AA 2839 CA 27268

A R C H I T E C T U R E • E N G I N E E R I N G • P L A N N I N G

City of Sarasota Bayfront Connectivity Charrette Trans Associates Jason Collins, P.E., AICP, PhD Re: Downtown Connectivity Study Parker Walter Group, Inc. and its author, Brent Parker, to the charrette for the Sarasota Bayfront Connectivity study, do submit the following White Paper. Brent Parker is President of Parker Walter Group, Architects and Engineers, and is an architect. PWG’s offices are in the area, in One Sarasota Tower, and they look daily at the Gulf Stream and 41 intersection. Brent also resides on Golden Gate Point, one block from this corridor, and daily drives, walks and bicycles this area. Process As I understand, the premise of this process is to gather as many ideas as possible before we start passing judgment on the merits. In that spirit I’ve gathered some of the ideas I’ve thought about for presentation here. I’m not promoting these ideas until I see the others. Yet, I am not discounting them, either. I have, however, created a classification system that may help us group the various solutions and better understand them. Present conditions At the moment pedestrian access from downtown to the bay-front is about as bad as it could possibly be, short of erecting a razor wire fence. The discussion at this charrette is reminiscent of the extensive discussion we had before we built the new bridge. The old bridge was equally uninviting to the pedestrian or bicyclist and there was no pedestrian traffic to speak off. The new bridge with the wide walkways and bicycle lanes now enjoy extensive pedestrian/bicycle traffic. At 6 o’clock in the morning the pedestrian traffic looks like rush hour. We have experienced our own Field of Dreams, “Build it and they will come”.

2 N O R T H T A M I A M I T R A I L • S U I T E 6 0 4 • S A R A S O T A , F L 3 4 2 3 6

w w w . p w g . n e t • e m a i l : pwg@pwg.net • F A X 3 6 5 - 5 4 4 6 • 9 4 1 - 3 6 6 - 2 4 7 7

2

If we can solve this issue the bay front connection can become an even bigger success. However, it’s a challenging issue, and will take some very creative thinking. I’ve decided to analyze this problem from a “logical” perspective. That is, instead of just throwing out design ideas, first accept the “restrictions” and then categorize the solutions. I’m creating three broad categories that various solutions will fall under. I believe this will make it easier to understand the restraints and the potential solutions. I also expect it will be a mix of solutions that may vary along the various segments of the road. According to the stated premise let’s accept the fact that US 41 is here to stay. During the original mobility study we studied relocating US 41 elsewhere. After a lot of discussion that concept was defeated. We also looked at reducing US 41 to a small, 2-lane road, as opposed to the present four lanes. Given the volume of traffic, that idea was opposed significantly by the community and also abandoned. The opening statement from the charrette was that US. 41 is here to stay, (we’re not moving it) and we’re not reducing the lanes to two travel lanes proposed during Mobility I, but that everything else is on the table. So in that spirit, let’s throw everything on the table and see what sticks! We need to solve the interface of automotive and pedestrian traffic. (For the purpose of this discussion when referring to pedestrian traffic that will mean to include bicycle as well. However, bicycles do operate differently. Bicycles travel parallel with car traffic quite well, if given proper separation, but when crossing operate more closely aligned to pedestrians.) This “white” paper is particularly focused on the Gulf Stream to Orange Avenue segment (Segment 3) although much of this may apply to the other segments. However, this “southern” segment is unique as it is considerable public land on which to create the solutions. The “northern” segment has only a more typical right of way; probably limiting some of the more imaginative solutions. Concepts vs. Designs Finally, it’s important to understand the difference between concepts and design. Most of the discussion here, in this paper, will be about concepts. The concept of, say, separating a road into two segments is an idea and a philosophy. The design detail is how it’s implemented. We might agree on the concept of a roundabout at an intersection, yet disagree on the actual design implementation. Most people, when they start thinking about solutions to problems, start by thinking about design. They create mental or graphic images of solutions.

3

I think it’s better to develop the concepts we want first. We may need design examples to help explain and visualize the concepts. Once we have a consensus on concepts we can develop those designs. So as design ideas come forth, let’s back up and reduce those designs back into concepts. Categorizing these concepts will help us organize our ideas. The concept drawings I’ve prepared are very simple. They are created to illustrate a point. They are not designs that have no detail. That’s very intentional. I have created three general categories of concepts that I’ve titled:

Surface Interface Vertical Cars Vertical People

Surface Interface As the name implies is any of the numerous means to solving the interface; keeping the pedestrian and automobile on the same level. That may mean slowing traffic by creating “higher” priority pedestrian crosswalks called “neck outs and having more priority given to the pedestrian signaling. The traffic volume of 35,000-40,000 cars a day makes the design of surface solutions challenging. Vertical Car Is the concept of moving the automobile vertically either up or down. In another city, we’d look at cutting a trench and displacing the car about 15’ down, leaving the people on the level surface. In Florida, keeping water out of the ditch is probably too challenging. We can also examine moving the car to an elevated segment; again leaving the people on the level surface. People don’t transition up and down too well. So keeping them on a level surface is the most desirable option. Vertical People Leaves the car on the surface and vertically move the people either up or down. These can be underpass tunnels or overpass walkovers. All these solutions have issues. For example, DOT has concerns with overpasses and people throwing items onto cars. They generally stop just short of installing razor wire. (Not an attractive solution!). Tunnel underpasses often create security issues, particularly at night, and can become attractive homeless shelters or places for muggings. So let’s explore the three concepts:

4

Surface Interface: Crossing six lanes of asphalt with 40,000 daily cars is a challenge and is probably never going to be done very well. Six lanes are very intimidating to the pedestrian. There is just too much going on with cars whizzing in front of and behind you. Crossing just one or two lanes even with relatively high volumes is somewhat more reasonable. Presently small landscape islands separate most of the road. If you get half way across you’re left standing in a very narrow island with cars behind and in front of you. It is not comfortable. If the road in it’s north-south direction was separated dramatically (say 200-300’), and held to two north and two south lanes you would, in effect, have only a two-lane road to cross at one time (twice). That’s much easier to cross. Roundabouts At this point we have to interject a discussion of roundabouts. Many roundabouts have what is termed “slip” lanes. A slip lane is a by-pass lane where if you are only going to the next segment you don’t actually enter the roundabout but “slip” past just before it. If you are coming from St Armands, over the bridge and traveling south on 41, you experience such a slip lane. (Photo 1). If you are walking from Golden Gate Point to downtown, crossing that single slip lane is easy. You don’t need a signal; you just wait a few seconds for a break and then walk across. There is no signal at Photo 1 because it’s not needed. Conversely, you’re now faced with the rest of the intersection that is daunting. This slip lane, while only a single lane, handles a significant volume of cars thru the intersection in a very constant fashion. The turning movement at this single “slip” lane slows the cars enough that pedestrians can easily cross. The point here is if you can cross one or two lanes and then have a large green space it’s much easier to cross and much less intimating and you may not need signals. Exploring the concept of a “full” roundabout (see concept 1) at the Gulfstream and US 41 intersection promotes the concept of the pedestrian only crossing one or two lanes at a time. A roundabout at this intersection can only work with three legs: 41 North, 41 South, and Gulfstream to the causeway. The Gulfstream on the east side was closed to west traffic and needs to have the east traffic closed for the roundabout to work. Four legs create more confusion in the roundabout. A “full” roundabout should have a slip lane on all three legs. That traffic moves constantly with little interruption. Only about half the traffic would have to enter the actual roundabout to travel to the second turn, as the slip lanes provide for the other half of the traffic. Having full slip lanes on a three-legged roundabout reduces the “internal” traffic, thus creating less weaving of cars in the roundabout. The actual roundabout (internal circle) might then be adequately served with only one lane, again making it simpler.

5

With this design, the pedestrian would again only have a maximum of one or two lanes at a time to cross; creating a much different experience similar to our present slip lane. Signalized intersections create traffic packs that are much more difficult for pedestrians to cross. However, all this discussion of one or two lanes and slip lanes borders on design. The important thing is to understand that a roundabout will, in whatever configuration, make for easier pedestrian crossings. Separation If the north south corridor is two lanes each it should be built relatively narrow to slow the speed just a bit. However, in the Mobility Study I there was a concept of parking along this road in an attempt to slow traffic. Parking doesn’t slow traffic. It stops it!!!! You want the traffic to be constantly moving. Stopping (parking and intersections) disrupts the flow and the concept. These two north south lanes, if built 200-300’ apart would act like separate roads, relatively easy to cross. Again, if that traffic is constantly moving (slowly) it’s much easier to deal with. From the driver’s perspective if you are constantly moving, even slowly, you are not frustrated. However, if you are forced to drive slowly and subject to stop and go it can get very frustrating. Constant flow is also much easier for pedestrians to cross. Traffic from the bridge, into our slip lane (Photo1) is very constant and it’s an easy crossing point. So Concept 1 shows a two lane road south and another two lane road north about 300’ away. For the moment we’ve eliminated the connecting streets (Main, Ringling, and Marina Jack area). To further ease the pedestrian crossing the two lanes, occasionally we’ve introduced a divider that divides the two lanes into two single lane segments with an island large enough for a pedestrian to stand in and feel comfortable. It’s possible the pedestrian could cross this single lane without signalization. If signalization were required then it would only need to stop traffic for a relative short period (15 seconds), as opposed to present 4-6 lanes requiring a longer period (50 seconds). Signalized intersections obviously create interruptions to the constant flow. The two intersections of Main Street and Ringling presently create that interruption. The volume of traffic into or out of these intersections to the arterial is quite small; yet interruptive. One radical solution is don’t have intersections here, but close them. Concept 1, however, that’s pretty radical, but for the moment effective. Nevertheless, it also eliminates auto traffic from the downtown to the bay-front. So while that may help the pedestrian we don’t want to kill the car in the process. Conversely, it’s sometime effective to logically eliminate the intersection to see what that does and then put it back in a totally different manner, changing the problem. Now lets start re-connecting our roads. If you are traveling south the right turn is easy into Marina Jack, and similarly if traveling north, the right turn into downtown is simple. Concept 2 shows all right turns onto and off of the artery that are easy. Presently the flow out of downtown at Ringling and at Main is low and the traffic signal sequence is about 2-3 minutes, which is very long.

6

If we eliminate all signals and only allow right turns the flow off all traffic would be constant, but half of the turn movements would be going in the wrong direction. Concept 3 Introduces a very large “U” turn to the system allowing that traffic to turn around. In essence we end up with a very large “U” shaped roundabout straddling Ringling and Main. This Concept 3 graphic depicts the concept. The basic north-south segments are two lanes, 26-foot travel lanes separated by 200-300’ of green space. The Gulfstream roundabout is 400’ diameter with full slip lanes. This concept creates a more constant traffic flow with no signalization, and consequently, little bunching of traffic. The motorist, while incrementally traveling slower, might actually make the trip faster by elimination of the signals. The actual lanes should be designed narrow enough to achieve the desired speed for interfacing with the pedestrian (probably about 25-30 mph). Even at 25 mph without stops it won’t be a frustrating experience from a driver’s perspective. Where we have pedestrians crossing we are further dividing the two lanes into two single lanes with a large island which should slow the traffic even a bit more, similar to our now “famous” slip lane (Photo 1). Extending Downtown Presently downtown (Main Street and Ringling) effectively terminates at Gulf Stream or about 500’ from the bay front. The pedestrian has to cross this 500’ “DMZ”. If storefronts, shops, and downtown sidewalks were extended down to the new north segment and then across the 300’ median to the south segment and finally continue on the bay-front side, it would feel more like a downtown experience when arriving at the bay-front. The experience would be a downtown walking experience that suddenly arrives on an open bay-front. You’ve crossed two two-lane roads in the process but with much less impact than the current configured “interstate”. Concept 4 shows the potential for new retail and pedestrian walks. A similar solution could be created at Ringling but as the city side is mostly residential it’s probably less effective. To summarize this concept divide the north south travel lanes dramatically and create two separate roads so the pedestrians experience only two travel lanes to be crossed. Eliminate stop and go movements on the travel lanes by eliminating signalization. “Move” the downtown closer to the bay-front be extending Main Street to and across the 41 corridors. This final Concept 4 is not a design. I don’t know what happens to Gulf Stream. I don’t know if some of the Marina Jack parking gets impacted. It does appear some of the retention ponds get affected but where they end up, again, I don’t know. Some of the parking that may get impacted may end up in this 300’ median space. Those are all design issues. I’m just trying to create a concept. The design comes later.

7

Vertical Car: The vertical car solution has two potential directions: up or down. Dig a ditch and put the car in a trench about 15 feet below grade. Now the pedestrian can have flat bridges over the top connecting the walkways. This is a great solution for the pedestrian. There is no grade change and there is nothing obstructing the pedestrian’s view. Still, it’s a technological challenge. It’s expensive. I’m not sure we have enough pumps in the state of Florida to keep it dry. In a hurricane our evacuation route would probably be flooded. Finally, from the vehicle point of view they would lose our view of the bay front. That is part of our Sarasota signature that I’m not sure we want to lose. Both for our visitors and ourselves. I enjoy driving home around the bay front and seeing that vista open up as I make the turn just past Orange Avenue. The other solution is to simply elevate the segment from Gulf Stream Boulevard to Orange Avenue and let the pedestrians pass under. Again it’s expensive and has technical challenges. Both of these solutions have challenges connecting the local traffic (downtown Main St, Ringling Boulevard and Marina Jack area) to the “network” of US 41. As you start with the concept of simply connecting from Gulf Stream to Orange Avenue with a vertical solution (similar to our surface Concept 1) and don’t for the moment worry about the local connections you start to see how these solutions solve the high speed traffic and the pedestrian cross connect. Then you only have to solve the connection of the local traffic. Maybe all local traffic doesn’t connect at all locations. You could, from the downtown side, force all traffic to Orange Avenue or north of Gulf Stream Boulevard. That’s pretty drastic yet it does solve the issue. One could start introducing the right-turn only solutions introduced in the prior segment (concept 3), with “U” turn segments. All of a sudden this “matrix” logical study starts to have various solutions starting to mix. Say we do Vertical Cars (up) but solve the local interconnect from the Surface solutions with right turns and “U” turns. You could even make a case where the southbound segment is elevated and the north on the surface

8

Vertical People: The challenge of vertical people is “persuading” the pedestrians to make the transition. The old bridge discussions are relevant. Thru that study we found the maximum grade the pedestrian will comfortably tolerate is about 4.5-5% (I believe the bridge is 4.5% on the east side while 5% on the west). The bridge rises about 80 feet that makes for a long climb. Our overpasses only need about 20 feet and yet would still require 400 feet horizontally to make an equally gradual transition. The traditional overpasses with stairs and ramps are seldom used. They are not inviting. Also, the transportation folks wrap them up in chain link fence to prevent idiots from throwing objects at vehicles. What may work is a large pedestrian overpass. After the initial mobility study Gil Waters and Jack West (architect) teamed up and created a pedestrian SkyPlaza concept (Exhibit SkyPlaza) for Main Street and US 41. The flags and the arches are fun! Think how it could even be a destination. Put a Starbucks up and it will be jammed. However, as a solution to the pedestrian crossing the network (US 41) and the steep vertical climb, either with stairs, escalator, or elevator has historically been ignored. People will still be trying to dash across US 41 as they don’t want to climb the hill. At the time of the first mobility study I also created a simple design I’ve named the “Spyder” (Exhibit Sypder). The Spyder is simply a gradual transition of grading that works for pedestrians; much like the bridge. My concept was located at US 41 and Gulf Stream Boulevard although could be adapted anywhere. It looks like a spider, as there are legs on all portions of the intersection, thus creating the transition. “My” solution is not so much a design, but again a concept. I’m simply envisioning a new piece of real estate that makes a gradual transition for the pedestrian. The concept is this gradual transition, which the pedestrian just may use. Once this new real estate is created the design begins. There could be retail, parks, or any number of amenities. It could be 80% green space and the rest walkways. Although, again that’s design. Another solution is to pass the pedestrian under the road in an underpass. This has several challenges. First, it would be well below grade and in the water table and would need pumps to keep dry. Second these generally small, narrow tunnels are very un-inviting and are usually dark, being a great place for muggings. These would need to be designed as very wide, open spaces, almost like a pedestrian mall; well lit and open. Once more, looking at our matrix if the two roads are split apart, then the underpasses travel a much shorter distance and are probably easier to design.

9

Summary This Gulf Stream to Orange Avenue segment with the extensive land available presents the greatest opportunity to create great solutions. Between Gulfstream Boulevard, US 41, and the parking there is a lot of consumed asphalt. Re-allocating these resources will probably result in surface solutions and a better experience for both the pedestrian and the motorist. It appears the surface solutions could be the most successful here if we can break down our single massive road into a number of smaller pieces. The other segments that only have conventional right-of-way available may need some of the other solutions. Providing a small 5-foot median as a place of refuge for the pedestrian to cross a large road simply isn’t adequate. If the roads can be separate by some minimum distance then portions of the surface concept may work. If a roundabout was also constructed at Fruitville Road then the right-in, right out concept could be extended up to Fruitville and then use the roundabout as the “flip”. You could probably even extend this to Tenth Street. Though there is probably no opportunity to do the short cut “flips” in this segment, as there is not enough right-or-way. I’m sure there are many other inventive solutions that will come forth in our charrette. Let’s analyze each design and categorize it into the various concepts for analysis. If we have visuals of designs we’ll use them as examples of solutions. Except not as a design but a concept. Once we have developed a concept that has supporting consensus we will have the framework to move forward and design this project. Respectfully submitted, Brent Parker, Architect