A BETTER BURNSIDE Design Alternatives, Partnership Assessment, & Permitting Workflow Megan Burns | Artur Paes Queiroz | Will Roberts | Michael Williams
Page Int entionall y Lef t Blank
Contents 1 || 1 2 || 2 3 || 3 4 || 4 5 || 5 6 || 6 7 || 7 8 || 8 9 || 9 10|| 10
Permitting Workflow Workflow & & Partnership Partnership Assessment Assessment Permitting Level of of Public Public Participation Participation, Public Public Participation Participation Goals, Goals, & & Stakeholders Stakeholders Level Intervention 1 1 -- Plan Plan View View Intervention Intervention 1 1 -- Notes Notes and and Cross-Section Cross-Section Intervention Intervention 2 2 -- Plan Plan View View Intervention Intervention 2 2 -- Notes Notes and and Cross-Section Cross-Section Intervention Intervention 3 3 -- Plan Plan View View Intervention Intervention 3 3 -- Notes Notes and and Cross-Section Cross-Section Intervention Enhancements and and Recommended Recommended Intervention Intervention Enhancements Appendix Appendix
Per mitting Wor kf low Our recommended medium intensity project will require a few different permits and cost a fair amount to execute legally. The general permit application process is all done via email, hand delivered, or fax (no postal mail accepted). Completed applications need to be emailed to cpac@portlandoregon.gov, hand deliver it to the Permit Center (1900 SW 4th Avenue, M-F, 8:00am3:00pm, except Thursdays 8am-12pm), or fax the completed application to (503)823-9282. Follow up all faxed applications with a call to (503) 823-7365 to ensure the fax was received. The application requires 5 full business days to process, but it is safer to submit the application four weeks in advance as the project has moderately complicated changes for bicycle and vehicle lanes. This project includes travel lane, bike, and sidewalk changes, which requires a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) and approval from the City of Portland Traffic Engineer. The TCP must accompany the application upon submittal, otherwise it will not be processed.
Par tnership Assessment Following is a list of stakeholders and potential partners for the Better Blocks Burnside project. Organization
Contact
Contact information
Notes
Bike Portland
Jonathan Maus
jonathan@bikeportland.org
Activitist Group
City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Transportation
Peter Koonce
peter.koonce@portlandoregon.gov
Signal timing and traffic issues
Margi Bradway
Active.Transportation@portlandoregon.gov
Active Transportation Manager
Liability insurance is also required when a travel lane is closed. The application is found here: https://www.portlandoregon. gov/transportation/article/334043, and needs to accompany a Street and Sidewalking Use Permit Endorsement Form, found here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/339784. Our project will be occupying metered parking areas and therefore requires parking permits. The permits need to be reserved in advance by the City’s Parking Enforcement staff, who enforce violations of the permit. Allow 7 days to process control plans. This permit also requires a TCP. Include the following in all TCPs: • Address of worksite and project name (if work is in the street, identify general address) • BDS permit number, PBOT street opening permit number, or PBOT street job number • Contractor name, contact name and number (with emergency number), and email address. • Dates, days and times of proposed closure. • Name, phone number, and email address of the person who prepared the TCP if different than the contractor (Better Blocks) doing the job • Reason for closure. Base map showing accurate street layout (you may need to create this) with TCP overlay, include the following: • Legend • North Arrow • Street names within 300ft of work zone in all applicable directions • Existing street configuration identifying travel lanes, parking lane, bus stops, driveways, sidewalks, crosswalks, dimension widths, show current business access and activities, specific needs (schools, churches, senior centers, transit stops, etc) • All physical features such as medians, curves, curb cuts, crosswalks, sidewalks, bike lanes, streetcar tracks, max tracks, etc. • Call out the distance between all traffic control signs and other traffic control devices, and the length of all transition tapers in feet. • Dimension work zone (does not have to be to scale) • Illustrate signed detour routes for pedestrians Parking - Since we need to reserve parking, follow these steps: • Identify the location of paystation • Identify 20ft increments what parking you need on each blockface, show it on the TCP • Specify days of week, dates, times of parking removal Fees associated with the aforementioned permits: • Street Use Fee (1 week or fraction thereof): $.18 per square foot. • Travel Lane Closure Fee (1 week or fraction thereof): $100 per block face (includes required PBOT Traffic Engineer review and approval of Traffic Control Plans. • Authorization to implement one TCP (permit includes 1 TCP Review): $95 • Parking: $39.80 per space per week • Sidewalk use: $43/week
Per mitting Wor kf low
Zef WAgner Zef.Wagner@portlandoregon.gov
Multnomah County
Matt Studer
matt.d.studer@multco.us
Bridge Engineer
Trimet
Jeff Own
owenj@trimet.org, (503)962-5839
Active Transportation Planner
Guerilla Development
Kevin Cavanaugh
holler@guerrilladev.co, (503)232-3479
Developer at 11 MLK Jr. Blvd
Key Development
Jeff Pckhardt
jeff@keydevelopment.net
Developer of The Yard
City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
Derek Dauphin
Derek.Dauphin@portlandoregon.gov, (503)8235869
Central City Plan, SE Quadrant Planner
Nicholas Starin
nicholas.starin@portlandoregon.gov, (503)8235869
Central City PLan, W Quadrant Planner
Central East Side Industrial Council
Debbie Kitchin
dkitchin@interworksllc.com 503.233.3500
President
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Sara Schooley
sara.schooley@portlandoregon.gov, 503-8234589
Coordinator with PBOT
Beam Development
Jonathan Madsling
info@beamdevelopment.com (503) 595-0140
Burnside Bridgehead Developers
olivia@worksarchitecture.net 503/234.2945
Burnside Bridgehead Architect
Portland Business Alliance/ Downtown Clean and Safe
Support
Partner with Better Blocks Burnside BridgeProject
Megan Neill 503-988-3757
Works Partnership
Lynnae Berg 503.552.6766
Old Town China Helen Ying Town Community Associatino
chair@oldtownchinatown.org
Burnside Skate Park
burnsideskatepark@gmail.com
Vice President, CEntral City and Downtown Services Chair
1
Portland Rescue Mission
Timothy Desper
Central City Concern
timothyp@pdxmission.org
Burnside Services Coordinator
Public Par ticipation Sc hedule
cccadmin@ccconcern.org, (503) 294-1681
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Identify Key Stakeholders and Contacts
Salvation Army Female Emergency Shelter Portland Saturday Market
503-227-0810
Lisa Gugino info@saturdaymarket.org
Conduct 1-1 Interviews with Stakeholders to identify initial interests and advisory group members. Executive Director
Shift2Bikes
Walk Oregon
Assemble Advisory Group of Key Stakeholders: city staff, advocates, law enforcement, first responders, public health, and elected leaders. Advisory group gives updates to their constituents and organizations.
Lidwien Rahman
Rahman@odot.state.or.us
Member, and ODOT Planner
Lead walking and biking tours for advisory committee for the purpose of safety and function assessment/needs audit. Create a website/link off of Better Blocks page for people to access information about the project from anywhere. Develop social networking plan, and assign manager
Better Block is the main project partner, and for whom the project is being developed. Some partners and sponsors of the Better Blocks can be key pieces in the development of this project, such as the schedule of events, and getting funds for the development of the project and its demonstration. Below, the list of possible partners of the project. M E T RO: Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee selects each year transportation projects to be developed with federal funds, these funds come from three federal grant programs: the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality Program and the Transportation Alternatives Program. In addition, METRO offers other options to raise funds and fund transportation projects, making it a great ally of the project. Po r t l and Bure a u o f Transpo r t at io n (P BOT): Bureaucratic issues such as closing streets for events, get traffic counters for the streets, lighting, Temporary Parking, Sidewalk, and Street Use Permits are PBOT task. Po r t l and S a turda y Mar ke t : PSM is the City’s largest outdoor arts and craft market. Events can be made with the presence of PSM in the Burnside Bridge. Extending its activities until the bridge; banners around the market can publicize the event. Art pieces by local artists can also be part of the project.
Post project updates and information on social media, through e-mail blasts via connections from the advisory committee, and public bulletin boards. Engage underrepresented groups, including seniors, youth, women, multicultural groups, individuals with disabilities about project. Create equity working group to review plans and communication strategy Surveys describing proposed project to stakeholder groups and larger community Analyze and incorporate survey responses into design Distribute advertisements for upcoming engagement events to targeted media Host Walking Tour for Public and Media Conduct Workshop with Advisory group and invited guests Share Design Alternatives with Advisory group Host open house with alternatives for public to give feedback Analyze feedback and post recommended updates to project to website explicitly identifying updates as a response to project survey responses.
Vo o doo Doughnut s: In the project demonstration day, a place with some parklets, coffee and donuts can be served to draw the attention of pedestrians. In addition, we could put in evidence the desire to make the bridge a place of leisure. Help publicize the event and also the realization of the “coffee time” on the bridge would be the role of Voodoo Doughnuts.
Recruit Volunteers for Demonstration event via Better Blocks
V i l l a ge Build ing Co nvergen ce: Call the neighbors and the community to create living spaces with public arts, gardens, and some music is the role of VBC. Showing the community engagement on the project, we pretend to make the bridge a place that the community can enjoy, and help. These kind of place-making will work together with the idea of the parklets and coffee and will portrait Burnside Bridge as a possible place of leisure in the city, for a possible change on the bridge configuration in the future.
Host implementation meeting for volunteers, advisory group and invited guests
Send press release for demonstration event Inform all neighbors of upcoming demonstration event
Post signage for bridge users in advance and day of event Host event and collect feedback via on site survey and hash tags Send round up press release reporting on details of demonstration Have close out party for all involved Close out/add finishing details to web presence
Public Par ticipati on Sc hedule
M o nt h
• •
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
2
Public Par ticipation Goals
Level of Public Par ticipation The graphic below was taken from the “10 Steps to Creating a Public Participation Plan� document, and adapted from the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. It aligns a strategy with the score derived from the assessment worksheet.
P u bl i c Pa r t i c i p a ti o n S p ectr u m Inform (1-1.9)
Solicit Input/Consult (2-2.9)
Involve (3-3.9)
Collaborate (4-4.9)
One-way communication Between Albemarle County and the public to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.
Seek public feedback on a proposal, analysis or alternatives. Requires a response from the public, but limited opportunity for public dialogue.
Work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that issues, aspirations and concerns are consistently understood and considered. Includes elements of public information and outreach, but adds a third dimension of twoway communication.
To collaborate with the public on some or all aspects of the planning or decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.
The scale of the Better Burnside activation project is so large that an extensive public outreach and collaboration program is absolutely necessary. As reflective practitioners we must recognize that we cannot anticipate the aspirations or concerns of every stakeholder. While assuredly not reaching a comprehensive representation, we can still strive for transparency in outreach materials and use proven tactics to garner collaboration and support from a wide array of citizens and stakeholders. The goals of the public participation process are as follows: - Work together with the community to fine-tune design alternatives and identify strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities. - Strengthen the identity of Better Blocks as a voice of the people. - Provide a structure upon which Better Blocks can further working on large scale projects like Better Burnside. - Create coalitions with neighborhood groups that will bring under-represented parties to the table. Prioritize equitable planning. - Create a forum and brainstorm communication and input strategies. - Learn about longer-term visions for the corridor. - Establish a realistic range of intervention designs.
S t akeholders Promise to the Public We will keep stakeholders We will keep stakeholders informed. informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns, aspirations and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
We will work with stakeholders to ensure that their concerns, aspirations and issues are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
We will look to stakeholders for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate their recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.
Previous Better Blocks work and other transportation plans suggested lists of stakeholders and individuals who have a high level of interest in this project. This project also has a unique set of stakeholders because it involves multiple jurisdictions (the city and county both have some dominion over the bridge), both sides of the river, and it is main artery for even those who don’t live or work in close proximity the bridge. Considering this, we conducted an exercise to group types of stakeholders, and map them according to their level of interest, and ability to influence the project. The results are below. Keep Satisf ied
Example of Tools to use Public Meeting Appreciative Inquiry Focus Group Survey
Workshop Design Charrettes Citizen advisory committee
Board-appointed commission Special task force
Given the high level of impact and public concern our project will create (score of 4.6), we should pursue a general strategy of public collaboration with some stages of the plan using lesser levels of public involvement when needed. Public collaboration signifies that we will look to stakeholders for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate their recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible. The project will collaborate with the public on some or all aspects of the planning or decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. This is our promise to the public for this level of project. This result speaks generally to the importance of engaging the public in this plan. The following sections consider how different stakeholders should be engaged and for what purpose.
A bi lity t o In f lu ence Pro j ect
Fact sheet Press Release Open House Tour / Site Visit
Emergency Services: Police Other Policy Makers
Invo l ve Closel y
Cycling and Pedestrian Advocacy Groups Emergency Services: Fire
East side Bridgehead Developers Government- Transportation and Planning Homeless, accessing services
Monit or
Recreational Users
Keep Inf or med
Existing East Side Businesses Existing West Side Businesses
Car Commuters Bike Commuters Pedestrian Commuters
Int e re st in P roje ct Level of Public Par ticipation
3
Int er vention 1 - Saf e ty
1ST
2ND
Parking Lane
Transit Only
Bus Stop Area
Transit Only
Active Area
E ast B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Potential Active Area
Bus Staging Area
Transit Only
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
2ND
3RD
COUCH
Potential Staying Area
Int er vention 1 - Saf e ty
Staying Area
GRAND
3RD
NAITO
We s t B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Potential Staying Area
Transit Only
4
Burnside Bridge
Pu l l i n g t h e p a r k i n g l a n e a nd b u s s t op from t he s i d ewa l k w i l l p rovi d e co n t inu ou s p ro t ect ion f or cycl i s ts .
(top of arch)
Intervention #1 Looking East
6’
6’
2’
Sidewalk
Westbound Bike Lane
10’
12’
10’
11’
11’
Westbound Drive Lane
Westbound Drive Lane
Eastbound Drive Lane
Eastbound Drive Lane
Eastbound Bus Lane
1’
5’
6’
Eastbound Bike Lane
Sidewalk
80’
Pro t ec t ed bic yc le an d pedest r i an f acilit ies fro m N W/ SW 3 rd t o ML K o n no r t h & so u t h si de
Wh ile t h e amo un t o f f l o o r space dedi cat ed t o no n-mo t o r i zed m o d e s do es n o t increase, t he ef f ect o f pro t ect i o n and pl ace-maki ng a t t h e br idgeh eads will ho pef u l l y ac hi eve a mo re co mf o r t abl e env i ro n m e n t.
Sign al t imin g c h ang es at SW 2 nd & B u r nsi de pr io r it ize buses a nd bi kes.
T h e m o t o r ve h i cl e d r i ve l a nes w ill be kep t nea r l y t h e s a m e a s i s c u r re n tl y conf ig u red . T here w ill b e two we s tb o u n d l a n e s , wit h t he ou t er la ne cu t d ow n fro m 12 t o 10 f e e t. T h e s ou t her n mos t la ne w ill b e d e d i ca t e d t o tra n s i t ve h i cl e s b u t t he o t her t wo w ill re m a i n a s i s .
Ac ti ve e n ga g e m e n t a re a s a n d s t a y i n g a rea s on t he we s t b r i d ge h e a d w i l l b e o n t h e s o u t hea s t s id e of t h e b r i d ge . T h ey w i l l b e s e p a ra t e d from mov ing tra f f i c by a b i ke l a n e w i t h b o l l a rd s o n b o t h s id es .
T h e u n d eve l o p e d s i t e a t M LK a nd Bu r ns id e co u l d p rovi d e a n i d e a l l oca t ion f or a ct iv it ies , g a m e s , g a t h e r i n gs , e tc . T his is d ep end ent on t h e c o n s tr u c ti o n s c h e d u l e f or t he Fa ir- Ha ired D u m b b e l l t h a t i s s i t e d h e re . I f t he s p a ce is u nd er co n s tr u c ti o n o r u n u s a b l e , B e tt e r Bloc ks w ill ma ke more o u t o f t h e a d j a ce n t s i d ewa l k a re a.
A similar t reat ment wi l l o ccu r o n t he east b r idgeh ead at ML K an d B u r nsi de. A p o t e n ti a l p a r tn e r s h i p w i t h t h e d evelop ers of Bloc k 67 co u l d p rovi d e a c ce s s t o t h e i r l a r g e a t - g ra d e “ ya rd ” on t h e n o r t h s i d e o f B u r n s i d e . T h i s w i ll g rea t l y d ep end on t h e c o n s tr u c ti o n s c h e d u l e a n d w i l l i n g n e s s of t he d evelop ers . D edicat e d east bo u nd emer g ency and t ran sit -o n l y l ane f ro m SW 2 nd Avenu e t o ML K in t h e so u t her n-mo st l ane.
Int er vention 1 - Saf e ty
I n a d d i ti o n , t h e l a r ge p a ve d s i d ewa l k ju s t b elow t he a ct ive s p a ce l a w n c o u l d b e a go o d l o c a ti o n f or f ood t r u c ks a nd s i tti n g a re a s .
5
Int er vention 2 - Middle of t he Road
Transit Only
NAITO
3RD
2ND
1ST
We s t B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Parking Lane
Bus Stop Area Reversible Transit Lane
Bus Island Active Area
E ast B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Potential Staying Area
Bus Staging Area
Mixing Zone
Int er vention 2 - Middle of t he Road
GRAND
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
3RD
2ND
COUCH
Potential Active Area
Reversible Transit
Staying Area
Potential Staying Area Bike Box
6
Burnside Bridge (top of arch)
A l t e r n a ti ve I I c a l l s f or a revers ib le t ra ns it l a n e j u s t n o r t h o f two ea s t b ou nd d r ive la nes a n d s o u t h o f a we s tb ou nd dr ive la ne.
Intervention #2 Looking East
6’
6’
Sidewalk
Westbound Bike Lane
2’
10’
12’
10’
10’
Westbound Drive Lane
Reversible Bus/HOV Lane
Eastbound Drive Lane
Eastbound Drive Lane
2’
10’
6’
6’
Eastbound Bike Lane
Flex-Space
Sidewalk
T h e p ro g ra m m e d a cti ve a nd s t a y ing a re a s a re t h e s a m e a s alt er na t ive 1. T h e p r i m a r y d i f f e re n ce i n t he a b ilit y t o ex t e n d eve n ts a n d p la cema king i n t o f l ex a re a a l o n g t h e s o u t h s id e of b r id g e.
80’
Mar k o ut a space f o r a bu s st o p i sl and at t he so ut her n si de o f B u r nsi de S t ree t j u st west o f 2nd Ave f o r bu ses headi ng east .
T h e two we s tb o u n d d r ive la nes w ill b e re c o n f i g u re d t o re t a in t he nor t h la ne f or p r i va t e ve h i c l e s b u t w ill a lt er t he s ou t her n l a n e t o b e a tra n s i t o n l y a n d revers ib le la ne. T h e t h re e e a s tb o u n d l a n e s w ill b e cu t t o t wo d r ive lanes.
Add mar kin g f o r a west bo u nd t ransi t st ac ki ng space at t h e light o n Bu r nsi de and 2 nd Ave. The bus st o p isl and o n t he no r t h si de o f B u r nsi de east o f 2nd Ave wi l l car r y -over f ro m I nt er vent i o n 1.
T h ro u gh t a k i n g t h e s o u t h e r n m o s t l a n e , t h e s o u t h s i d e o f t h e b r i d ge w i l l b o a s t l a r ge 10 f o o t p ro t e c t e d b i ke l a n e s w i t h a n a d d i ti o n a l 6 f e e t o f s p a c e t h a t ca n b e u s e d a s p l a c e - m a k i n g, a d d i ti o n a l p e d / b i ke l a n e s p a ce , o r a m i x tu re o f t h e two .
Sign al t imin g c h ang es at SW2 nd & B u r nsi de pr io r it ize buses and bi kes. Thi s wi l l al l ow buses t o c ro ss al l t raf f i c and ent er t he reversible t ran sit o nl y l ane. A similar t reat men t will occu r o n t he east br i dg ehead a t ML K an d Bur n side.
Int er vention 2 - Middle of t he Road
T h e ra i s e d s i d ewa l k s w i l l rema in s ix f ee t on b o t h s i d e s . T h e s o u t h e r n s i d ewa lk is a d ja cent t o a s ix f o o t f l ex s p a c e t h a t c a n be u s ed a s p la ce- ma king o r a d d i ti o n a l p e d e s tr i a n m ov ing a rea .
7
Int er vention 3 - A Re-visioning f or Place
1ST
2ND
3RD
NAITO
We s t B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Active Area
Reversible Transit Lane Bus Island
Staying Area
Staying Area
Potential Staying Area
Reversible Transit Lane Active Area
Int er vention 3 - A Re-visioning f or Place
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
3RD
2ND
Potential Active Area
GRAND
COUCH
E ast B r i d g e h e a d P l a n V i ew
Staying Area
8
Burnside Bridge (top of arch)
A l t e r n a ti ve I I I ca l l s f or a revers ib le t ra ns it l a n e i n t h e m i d d l e o f t wo d r ive la nes .
Intervention #3 Looking East
6’
7’
10’
Sidewalk
Flex-Space
Westbound Bike Lane
2’
11’
10’
11’
Westbound Drive Lane
Reversible Bus/HOV Lane
Eastbound Drive Lane
2’
80’
8’
7’
6’
Eastbound Bike Lane
Flex-Space
Sidewalk
B e c a u s e s o m u c h m o re s p a ce is b eing t a ke n fro m ve h i c l e s a n d d ed ica t ed t o eve n t s p a ce i t wo u l d ma ke s ens e t o h a ve two l a r ge eve n t s p a ces a t t he n o r t h a n d s o u t h we s t b r i d g e hea d a rea s w h e re t h e r i gh t- o f- wa y ex p a nd s . T hes e s p a ce s co u l d b e a m i x tu re of a ct ive a nd s t a y i n g s p a c e s o r b e s e p a ra t e d on ea c h s id e w i t h m a t e r i a l s e n c o u ra g i n g u s e rs t o ex p lore.
T h e b u l k o f t h e b r i d g e w ill b e reconf ig u red t o re d u ce t h e n u m ber of p ers ona l vehicle l a n e s d ow n t o two - one ea s t b ou nd a nd one we s tb o u n d . Mar k o ut a space f o r a bu s st o p i sl and at t he so ut her n si de o f B u r nsi de S t ree t j u st west o f 2nd Ave f o r bu ses headi ng east . T h e b i ke l a n e s o n b o t h s i d e s o f t h e b r i d g e w i l l b e g re a tl y ex p a n d e d ( 10 f e e t o n nor th side and 8 feet on south side), each w i t h two f o o t b u f f e r s .
Sign al t imin g c h ang es at SW2 nd & B u r nsi de pr io r it ize buses and bi kes. Thi s wi l l al l ow buses t o c ro ss al l t raf f i c and ent er t he reversible t ran sit o nl y l ane. A similar t reat men t will occu r o n t he east br i dg ehead a t ML K an d Bur n side.
Int er vention 3 - A Re-visioning f or Place
T h e ra i s e d s i d ewa l k s w i l l rema in s ix f ee t on b o t h s i d e s . T h e re w i l l b e a n ad d it iona l s even f ee t of f l ex s p a c e b e twe e n t h e b ike la ne a nd s id ewa lk t h a t c a n b e u s e d f o r eve n t a ct iva t ion or a d d it iona l s p a ce f o r p e d e s tr i a n s .
9
Enhancements All of the three alternatives can be enhanced by considering the features listed below (not all features are applicable to all alternatives): • • • • • • • • • • •
Move bus stop (ID 689) on NW corner of bridge to a spot west of NW 2nd Ave. Request bus staging/idling occur at another area so a smaller bus stop can be used. Reduce posted speed limit over bridge to 25 or 30 MPH. Synchronize signals at either end of the bridge for eastbound motorists and provide signage informing motorists of the speed which will allow them to hit green at MLK/Burnside without stopping. Create more explicit guidance for road users on NW corner of bridge around bus stop. Install traffic calming (e.g. chicanes or tighten radius of existing corners) on NE Couch between MLK and couplet terminator. Widen bicycle lane and install ASL bike box at MLK on southeast corner of bridge Add crosswalk to eastern leg of SW 2nd Avenue and Burnside Create median on western bridgehead to deter jaywalking and unsafe U-turns Consider moving streetcar stop on MLK between Couch and Burnside to a location just north of MLK & Couch Merging traffic on western lane of MLK into other three lanes and allowing right turn on red from Burnside south onto MLK - this allows the right turn lane to empty more quickly and reduces conflict at mixing zone above. This is only needed during eastbound commute.
Recommended Int er vention The recommended alternative for the tactical urbanism project is Intervention 1 - Safety. This project, despite being “low intensity”, is still a significant project and will be another step or two up from previous Better Block projects. Despite the group’s belief that some variant of the medium intensity option is the best candidate for a permanent solution, there are a number of factors that prevent us from recommending it as a demonstration project. Significant complexity, risk and liability is inherent in maintaining a reversible lane. The medium intensity option is not a good candidate for a volunteer-run project operating on a tight budget. The high intensity option creates an enormous amount of space which would likely remain unused for most of the project life. The bridge is one half mile long. Taking away a travel lane on each side creates over 50,000 SF of programming space with no commercial activity. This option may be suitable if a large enough draw was created to populate that much area (eg Fleet Week?) or the amount of co-opted lane was reduced (eg take only one lane or only take the lanes on the bridgeheads). Note: Whether any of these plans ever come to fruition, the movement of parking lanes away from the curb in order to create a protected bike lane on the western bridgehead should be pursued as a permanent improvement.
THANK YOU
Enhancements
10
Appendix
In addition to the stakeholder analysis, we started to contact some representatives from the key stakeholder groups to understand what some of the existing concerns and interest may be. Here are some of the conversations we had with key stakeholders and project partners. Multnomah County: Megan Neill (Bridge Engineer) and Kate McQuillan (Bike/Ped Planner) Megan Neill, Kate McQuillan, Ryan Hashagen of Better Blocks and Michael Williams met on Monday, November 10, 2015 from 2:00 – 3:00 PM at the Multnomah County Bridge offices on SE Water Avenue. Megan Neill is the bridge engineer for the County. Kate McQuillan is a Transportation Planner for Bike/Ped issues for the County. The purpose was to exchange information about the county’s perspective on the Burnside Bridge, the upcoming project scope, the problems seen by the Better Burnside Group, some possible solutions to those problems and the possibilities for a demonstration project in that area. Megan explained that the County is solely responsible for the bridge structure and that they work with PBOT on traffic patterns around the bridge and what that means for items on the surface (eg striping). Megan explained that they are currently talking with key decision makers about a near-term project for the Burnside Bridge (this is the project that was referred to in the Better Block presentation). This project includes many smaller projects whose intent is to “band-aid” the bridge so it will safely last another 20 years. The deck rehab is just one piece of this project. At the end of that 20 year period, the bridge will either be intensely refurbished or replaced. The deck rehab work is not completely specified yet but it will likely include either 1) filling in of tire-worn ruts on the asphalt or 2) removal of existing asphalt down to the concrete deck and installation of new asphalt at the same height (and weight). Both alternatives would require re-striping the bridge pavement. Megan was very clear that, unless a feature was strictly related to improving safety on the bridge, it was not happening either in a demonstration project or in a more permanent situation. She was willing to put down whatever striping PBOT and others agreed upon to improve safety and efficiency as part of the bridge rehab project. Structures were absolutely not being considered by her. The one exception she was willing to consider was bridge guardrail style protection (ie metal W beam railing that is often seen on roadsides) for the protected bike lanes. A barrier for the protected bike lane that included greenery or bioswale component was an absolute non-starter. In terms of a demonstration project, she was opposed to a re-striping of the bridge, whether it was with spray chalk (very temporary) or something more permanent. Megan said she would be the contact for a permit from the County for Better Blocks. Both Megan and Kate would like to be invited to the final report presentation. This would be a good idea for all the stakeholders we have spoken to during this project. Trimet: Dan Marchand November 9, 2015 Appendix
Dan Marchand and Michael Williams met on Monday, November 9, 2015 from 3:00 – 4:00 PM at the TriMet offices. The purpose was to exchange information about transit’s use of the Burnside bridge/corridor, background info on the area from TriMet’s perspective, the problems seen by the Better Burnside Group, some possible solutions to those problems and about possibilities for a demonstration project in that area. A Bus Rapid Transit line has not been investigated for the Burnside corridor. “Don’t expect one for at least for next 10-20 years, minimum” Bus lines 20, 12 and 19 currently use the bridge. Burnside is also used as downtown deadhead route; this is when buses are empty and either heading downtown (empty) to begin pm peak service or returning to the garage and not picking up passengers. Bus line 15 has been kicked off the Morrison due to the failing bridge deck. It is currently routed over the Hawthorne bridge. If Burnside had a dedicated transit lane, there is a good chance, the 15 would go over Burnside as well. People’s aversion to the congestion on Burnside was the primary reason they re-routed the 15 over the Hawthorne. Burnside is the preferred alternative route for buses when the steel bridge is unavailable for any reason. It is sometimes used as an alternative route when the Morrison bridge is not available but not always. Buses often stop at stop 689 (NW corner of bridge, over MAX station) in order to kill time. This includes both in-service and out-of-service buses. For that reason, this bus stop is larger than normal. It is sized to fit 2 or 3 buses at a time. The bus stop serves two purposes: one is as an actual bus stop, second is as a bus staging area where buses can “hang out” for a while. Our observation of buses moving from the bus stop 689 all the way over to the leftmost travel lane in one movement was likely a Line 12 or 19, which turn south on SW 5th Ave after serving stop 689. In terms of moving bus stop 689 further west on Burnside: Any move of a bus stop needs to be parking neutral. TriMet gets a lot of grief from the city about any reductions in parking due to establishment or moving of bus stops. The thrust of this seems to be centered around loss of parking revenue than actual lack of parking. Stop 689 is quite close to the MAX station just underneath the bridge. It used to be farther west (closer to NW 2nd), with revenue parking east of the bus zone. . When they moved the stop, they moved the parking that used to exist at the current stop site to where the old bus stop was. The move was parking neutral and moved parking closer to where it was needed. It may be possible to move stop further west, either to nearside on NW 2nd or farside. The parking would go back to the current stop site and could be used as protection for the bike lane. This does mean the walk to the MAX station wouldn’t be as short as it is now (people would have to go back up the bridge and down the stairs) but riders coming downtown would be closer to their destinations and the “isolated amongst the sea of homeless” feeling would likely be reduced. It may be possible to separate the staging area purpose of the stop and move that to another location (back to the eastern end of the bridge for example) and make stop 689 a normal sized stop.
Out of service or deadhead buses could use transit lane but that use wouldn’t happen during peak times. During those hours all of the buses are busy carrying people in and out of the city. There are stairs under the bridge at First Ave that are currently fenced and closed off. They run the width of the bridge. These stairs may have been used when the streetcar ran down the middle of the bridge. There is likely a hole in the middle of the bridge through which the stairs would have run. This would have given access to the streetcar line without peds having to cross travel lanes. This could be a resource which would reduce jaywalking across the bridge or it could be a route to a bus stop in the center of the bridge were a reversible transit lane installed. Dan mentioned the idea of a pro time lane (he didn’t know what the “pro” stood for) – this is a lane that is “bus only” for a certain period of the day and used for other purposes in the remainder. Examples exist in Portland, eg SE Madison from 10th to Grand and on SE Morrison. In these examples a bus lane exists in the morning but is used for parking the rest of the day. The intent is to allow buses to avoid delay due to congestion. This runs counter to the existing traffic patterns since the heavy use is in the afternoon but Dan assumes these lanes have been there for a lot of years and have just been grandfathered in. Nobody has bothered to create pro time lanes for afternoon use. One idea that came up while talking to Dan was the idea of working the math backwards to figure out if a dedicated transit/HOV lane would actually increase the bridge’s throughput despite increased single driver congestion. It may be possible to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to figure out whether such a lane would increase the number of people traveling over the bridge every minute (ignoring unknown contribution from increased active mode share for the moment) during peak rush hour. If we could present these calcs (with their underlying assumptions), it would go a long way toward getting permission to do the lane. What is the break-even point? How many buses and carpools have to travel that lane in order to justify establishment of such a lane? When asked about lane width for buses, Dan said their buses are 10’3” mirror to mirror. They always ask for 12’ lane width but can go down to 11’. 10’ is hard to deal with. SE Hawthorne Blvd lanes are approx 9’ and their solution there is to just take two lanes when traveling though on that street. Dan was pretty sure that Burnside is not the oldest bridge for Portland. He believes Steel and Hawthorne are older? He wasn’t sure but did mention that other bridges have been rebuilt and replaced over the years but didn’t know exact history of the Burnside. PSU Civil Engineer, expert in multi modal transportation safety: Christopher Monsere Meeting with Dr. Monsere, October 30, 2015, 11:00 AM – 11:30 AM Given the availability of experts in active transportation available to us here at PSU, thought it was good to ask one of them their thoughts about the Burnside corridor. Met with Dr. Monsere October 30 for one half hour. I explained problems we were trying to solve, the scope of the project and the ideas we had come up with so far. He liked all of the ideas and added one of his own. He thought that automated enforcement of speed limits via radar and cameras would
be a good mechanism for dropping vehicle speed. He thought the real problems in the project involved the transitional areas, eg where the bridge turns back into a street. He stated that the MLK/Burnside signal and intersection were a key problem given that the capacity of that signal is already maximized and significant congestion already occurs there during peak commute hours. We did not speak about changing signal timing during off-peak hours. He was concerned about the right hook problem at SE corner of bridge should the bike lane be moved to the right of the right turn lane but also recognized the conflicts that existed with the current position of the bike lane. Key Development: Jeff Pickhardt (President) Key Development is currently constructing “The Yard” and “The Side Yard” at the east side of the Burnside Bridge. These developments will include over 200 residential units and mixed use space. Pickhardt was enthusiastic about the idea of mass transit and a improved bike infrastructure on the bridge, and recognized that there are connectivity issues. The development is geared toward young professionals who favor active transportation, which contain bike parking for each unit and 417 stalls on the floor level. Pickhardt should be considered a supporter, and brought into help with the demonstration project. Engagement with the new tenants, and directional signage from the development to the bridge should be considered as the project progresses. Portland Rescue Mission: Timothy Desper (Burnside Services Coordinator) The Portland Rescue Mission is on the bridge, and sits at the Northwest corner near the stairs. In our observations we noticed that a lot of homeless people who use the the mission were sleeping on the stairs in the morning, sometimes crossing the bridge in unsafe ways and were endangered due to noncompliance at the Burnside and NW 2nd Ave intersection. On 11/4 I met with Timothy Desper the director of services at the mission. His window faces out and so he not only works with the homeless population in this area, he can observe a lot of the traffic incidences in the area. Desper is supportive of a Better Blocks effort to improve the bridge for safety of cyclists and pedestrians. He sits on the Old Town China Town board, and has had a positive view of the previous Better Blocks projects. Some of the main traffic concerns he spoke of: U turns on the bridge. U-turns happen frequently on the bridge because people end up it accidentally, or because of a bridge lift. What happens when the bike lane ends. . .bikes are vulnerable to parkers, and people turning right. Individuals crossing the bridge--he has seen 6 or seven people hit, and that is just want he has witnessed. The mission has policies in place that are meant to keep people from crossing the bridge in this way, but he wants to see come kind of median that keeps people from crossing the bridge (see the 82nd street project). Busy hours at the mission: 6:45-8:15 AM and 5:45 PM 11
Long-t er m V ision - Low Int ensity The proposed design interventions were inspired by these long-term visions.
Long-t er m V ision - Low Int ensity
12
Long-t er m V ision - Low Int ensity
Long-t er m V ision - Low Int ensity
13
Long-t er m V ision - Medium Int ensity The Medium Intensity alternative includes: • • • • • •
protected bike lanes from NW/SW 3rd Avenue to MLK/Burnside, 10’ travel lane widths on bridge, removal of one travel lane with space split between the two bicycle lanes, signal timing changes at MLK/Burnside and SW 2nd Ave/Burnside, a reversible emergency/transit/HOV lane in the bridge center from SW 2nd Avenue to MLK and event and placemaking at the southwest corner of the bridge and Fair Haired Dumbbell site at northeast corner of the bridge.
Long-t er m V ision - Medium Int ensity
14
Long-t er m V ision - Medium Int ensity
Long-t er m V ision - Medium Int ensity
15