. �. \\.���� y \� �_LyLL y�y i
c
Y
>
I
CD
t =k
i ?" N
3
\
�y/
ROSTELL ST -< D m y o �_ CD
m
z m rn BIGHAM DR
0
A
m
FREEMAN RD _
FREEMAN R - J
MARK PL j j
SHADOW j
z JEFF PL
z fl
Z •
00 —
0 I I I
GRAY C7
)UNTRYSIDE U17 ai V
JASON r I••
PRIMROSE z �• I --
D I• -
JNTAINVIEW �Ifl A ,I• •� PENINGER DR f•.
VILLAGE ,'.,'.'•� ''�• CO
r �' m� uaal� Aealo aea9 i
n ' I I z oO
c.. e�
Pedestrian Environment
East Pine Street features sidewalks throughout, but widths vary. Much of the western end of
East Pine, including the downtown core, features 8 -foot sidewalks. However, some sections
east of 5th Street have 5 and 6 -foot sidewalks. All sidewalks on East Pine Street are "curb -
tight," with only parked cars buffering pedestrians from moving vehicles.
The condition of sidewalks varies as well. Recent construction has provided new sidewalks
along East Pine Street from Haskell Street to 1 st
Street However, east of 1st Street many of the
sidewalks are old and in disrepair with large cracks
an uneven surfaces. Additionally, travel along the
sidewalks can be impeded by light poles, street
signs, benches, and trash cans. Together, the poor
surfacing and presence of obstructions create trip
hazards and can make passage by people with
mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, baby
carriages) difficult.
Much of the existing sidewalk pre -dates the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which
provides a number of design requirements to
allow for the accessibility of public places for
' individuals with disabilities. In addition to the
obstructions in the traveled way noted above, in
the areas of old construction most curb ramps are
' too steep. However, where new construction has
occurred, such as around the intersection with 1 st
Street, there are ADA -compliant facilities,
' including new curb ramp designs and more open
space for maneuvering.
' All intersections on East Pine Street have at least
one striped crosswalk across the corridor, with
most intersections having striped crosswalks in all
four directions. However, signalized crossings of
East Pine Street west of I-5 are only available at
the intersections with Haskell, Front, 3rd, 4th, and
10th Streets. This leaves long gaps of
approximately 750 feet between Front and 3rd
Streets and 1,500 feet between 4th and 10th
t Streets with no control of traffic to aid pedestrian
crossings.
Pedestrian crossing safety was one of the most
common concerns regarding East Pine Street that
was expressed by community members. In
addition to a desire for more signalized crossing
The series of pictures above fliustrates
current sidewalk conditions on E. Pine
Street. [1) sidewalk in disrepair [2[
obstructions in the traveled way [3]
poor curb romp design with on
obstructed landing
Existing Conditions
opportunities, other concerns included pedestrian visibility and motorist awareness.
These photos show how pedestrian visibility at street corners can be Impacted by the presence of parallel
parking. (1] View standing on sidewalk looking back towards oncoming traffic (2] View looking back towards
oncoming traffic from where sidewalk would be if a bulb -out were present
Pedestrian visibility is commonly limited on East Pine Street in two ways: 1) at the corner of
the street during the beginning of the crossing attempt and 2) within the roadway during the
crossing attempt. At the street corners, pedestrians waiting to cross the street can be
obstructed from an oncoming driver's view by parked cars along the curb. The most
effective ways of addressing this condition include moving parking stalls farther away from
crosswalks and/or constructing bulb -outs at corners to bring waiting pedestrians closer to
the traveled way and reduce crossing distance. Bulb -outs have already been constructed on
East Pine Street at 1 st Street, as well as in other areas of the city.
When a vehicle stops to yield to a crossing pedestrian, it can limit the pedestrian's ability to
see oncoming traffic. This is illustrated in Figure 6. This is a common problem on multi -lane
roadways. Safely stopping a vehicle from 25 mph (the posted speed on East Pine Street)
requires about 150 feet, which is nearly 70% of the average block length on the corridor. So
even when drivers are vigilant, by the time they see a pedestrian they may not have time to
stop unless they have already slowed considerably in preparation.
Pedestrian counts from Fall 2010 showed that walking
activity in the East Pine Street corridor is highest between
6th Street and Haskell Street. The three most popular
locations for crossing East Pine Street were at 2nd Street,
Front Street, and Haskell Street.
The findings were echoed in the project's stakeholder
interviews, which highlighted the importance of 2"d Street.
This intersection provides access to Ray's Food Place, which
is a popular lunchtime destination for Crater High School
students. When the weather is clear, it is not uncommon to
see dozens of students crossing East Pine Street during the
lunch hour traveling to and from Ray's.
The intersection at 6th Street provides access to the post
Existing Conditions
Figure 6: Illustration of
pedestrian visibility
obstructed by yielding car
office and Pfaff Park (north of Manzanita Street). At the time of field assessment, the City
had recently implemented a crossing enhancement treatment at this intersection. The
treatment included advanced pedestrian crossing warning signs and pavement markings with
rumble strips.
Bicycle Environment
East Pine Street is an important travel route through Central Point and across I-5 for
bicyclists as well as motor vehicles. In addition to providing access to the downtown, it also
connects to destinations east of 1-5 such as the Bear Creek Greenway, and to residential
lands west of the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad. The City's Transportation System Plan
recognizes the importance of East Pine Street for bicycle travel and suggests that it be
designated as a bicycle route through the downtown. However, it also recognizes that the
installation of bicycle lanes would negatively impact parking and local business access.
A considerable length of East Pine Street (1st Street to 8th Street) does not include bike
lanes. Therefore, bicyclists must share a travel lane with motor vehicles. The use of a shared
roadway such as this in an urban area is generally considered suitable where speeds are low
(25 mph or less) or traffic volumes are low (3,000 vehicles per day). While the posted speed
on East Pine Street is 25 mph, many bicyclists may not feel comfortable sharing a lane with
the 15,000 vehicles per day that use this corridor. Furthermore, riding next to parallel -parked
cars can also be uncomfortable and potentially hazardous for bicyclists due to the danger of
being hit by an opening door.
Field visits showed that convenient and secure bicycle parking downtown is infrequent.
Most bicycles seen outside of East Pine Street businesses were simply leaned against
buildings. Implementing more aggressive bicycle parking requirements in the downtown may
result in facilities that make travel by bicycle more appealing to area residents.
Data collection in Fall 2011 showed that bicycle activity was highest between 6th Street and
' Haskell Street. The highest amount of activity was seen from Front Street to Haskell Street,
which is also an area where bike lanes are present.
Public Transit
Rogue Valley Transit District's Route 40 travels westbound on East Pine Street between 1"
and Td Street every 30 minutes between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM. A park-and-ride facility is
located on the comer of Manzanita Street and 2nd Street. The park-and-ride stop at 2nd
Street and Manzanita Street is the most heavily used stop, and is also the closest stop to the
core of downtown Central Point. More detailed ridership data can be found in the appendix.
Existing Conditions
Corridor Safety
Review of recent crash history on the corridor
highlighted potential issues at the intersection
of 10th Street and Freeman Road, which
experiences significantly more crashes, and a
higher crash rate, than any other location on
the corridor.
East Pine Street at I & Street/Freeman
Road
At this intersection, nearly half of all crashes
reported involved rear -end collisions on the
south approach of Freeman Road. Two-thirds
of those were related to the right tum
movement from Freeman Road towards the
I-5 interchange. As shown in the pictures at
right, vertical and horizontal curves limit sight
distance as drivers approach East Pine Street
from the south. To compound the problem, if
drivers approach stopped vehicles on the
other side of the hill too quickly, they may
have a difficult time stopping on the downhill
grade. A "stop ahead" sign has been installed
to help warn drivers approaching this
intersection.
The above photos show Freeman Rood as it
approaches East Pine Street from the south. [1] a
stop ahead sign is used to warn driven where a
vertical drop limits visibility [2] once down the hill, a
Another element that may be a factor is the horizontal curve to the right can make visibility
stop sign control for the right tum movement, difficult as well
rather than signal control. The requirement
for every vehicle to stop creates "stop -and -go" movement, which may not be expected by
unfamiliar drivers at a signalized intersection.
Motor Vehicle System Performance
This section shows how motor vehicle traffic currently operates on East Pine Street and
establishes a baseline from which to develop potential improvement concepts. Intersection
operations and corridor travel time are discussed below. For information on other motor
vehicle system performance measures, see the appendix.
Intersection Operations
Intersection analysis indicates that nearly all study area intersections operate adequately and
meet jurisdictional standards. One minor street movement does not meet the City standard:
the southbound left turn at 7th Street and East Pine Street. This movement experiences the
most delay of any within the corridor, with vehicles waiting over 35 seconds on average for a
gap in traffic.
Existing Conditions
' Signal Operations
Traffic signals within the study area vary in terms of timing, phasing, and coordination.
Signals on East Pine Street near I-5 (at 10d' Street, the two -off ramps, and Peninger) are
' coordinated and offset to allow vehicles to flow smoothly in the peak direction at peak hour.
The signals at 3'd and a Streets, however, have old controllers that limit the ability to
implement appropriate offsets, resulting in interrupted flow through this section of the
■ corridor.
Corridor Travel Time
Travel time is a performance measure that can be helpful in determining the impact of
congestion, signals, and prevailing speeds on vehicular movement through the corridor. In
addition to field measurements, average travel time calculations were performed in
SimTraffic, a microscopic traffic simulation model that was calibrated to match existing
conditions observed in the field. Field measurements were taken eastbound and westbound
during the PM peak hour between the center point of the intersection of Haskell Street and
West Pine Street and the intersection of the I-5 southbound ramps and East Pine Street. The
field -measured results, as well as simulation results for the same segment, are shown in Table
3.
Table 3: Existing (2011) Weekday PM Peak Hour Segment Travel Time Performance, Pine
Street Between Haskell Street and I-5
Intersection �.
Pine Street Westbound (field) 2:04 3:05 2:35
Pine Street Westbound (simulation) 2:53 3:24 3:06
Pine Street Eastbound (field) 2:48 2:48 2:48
Pine Street Eastbound (simulation) 3:10 3:28 3:22
Source: DKS Associates field observation (May I8, 2011), SimTnffic microscopic simulation model (DKS Associates)
' On average, simulated travel times were slightly higher than observed travel times. However,
the majority of delay in the simulated travel time occurred at the same points as in the
observed travel time. The signals at 106' Street and Front Street have the most impact on
' corridor travel time, contributing between 60 and 90 seconds of delay to the trip.
Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally
Existing Conditions
' Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
' A key step in this corridor refinement plan was to assess and compare future transportation
conditions on East Pine Street under No -Build conditions and future Four -Lane and Three -
Lane alternatives. The future analysis presented below includes analysis of motor vehicle,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit performance under the No -Build alternative and the Four -
Lane and Three -Lane build alternatives.
Transportation Alternatives
■ Three alternatives representing possible traffic configurations of East Pine Street, described
below, are evaluated in this chapter. These alternatives are different from the streetscape
' alternatives, which focus on elements of the built environment rather than traffic
characteristics, and are discussed in the next chapter. Illustrations of the Improved Four -
Lane and the Three -Lane alternatives are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
' No -Build
This alternative assumes that no improvements are made in the East Pine Street corridor
' through the year 2034. This is essentially the existing condition with future (year 2034) traffic
volumes applied to it.
' Improved Four -Lane
This alternative maintains the existing East Pine Street four -lane cross section, but includes
improvements to mitigate poor operating conditions found under the No -Build alternative.
' These improvements include:
■ Remove the existing traffic signal from the intersection on East Pine Street at 3`d
Street and install a new coordinated/actuated traffic signal at 2nd Street
■ Coordinate the traffic signals along East Pine Street at Front Street, 2°d Street, and 4d
Street (assumes a common cycle length of 90 seconds)
■ Change protected left tum phasing on Front Street approaches with Pine Street to
protected -permissive phasing
• Add protected -permissive southbound left tum phasing at the East Pine
Street/Haskell Street intersection
■ Lengthen the eastbound left/through add -lane at the East Pine Street/2°d Street
intersection to 100 feet (only requires restriping)
■ Add a northbound right tum lane (75 feet) at the new East Pine Street/2nd Street
signalized intersection by removing approximately three on -street parking spaces
■ Enhanced pedestrian crossing treatment on East Pine Street at G`" Street (see
Pedestrian section)
This alternative also includes options for other pedestrian movements, such as curb
extensions at key locations and slightly wider sidewalks (if existing travel lanes are narrowed).
Discussion of the purpose of each of the above improvements is included in the appendix.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
CD
CD r
0
EIL I f , ll`o Ip
VC,
Co tj.
9
s
err,
ui:1A
'o
LU
m
N�
it: r
C:
0
C)
0
ae
it: r
C)
ae
Three -Lane
The key feature of this alternative is the conversion of East Pine Street to a three -lane
roadway (one travel lane in each direction and a center tum lane) through the study corridor.
The narrower street provides the opportunity to reallocate as much as 10 feet of right-of-way
width between I't Street and 7's Street. One of the following two options for allocating this
space may be used:
1. Wider sidewalks: reallocates width to sidewalks, providing addition space for
pedestrians, street furnishing, landscaping, and outdoor seating. Existing sidewalks,
ranging from five to eight feet in width, would be increased to approximately 10 to
13 feet in width.
2. Bicycle lanes: reallocates width to provide bicycle lanes on East Pine Street, as there
are currently no bicycle lanes on East Pine Street. This option would provide five-
foot wide bicycle lanes between parallel parked cars and the travel lanes.
Additionally, there is the opportunity to narrow travel lanes slightly and either widen
bike lanes or sidewalks by an additional one to two feet.
The same improvements described above for the Improved Four -Lane alternative were still
needed, in addition to the following:
• Add a southbound right tum lane (75 feet) at the East Pine Street/4a' Street
intersection by removing approximately two on -street parking spaces
Transportation Alternatives Comparison
Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle performance under each alternative was evaluated in terms of intersection
operations, travel time and travel speed, and vehicle queuing. An overview of each
alternative's performance is included below. For more detail, see the appendix.
Forecasting and Future Volumes
In order to forecast vehicular traffic and intersection turning movements for the year 2034,
the future model for the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) was
used as a starting pointe. The model was modified to increase sensitivity to small-scale
improvements such as new signal locations, added turn lanes, and modified cross sections.
Traffic forecasts were performed for a four -lane (No -Build) cross section and a three -lane
section of East Pine Street.
A key fording from the forecasting was that comparison of four -lane and three4ane forecast
volumes on East Pine Street showed only minor differences, suggesting that:
• The change in road capacity does not generate congestion to the point that travelers
divert to different routes through downtown Central Point
1 For
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
• Alternative routes through downtown are constrained by the single I-5 crossing to
the east and limited railroad crossings to the west
Figures showing the future movement volumes for the three alternatives are available in the
appendix.
No -Build Alternative
The No -Build alternative assumes no improvements are made in the East Pine Street
corridor through the year 2034. The results of this analysis show significant deficiencies and
help guide where improvements will be needed under improved alternatives to maintain
acceptable operations for motor vehicles.
Intersection Operations
Under the No -Build Alternative, most study intersections will continue to meet mobility
standards in 2034. The exceptions are unsignalized intersections along East Pine Street from
5' Street to 8" Street. At all four of these intersections, the movements experiencing high
delays are the southbound left and southbound through movements from the minor streets.
Each of these streets is classified as a local street and the volume of traffic attempting to tum
out of them is forecast to be relatively low—too low in fact to meet signalization warrants
from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Corridor Travel Time and Average Speed
Average travel time calculations for East Pine Street between the I-5 southbound ramps and
Haskell Street were estimated for the 2034 PM peak period. The average travel times and
travel speeds experienced under future No -Build conditions are shown in Table 4 along with
the values calculated for existing conditions for comparison.
Table 4: Future (2034) No -Build Weekday PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times and
Average Travel Speeds - East Pine Street Between I-5 Southbound and Haskell Street
Pine Street Westbound 3:06 9:36 15 mph 5 mph
Pine Street Eastbound 3:22 12:56 14 mph 4 mph
Source: SimTraffic microscopic simulation model (DKS Associates)
As shown above, corridor travel times and speeds will be significantly worse by 2034 if no
improvements are made along East Pine Street. This level of congestion was not identified in
the intersection operations analysis above. More detailed assessment of simulations run for
this alternative showed that substandard signals and lack of synchronization contribute
significantly to this poor performance.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane Alternatives
The comparative analysis of the Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane alternatives
demonstrates that East Pine Street can function well for through travel whether it is reduced
to three lanes through downtown or maintained as a four -lane street.
Intersection Operations
The Improved Four -Lane alternative performs similarly to the No -Build, with one more
intersection (3d Street, unsignalized under this alternative) failing to meet the mobility
standard. Also, the side -street delays for unsignalized intersections (3`d, 5 , and 7b Streets)
increase significantly. The cause of this is actually the improved progression of through
traffic along East Pine Street. The coordination efficiently moves traffic along East Pine
Street in long platoons of vehicles, which is good for through movements. However, it
makes finding gaps in traffic difficult for drivers leaving the side -streets. The benefits of the
Improved Four -Lane alternative become clear in the queuing and travel time analysis,
discussed below and in the appendix.
The Three -Lane alternative generally out -performs the Improved Four -Lane alternative,
with reduced delay at intersections and only two intersections failing to meet mobility
standards. The center lane provided in this alternative allows the problematic side -street
turning movements to complete maneuvers in two stages rather than one. The Three -Lane
alternative, however, increases average delay at signalized intersections at 2"d and 4' Streets
due to the reduction in through lanes and longer queues.
Corridor Travel Time and Average Speed
Average travel time calculations for East Pine Street under future conditions were performed
for each alternative in the same manner described in the No -Build condition. The results for
each alternative are shown in Table 5, along with the results from the No -Build analysis.
Table 5: Future (2034) Weekday PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times - East Pine Street
between I-5 Southbound and Haskell Street
Pine Street Westbound 9:36 4:00 3:54
Pine Street Eastbound 12:56 4:08 4:04
Source: SlmTraffic microscopic simulation model (DKS Associates)
As shown, corridor travel times along East Pine Street are nearly identical between the
Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane alternatives and both provide significant
improvements over No -Build conditions.
Summary of Motor Vehicle Conditions
Table 6 compares the benefits for motor vehicle travel in the East Pine Street corridor
associated with the recommended treatments and compares the advantages provided by the
Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane alternatives. In summary, motor vehicle conditions
can be significantly improved under either alternative. The Improved Four -Lane alternative
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
additional travel lane. More detail on the operations of the Three -Lane alternative compared
to the Improved Four -Lane, including function of the center tum lane and the impact of
parallel parking maneuvers, can be found in the appendix.
Table 6: Summary of Motor Vehicle Benefits
'Improved
Good. Slightly better
Good. Better for side street traffic, but
Intersection Performance
performance at signals, but
slightly worse at signals
'
worse for side street traffic
Good. It will only take one
Good. It will only take one minute
Travel Times/Speeds
minute longer to traverse the
longer to traverse the corridor than it
'
corridor than it does today while
does today while serving over 20 years
serving over 20 years of growth
of growth
Very Good. Provides the
Good. Longer queues than the Four -
Vehicle Queuing
shortest queues along East Pine
Lane alternative, but still within
Street
acceptable ranges
Fair. Improvements made may
Good. As much as a 29% reduction in
Safety
not significantly change the rate
crashes could occur based on national
'
of crashes
trends
Pedestrian Improvements
While sidewalk improvements may be a significant element of a future East Pine Street,
safety for pedestrians crossing East Pine Street was the most commonly requested
improvement for stakeholders. A number of enhancements for pedestrian crossings on East
Pine Street have been included in the Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane alternatives and
are described below.
Enhanced crossing at 6th Street
A pedestrian crossing enhancement has already been implemented on East Pine Street at the
intersection with 6`s Street to improve access to the Post Office and Pfaff Park. The existing
enhancement consists of advanced warning signs, pavement markings, rumble strips, and a
high -visibility crosswalk. Light poles are also present in the vicinity, but are more than SO
feet from the crossing.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
As part of this corridor plan, upgrades to the 6' Street
pedestrian crossing are proposed to enhance motorist
awareness and overall pedestrian safety. The proposed
improvements include:
■ Retaining the high -visibility continental style
crosswalk.
■ Removal of the rumble strips.
■ Retaining the advanced warning signs.
■ Installing push-button activated Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons underneath the warning
sign at the crossing location on both sides of the
roadway.
■ Installing illumination at the crossing location.
■ Install Advance Stop Lines (see Figure 9).
■ Installing curb extensions at both ends of the
crossing.
The proposed improvements to the 6d' Street pedestrian
crossing are essentially the same whether applied to the
Improved Four -Lane or Three -Lane alternatives.
Additional discussion of potential enhanced 6d' street
crossing elements is included in the appendix.
Better Access to Enhanced Crossings
Another strategy for improving
pedestrian crossing safety is to increase
access to controlled (i.e., signalized) or
enhanced crossing locations. By adding
the 6d' Street crossing improvements as
described above and relocating the
existing 3`d Street signal to 2nd Street,
significantly more blocks on East Pine
Street between I-5 and Haskell Street will
have direct access to a controlled or
enhanced crossing (see Figure 10).
The pictures above illustrate
recommended applications for an
enhanced 6d' Street pedestrian
crossing. [1] continental style
crosswalk (1] RRFB mounted under a
warning sign
Figure 9: Advance stop lines improve visibility
on multi -lane roadways (Source: Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, ODOT)
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
The 6ei Street crossing improvements and
relocation of the Yd Street signal to 2'
Street are included as part of both the
Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane
alternatives.
Improved Pedestrian Visibility
Perhaps the greatest problem in the East
Pine Street corridor related to pedestrian
safety is lack of adequate visibility.
Visibility was found to be limited in two
ways: 1) at the comer of the street during
the beginning of the crossing attempt and
2) within the crosswalk during the crossing
attempt. Potential remedies for both of
these problems are discussed below.
Visibility at Street Corners
At the street comers, pedestrians waiting
to cross East Pine Street can be obstructed
from an oncoming driver's view by parked
' cars along the curb. The two most
effective ways of mitigating this problem
would be to move parking stalls farther
' away from crosswalks or to construct curb
extensions at comers to bring pedestrians
closer to the traveled way.
' The primary factors considered when
choosing one of these treatments include:
■ The ability to retain valued parallel
parking spaces
■ The ability to provide sufficient
sight distance between the curb
and oncoming cars to allow drivers
to stop for pedestrians
Providing a full 150 feee of sight distance
(measured from the crosswalk to the
oncoming car) is ideal, but not essential.
Given that improvements in visibility may
Existing
Proposed
Condition
Condition
■� 1■
■� �■
1-5 SB
■T T■
1110
Jewett St
■i l■
IN
■1 T■ 10th SL
■i i■
stn St.
8thSt.
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ stn St.
❑
6th St.
■ ■
1i 10
5th
■11■ t.
■y 1■
■I I■ 4tnSt.
Tim
3rd 3rd St.
■i i■■+
1■ Greatest
■ ■ 2nd St.
■T T■ Pedestrian
Activity
1st
■! 1■
MIN
Front S
KIM Front St
MITIM
■�1■ Amy St.
M111
Haskell St.
MITIN
—
WIN
69%
88%
coverage
coverage
■ Direct Access to Controlled X-ing
Direct Access to Assisted X-ing
■ Access to Unassisted X-ing only
Figure 10: Comparison of accessibility to
controlled and assisted pedestrian crossings on
East Pine Street
3 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and
Transoortation Officials. Washineton. DC. 2004. n. 112.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
come at the cost of other important elements of the corridor, the overall benefits gained
should be balanced.
Figure 11 compares the effect of parking removal and curb extensions related to improved
comer visibility. Example 1 (on the left) shows the existing East Pine Street corridor
traveling westbound toward the unsignalized intersection at 2"d Street where no curb
extensions are present. As shown, to provide the full 150 feet of stopping sight distance
there would need to be 85 feet of parking prohibition from the crosswalk.
Example 2 (on the right) shows the existing East Pine Street corridor traveling westbound
toward the unsignalized intersection at 1 st Street, where 8 -foot curb extensions have been
constructed. In this case, to provide the full 150 feet of stopping sight distance there would
need to be just 35 feet of parking prohibition from the crosswalk.
�n n
TLi1
I
L -two
I
i 150 ft. i 150 ft.
I to stop ; to stop
I
J"I", 85 ft. ofparking 35 ft. of
° removal
r , parking
removal • ^ 6
� I
I
0 A
64 ft. x-ing 2 ft. x-ir
ERKM M_
Figure 11. The effect of curb extensions and parking removal on pedestrian visibility
Additional information on the trade-offs involving curb extensions can be found in the
appendix.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Summary of Pedestrian Conditions
Table 7 lists the benefits for pedestrian travel in the East Pine Street corridor associated with
the recommended treatments and compares the Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane
alternatives. In summary, pedestrian conditions can be significantly improved under either
alternative. Whether applied to the Improved Four -Lane or Three -Lane alternative, curb
extensions provide a number of benefits for pedestrian safety and accessibility without need
for lost parking. However, consideration should be given to the appropriate design for
balancing pedestrian needs with motor vehicle needs.
Table 7: Summary of Pedestrian Benefits
Bicycle Improvements
The East Pine Street corridor currently has bike lanes west of 1" Street and east of 8' Street,
but lacks bike facilities to connect the seven blocks in between. Two options are available for
completing the bicyde route through downtown Central Point:
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Improved Four -Lane Alternative
Three -Lane Alternative
Enhanced Crossing at 6"'
Good. Improves pedestrian safety
Good. Improves pedestrian safety and
Street
and visibility
visibility
Better Access to Enhanced
Good. Almost 20% improvement
Good. Almost 20% improvement in
Crossings
in accessibility of
accessibility of controlled/assisted
controlled/assisted crossings
crossings
Visibility in Crosswalks
poor. The multiple -threat crash
Good. The multiple -threat crash risk is
risk will continue to exist
significantly reduced
Benefits of Curb Extensions
(god Street through 5th Street)
- Visibility at Corners
Good. 45% improvement with no
Good. 45% improvement with no loss of
loss of parking
parking
- Reduced Crossing
Good. 25% reduction
Very Good. 40% reduction
Distances
- Accommodating ADA
Good. Ability to construct fully-
Good. Ability to construct fully -compliant
ramps
compliant ramps
ramps
- Reducing Right Turning
Good. Slows traffic and creates a
Good. Slows traffic and creates a refuge in
Conflicts
refuge in the corner
the corner
-Accommodating Turning
Fair. Cars can make turns, but
Fair. Cars can make turns, but trucks turns
Vehicles
trucks turns are very difficult
are very difficult
Enhancing Transit Access
Good. Brings the curb out to the
Good. Brings the curb out to the travel
travel lane so passengers can pass
lane so passengers can pass directly
directly between the sidewalk
between the sidewalk and bus
and bus
Accommodating Street
Good. Creates significant amount
Good. Creates significant amount of new
Amenities
of new space
space
Bicycle Improvements
The East Pine Street corridor currently has bike lanes west of 1" Street and east of 8' Street,
but lacks bike facilities to connect the seven blocks in between. Two options are available for
completing the bicyde route through downtown Central Point:
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
■ Option 1: Reallocate width from a vehicular travel lane to provide two 5 -foot bike
lanes on East Pine Street all the way through the corridor.
■ Option 2: Provide "bike boulevard" treatments on Manzanita Street and Oak Street
for cyclists traveling east -west through downtown Central Point.
Option 1 is available only under the Three -Lane alternative, since it depends on removing a
vehicular travel lane, while Option 2 may be implemented under either build alternative.
Because bike lane standards, designs, and treatments are well documented in resources such
as the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design
Guide', and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices', this section focuses on bike
boulevard treatments.
What is a Bike Boulevard?
Bike boulevards, sometimes also referred to as neighborhood greenways, are typically streets
with low traffic volume and speed that are optimized for bicycle travel through treatments
such as traffic calming, signage, and pavement markings. These treatments create a shared
roadway facility that is comfortable, convenient, and attractive to cyclists of a wide range of
age and skill.
Bike boulevards provide several advantages over typical bike lanes, such as:
■ Less noise and exhaust
■ Less conflicting traffic
■ Reduced speed differential between motor vehicles and bicycles
■ Reduced risk of being "doored," (i.e., when an unaware driver opens the door of
their parallel- parked vehicle into the bike lane)
Additional information on bike boulevard considerations for the corridor can be found in
the appendix.
A variety of treatments could be used to convert these two streets into comfortable, inviting
bike facilities. Suggested routes and major treatments, including wayfinding and new stop
sign configurations, are presented in Figure 12.
' Oregon Big& and Pedestrian Plan and Design Guide, Oregon Department of Transportation, available at
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml
5 Manual on Unarm Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration, 2009, available at
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
East Pine Street Corridor Refinement Plan
J
I �
tw i INAI
309.V . aILM OL
_
� •
r �JWA it +
e
14
�..
-„`` .. iii e,.. �1i��\''.�• ��``•. i�` .SSS
A
r _ _
33
Bike Boulevard Treatments
This section presents some commonly used treatments that are recommended if an '
Oak/Manzanita bike boulevard is implemented as part of an East Pine Street project.
Sharrows
Shared lane markings, or sharrows, are Increasingly used on bike
boulevards. Sharrows encourage cyclists to ride near the center of
the street (away from the "door zone"), and they indicate to
drivers where to expect cyclists. A bike boulevard treatment on the
route indicated in Figure 15 would benefit from these markings
along each block of Manzanita Street and Oak Street, as well as on
the connecting streets.
Wayfindina
Signage is important for bike boulevards, because it indicates the
preferred route for bicyclists and provides information on
destinations and connections. Wayfinding would be particularly
important on the suggested bike boulevard to ensure that cyclists
are able to follow the connections to and from East Pine Street.
This new signage would also provide directions to common
t '
destinations, such as the Bear Creek Greenway, Crater High School,
and Twin Creeks.
Stop Sian Reassignment
Reassigning stop signs at local street intersections to prioritize
movement on the bicycle boulevard reduces delay for cyclists,
allowing continuous travel for the length of the route. Figure 15
suggests several locations along Manzanita Street and Oak Street
where stop signs could be reassigned to improve the operations of
S7bNd.
the bike boulevard.
t
'
Partial Non -Motorized Crossings
These street treatments, also sometimes referred to as chokers or
separators, calm and discourage through motor vehicle traffic on
bike boulevards. This is important because reassigning stop signs
to promote continuous bicycle travel can also encourage motorists
to use the facility as a cut -through route. The traffic calming effects
of partial non -motorized crossings make them an attractive
treatment near areas that attract high pedestrian activity, and
particularly children. This treatment would be suggested at 7'h
Street/Manzanita Street, near Pfaff Park, and at 2nd Street/Oak
Street, near the public library.
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Bike Packing
East Pine Street today provides minimal bike parking, and any potential streetscape
improvement should include additional parking facilities. This would be most easily done
under the Three -Lane alternative with widened sidewalks, as this would allow for an
enhanced "furnishing zone" between the sidewalk and the curb, which is typically where
bike racks are located.
Summary of Bicycle Conditions
Table 8 lists the benefits for bicycle travel in the East Pine Street corridor associated with the
Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane alternatives. In summary, bicycle conditions can be
significantly improved under either alternative. However, while both build alternatives
provide the opportunity to implement bike boulevard treatments on Manzanita Street and
Oak Street, only the Three -Lane alternative provides the opportunity to implement complete
bike lanes on East Pine Street or provide bicycle parking on wider sidewalks without
obstructing the walkway.
Table 8: Summary of Bicycle Benefits
ImprovedFour-Lane
Poor. Not feasible to implement
Very Good. Provides opportunity to
Bike Access along East Pine Street
bike lanes
implement connected bike route
connecting directly to downtown
destinations
Good. If bike boulevard is
Very Good. If bike lanes are
Travel Time between Front Street
implemented, cyclists will
implemented, provides the shortest
and 1-5
experience reasonably short
possible travel time
travel times
Very Good. Bike boulevards are
Very Good. Same benefit as Improved
generally perceived to be more
Four -Lane if bike boulevard is
Cyclist Comfort
comfortable and attractive to a
implemented
wider range of potential cyclists
than bike lanes
Good. New parking may be
Very Good. If sidewalks are widened,
Increased Bike Parking
constructed on curb extensions
increased room in the furnishing zone
or other reallocated sidewalk
is available for additional bike parking
space
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Transit
Significantly improving transit service on the corridor would likely include providing an
eastbound route along East Pine Street and a higher frequency of buses in the corridor. Such
improvements are generally driven by demand, which could increase with higher density
development in the area and increased activity in the downtown. While these types of service
improvements are not within the scope of this study, the safety and efficiency of bus travel
through the corridor was assessed for the future alternatives.
Key elements affecting bus operations on East Pine Street include:
■ Reliability of corridor travel times to help maintain route schedules
■ Accessibility of bus stops along East Pine Street
■ Accessibility of the Park and Ride on 2nd Street at Manzanita Street
■ Ability to provide amenities at stop locations
Reliability of Corridor Travel Times
Levels of congestion along East Pine Street under the Improved Four -Lane and Three -Lane
alternatives were estimated to be very similar and travel times between I-5 and Haskell Street
would be nearly identical. Both alternatives provide significant improvement over No -Build
conditions, but neither provides an advantage over the other in this regard.
Accessibility of Bus Stops
Bus stop accessibility can be understood both in terms of the accessibility for the bus as well
as for the riders.
Under the Improved Four -Lane alternative, buses can continue to serve stops on East Pine
Street as they do today. When a travel lane is blocked by stopped buses, cars can still
maneuver around them in the adjacent travel lane. Also, when buses stop in a travel lane,
there is no need to merge back into traffic as they depart.
Unless parking is prohibited around bus stops during
operating hours, buses cannot pick up or drop off riders at
the curb, forcing riders to walk between parked cars. This is
uncomfortable for most riders and potentially impossible
for others with disabilities. Parking around the stop
between 5th and 6th Streets is currently unrestricted.
This condition could be mitigated by:
• Creating a bus pullout to allow the bus to reach the
curb (eliminates approximately seven parking spaces
or nearly an entire block),
Safe and comfortable boarding and
alighting occurs directly from the
sidewalk
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
' • Constructing a mid -block curb extension to bring the sidewalk to the bus (eliminates
up to two parking spaces)6,
• Moving bus stops to corners and constructing a curb extension to bring the sidewalk
' to the bus (eliminates up to two parking spaces), or
• Constructing a mid -block wheelchair ramp at the bus stop and eliminating up to two
parking spaces to allow pedestrians to pass between the curb and the bus (both front
' and back doors).
' Constructing a bus pullout would eliminate a considerable amount of parking, which would
be undesirable. If curb extensions are used, it may be best to relocate bus stops to the
comers so they are near crosswalks. Also, if curb extensions at comers are already desired to
' assist pedestrian crossings, they could also serve bus stops to avoid additional parking
removal for mid -block curb extensions. Use of mid -block stops and wheelchair ramps would
be less desirable for pedestrians, but may allow the lost parking stalls to be used during
evening hours when buses are no longer running.
Under the Three -Lane alternative, buses stopped in travel lanes will also require all following
cars to stop. A discussion of possible mitigations is included in the appendix.
Accessibility of the Park and Ride
Providing a traffic signal on East Pine Street at 2"d Street could improve accessibility of the
' Park and Ride lot, especially if potential future eastbound bus service requires buses to tum
left onto East Pine Street from 2"d Street. Having the traffic signal at 2"d Street would also
improve accessibility of the Park and Ride lot for pedestrians.
The construction of curb extensions on East Pine Street at the 2"d Street intersection would
make bus turns more challenging. Therefore, curb extensions at this location may not be
' desirable.
Providing Amenities at Stops
' The ability to provide amenities at bus stops along East Pine Street, such as shelters and
benches, would be improved by any alternative that widens the sidewalks. Sidewalks cannot
be significantly widened under the Four -Lane alternative, although sidewalks are already
' eight feet wide in the downtown and are able to accommodate benches. Under the Three -
Lane alternative, sidewalks could be widened by up to five feet each, creating a useful
amenity zone with the potential to accommodate a shelter.
Summary of Transit Conditions
Both alternatives can provide reliable travel times along East Pine Street and generally
t improve the accessibility of the Park and Ride lot on 2"d Street at Manzanita Street. The
ability of the Three -Lane alternative to include wider sidewalks could provide more space for
larger transit amenities such as covered shelters.
6 Rogue Valley Transportation District has indicated this would be their preferred option. A mid -block curb
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
The greatest difference between the two alternatives is that stopped buses on East Pine
Street will only partially block traffic under the Improved Four -Lane alternative, while all
traffic would be blocked under the Three -Lane alternative. However, the impact on traffic
flow from the temporarily blocked lane would be infrequent.
Both alternatives should include improvements to safely get pedestrians from the sidewalk to
the bus. Use of curb extensions may be the most efficient way to accomplish this (in terms
of parking preservation) if provided at the corners where they could also enhance pedestrian
crossings. Also, considering that many transit riders are also pedestrians before and after the
bus ride, the Three -Lane alternative would help make bus stops more accessible by making
East Pine Street crossings easier.
Table 9: Summary of Transit Benefits
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Improved Four -Lane Alternative
Three -Lane Alternative
Reliability of Travel Times
Very Good. Corridor congestion is
Very Good. Corridor congestion Is low
low
Bus Stop Impact on Motor
Good. Stopped buses will partially
Fair. All traffic will be blocked when
Vehicle Travel
block traffic, but a second lane will
buses stop, but the occurrence would be
remain open
infrequent
Fair. Use of curb extensions would
Good. Use of curb extensions would help
Bus Stop Accessibility for
help pedestrians access buses
pedestrians access buses and a narrower
Pedestrians
East Pine Street would make crossing the
street to reach stops easier
Good. A signal at 2" Street will
Good. A signal at 2" Street will improve
Accessibility of Park and Ride
improve access to the Park and
access to the Park and Ride for all modes
Ride for all modes of travel
of travel
Fair. Benches can and are
Good. If sidewalks are widened, it may
Accommodating Amenities at
provided, but larger amenities
be possible to accommodate more
Bus Stops
such as shelters may not fit within
amenities such as shelters
sidewalks
Future Conditions and Transportation Alternatives
Streetscape Design
Developing a new design concept for East Pine Street is an opportunity to identify solutions
for recognized problems with the current configuration and conditions, and to address
aspirations for revitalization of the downtown area. The following challenges were key to
initiating the project, and confirmed by technical analysis and community input.
■ Vehicular Safety. Traffic often moves at a fast rate and motorists change lanes
frequently to avoid vehicles making left-hand turns. Intersections along this corridor
have the highest crash rates in the City.
• Pedestrian Safety. Pedestrian crossing on Pine Street can be difficult and dependent
upon drivers observing pedestrians and stopping to allow them to cross. This is a
critical safety issue for Crater High School and Central Point Elementary School
students crossing the street
• Bicycle Safety. There are limited bicycle facilities on Pine Street even though it is a
designated bicycle route. Cyclists must ride in the flow of automobile traffic resulting
in greater risk of bicycle -vehicle collisions.
• Sidewalks and Storefront Activity. Existing sidewalks are narrow, which limits the
ability to implement a streetscape design that will make the downtown area more
attractive.
Design Considerations
In developing designs for streetscape alternatives, a key objective was to create a true Main
Street design — one that recognizes the need for safe and efficient operation of vehicles,
while striving to balance transportation choices and improve mobility for everyone. See the
information on Complete Streets best practices in the Introduction and Background chapter
for more information. While the streetscape design alternatives considered for East Pine
Street generally incorporated these best practices, bicycle travel was accommodated
somewhat differently.
' Bicycle Travel
None of the streetscape alternatives include a dedicated bike lane on Pine Street Instead,
each alternative recommends the use of shared lanes (sharrows) with appropriate markings
in the outside lane. Pavement markings let motorists know to expect cyclists on the street
and remind cyclists not to tide too close to parked cars whose doors may unexpectedly open.
While sharrow pavement markings are a nationally recognized form of traffic control for
public streets and are described in the Oregon Driver Manual, their use may be new to
Central Point. If early experience suggests motorists and bicyclists are not understanding the
' message being communicated by these symbols, it is recommended that an education
campaign be employed.
In addition to sharrows, bike routes are recommended on Oak and Manzanita Streets for
cyclist traveling east -west through downtown. These are low-volume streets and could be
Streetscape Design
designed for efficient bike travel by reassigning stop signs to the north -south streets.
Removal of a travel lane or on -street parking would not be required.
Streetscape Alternatives Considered
The streetscape design alternatives illustrated on the following pages explore options to
make Pine Street a street for everyone; balancing the needs of traffic capacity and operations,
and the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Recommended design elements are also intended
to satisfy the stated local aspirations for a more attractive streetscape through incorporation
of amenities such as street trees, ornamental lighting, and street furniture. The alternatives
also reflect challenges previously noted, and the technical analysis confirms it is operationally
feasible to reconfigure a portion of Pine Street from four lanes to three lanes. Careful
attention has been given to the need for safe travel for all modes, and to accommodate
emergency vehicles and oversized vehicles such as buses and freight. On -street parking is
retained in each alternative and several measures are proposed to improve vehicle safety and
operations.
Alternative A: Ix Street through a Street
Retains the current four -lane configuration and travel lane widths, with sidewalks remaining
at current widths.
Alternative B: I n Street through 6`" Street
Retains a four -lane configuration but with a one -foot reduction in lane widths, which allows
for the construction of slightly wider sidewalks.
Alternative C: I" Street through 6' Street
Assumes the reconfiguration of Pine Street as a three -lane roadway in this segment, with one
travel lane in each direction and a continuous center turn lane. This would allow for a
significant widening of the sidewalks.
7th Street through I Oth Street Improvements
For each alternative, sidewalk improvements could occur in this segment by obtaining up to
two -feet of additional right-of-way or easements from the front yard setbacks of existing
properties. In Alternative C, the 8th Street to 7th Street block would be used as the
transition from four to three lanes.
This corridor refinement plan determined that the preferred streetscape alternative for 1"
through 6h Street is Alternative B, the four -lane cross section with widened sidewalks. The
improvements for 7`s Street through 10`s Street are included as part of the recommendation.
Streetscape Design
The Preferred Streetscape Alternative
This section describes the recommended design elements of Alternative B, including
improvements through 10s Street.
Cross Section Elements
' Roadway and Intersections
Four travel lanes would be maintained but their
widths would be reduced to 11 feet by constructing
' new curbs that are moved 2 feet into the existing
roadway on each side. As with Alternative A,
intersection bulb -outs are recommended at 3rd
1 Street, 5th Street, and 6th Street to improve
pedestrian visibility and crossing. (See Technical
Memorandum 4 in the appendix for more
' information on turning radii and other bulb -out
design considerations.) No mid -block bulb -outs are
included with this alternative since street trees can
be accommodated in the wider sidewalks.
Intersection bulb -outs are not recommended at 2nd
Intersection bulb -out
Street and 4th Street in order to better accommodate truck and bus turning movements.
Specially paved crosswalks should be added at each intersection, using durable concrete
materials rather than stamped concrete or thermoplastic treatments.
Sidewalk and Amenity Zones
Sidewalk and amenity zone widths would be increased to ten feet total as a result of
reconstructing the curbs. This width provides the minimum conditions for Main Street
design. The amenity zone has been increased to four feet, which will support street trees and
other street furniture. The six foot sidewalk width is the functional minimum for two people
to comfortably walk side-by-side, but is still constrained for outdoor seating and sidewalk
business displays. Sidewalks should be reconstructed to a consistent fetish and pavement
detail throughout.
Street Trees and Furniture
Street trees could be located in small tree wells
(approximately four feet by eight feet) that could be
planted or finished with pervious concrete pavers
set in sand to allow water infiltration to the zone.
Root barriers are also recommended for each tree.
Other furniture such as bike racks, benches, and
vending machines may now be located in the
amenity zone.
Trees in pavers
Streetscape Design
Street Lighting
All existing street lights should be replaced by ornamental street lights to match those
already in place between Front Street and 1 st Street. Use two poles per corner at each
intersection and one pole on each side of the street at mid -block locations. Light pole
locations should avoid car doors in relation to patking stalls.
Parking Zone
One space would be lost to the enhanced bus stop at 6th Street. Street comer curb bulb -outs
at intersection will not reduce on -street parking.
Bicycle Facilities
Painted sharrow markings on East Pine Street and bike racks located within the intersection
bulb -outs or the wider sidewalk amenity zone are recommended enhancements to
supplement marked bike routes on Oak and Manzanita Streets. Sharrows should be installed
in the outer lanes at spacing of 50 to 100 feet, or about 2-3 per block.
How Do the Elements Fit Together?
While the recommended alternative retains four travel lanes on East Pine Street, the
improvements shown above combine to provide significant enhancements to the street's
character and livability. Figure 13, below, and Figure 14 on the following page show how the
recommended elements fit into the corridor and give a sense of how these improvements
promote a Main Street character.
Lo
Figure 13: Rendering of Streetscape Alternative B
Streetscape Design
Reconstructed Curbs and 10
foot -wide Sidewalks
Painted Sharrows
Bike Rack
Ornamental Lights
Enhance Crosswalks with
Special Paving
New Bulb -outs at 3rd, 5th & 6th
St. Intersections
Enhanced Landscaping in
Sidewalk furnishing Zone
Street Trees
Aesthetic Sidewalk Surfacing
Figure 14: Alternative B cross section and streetscape elements
Streetscape Design
Enhanced Bus Bulb -Out on 6th and Pine Street
Transit service is likely to play
and increasingly important
role in Central Point. The
existing bus stop at 6th and
Pine Streets should be
improved by:
■ A street corner
extended bulb -out of
approximately 30 -feet
in length, sufficient to
load front and rear
doors of a bus
■ A small shelter
■ An ADA -compliant
landing within the
bulb -out and at the
front door loading
area.
Figure 15: Enhanced bus bulb -out elements
Bus Bulb -out (Appro,dm Lely
30 -feet long)
Shelter
ADA Landing (Required)
Smaller bulb -outs should be constructed at the other three comers of the intersection with
specially paved crosswalks. Improvements are illustrated in Figure 15, above.
2nd Street Roadway and Traffic Improvements
Additional improvements to vehicle operations can be achieved through removal of the
existing traffic signal at 3rd Street, installation of a new signal at 2nd Street, and coordination
of all signals on Pine Street. Figure 16, below, illustrates proposed changes for 2"d Street
south of East Pine Street.
Figure 16: New 2"d Street lane configuration
Streetscape Design
Remove 3 parking spaces and
add northbound right turn lane
*Reduces delay
'Shorans Queues
1
' Improvements on East Pine Street Between 1 st
and 2nd Street
In order to better facilitate vehicle traffic and to
improve the sense of place at this location on East
Pine Street, additional traffic operational
improvements are proposed as well as a 2"d Street
' Pedestrian Plaza. These elements are discussed
below.
Modred Striping
Installing a new traffic signal at 2"1 Street requires
some changes to the way eastbound travel lanes are
striped on East Pine Street between 1" Street and
2' Street. This is the location where the street
widens from one lane eastbound to two. The
additional lane, which currently begins just 25 feet
west of 2"d Street, should be extended to 100 feet to
improve queuing conditions. Figure 17, right, shows
this concept.
Plaza
The 2"d Street Plaza was originally conceived while
developing the Central Point Downtown
Revitalization Plan. At one community workshop
there was a strong consensus that a small plaza Figure 17: Proposed restriping on East
along Pine Street, adjacent to Ray's Food Place, Pine Street between 1•t and 2"d Street
would be a very desirable amenity. Ray's deli is busy
during the lunch hour so a place for outdoor dining and a focal gathering point seemed
plausible. The Plaza was designed into the public right-of-way to minimize the loss of on -
street parking, and to retain all of the grocery store's parking. Landscaping, street furniture,
art, and shade structures were all envisioned for the site.
Conceptual drawings of a potential plaza in front of Rays are shown in Figure 18, below.
Streetscape Design
Figure 18: Conceptual drawing of 2^d Street Plaza
Pine Street Blocks 6"-10" Sidewalk Improvements
Beyond 6th Street, basic frontage improvements could be incrementally implemented as
opportunities present themselves. Buildings along this section are setback, making it possible
to widen sidewalks through additional tight -of -way dedication. For these segments, no
reduction in the width of roadway lanes, or in the number lanes, will occur. Existing
sidewalks could be widened to 10 to 12 feet in width by acquiring additional tight -of -way or
easements from property owners with front yard setbacks between buildings and the current
sidewalks. With wider sidewalks, street trees could be
introduced into the streetscape. Improvements could occur
with property redevelopment or as a series of smaller
capital projects carried out by the City.
Streetscape Design
Implementation
Development of streetscape designs included planning -level cost estimates and
recommendations for phasing of improvements. These are described below.
Planning -Level Costs
Estimates include probable construction costs of the key elements, a construction cost
contingency, and estimates of mobilization and erosion control, construction survey, and
temporary traffic control based on a typical percentage of construction costs. Also, an
allowance for utility adjustments within the right-of-way has been made, as well as for
' meeting stormwater treatment requirements likely to be triggered by the reconstruction of
impervious surfaces (e.g. roadway and sidewalks).
f Modred Four -Lane Cross Section, In Street to 6t^ Street
The preferred cross section between V Street and 6' Street includes new sidewalks and
curbs, along with new bulb -outs at three intersections. The curb line on each side of the
street would be moved two -feet into the existing road surface. That would likely require
partial to complete roadway reconstruction in the affected blocks, along with adjustments to
the existing utilities and meeting stormwater treatment requirements. Allowances for those
costs have been made. Ornamental street lighting, crosswalks, and extensive street tree
planting have been assumed as well.
7th Street through 10th Street Improvements
Improvements in this segment consist of incrementally widening the existing sidewalk
frontage through right-of-way acquisition or easements in the front yard setback of
properties. These improvements could be completed on a property -by -property basis if
redevelopment or building expansions occur, or as publicly funded capital projects. For
informational purposes a probable lineal foot cost for frontage improvements has been
included.
Cost estimates are shown in Table 10. More detail on cost elements is available in the
appendix.
Table 10: Cost estimates for recommended projects
Streetscape Design
Potential Phasing
In Street to 6th Street
The improvements between Ist Street and 6th Street could be constructed in two separate
phases. A Phase I project could be 1 st Street through 4th Street, which corresponds to the
current downtown core, with the greatest density of business activity and continuous
building frontage. Most participants in the walking tour conducted as part of this project said
their feeling of being "downtown" was strongest in these blocks. Since corner bulb -outs are
not recommended for the intersection of 4th Street, construction could be terminated at
either the west or east side of the intersection without creating a dangerous misalignment of
curbs.
A Phase 11 project would complete the improvements from 4th Street through the 6th Street
intersection, making sure the curb bulb -outs were constructed on both sides of the
intersection in order to facilitate safe vehicle and bike movements through the intersection.
6th Street to 10th Street Sidewalk Improvements
These improvements would likely be constructed as opportunities arise along individual
property frontages and parcels are redeveloped.
tad Street Plaza
Because the preferred alternative requires moving and reconstructing the existing curbs, the
plaza project could not be completed prior to completion of the streetscape project.
However, once the streetscape project is completed, with the new curbs in place, the plaza
can be completed later as a separate project.
Streetscape Design