Michigan Street Corridor Plan Community Forum #4 October 29, 2012

Breakout #1

Intersections/Interchanges Upgrades

Future Land Use - DRAFT

Transportation Vision

Guiding Principles

Values

Indicators

Values: Measurable : desired end event

Indicators: Technical : used to evaluate land use and

transportation packages

10 Guiding Principles: General : broad goals of the project

Example Create a transportation system that is accessible,

interconnected and multimodal

Example Provide acceptable traffic operations that support

future land use

Example Signalized intersections will provide a multimodal

Level of Service ‘C’ for all modes & ‘D’ or better for vehicles

Goal is to have a good “quality of service” for travelers of all ages, abilities and types.

Pedestrians

Bicyclists

Transit Users

Emergency Services

Autos

Trucks

Multi-Modal Level of Service

Bike Alternative Concepts (June 2012)

Bike Alternative/Green Infrastructure Concepts (October 2012)

Transit Alternatives (June 2012)

Transportation Alternatives (June 2012)

Work So Far…

Preferred Land Use and Transportation Package

Transportation Alternatives

Identify Land Use Scenarios

Evaluation

Goals were established Traffic projections based on

future land use Broad alternatives were

identified, some dropped Not feasible (engineering) Inconsistent with design

standards Little benefit for cost

Alternatives included a scenario with 10% more walk, bike and transit trips

Result: still significant

congestion at key intersections

Future Traffic

Findings

Even with the interchange and network changes, there will still be significant traffic increases on Michigan Street from the river to College

Travel Demand Management can help reduce the congestion Shift more to transit, walking, bicycling Off-peak shift hours Off-corridor parking shuttles Variable pricing of parking Telecommuting

Will still need to redesign the Michigan/College intersection

Refined Alternatives (October 2012)

Interchange Area Alternatives

Michigan/College Intersection Alternatives

Michigan Street Transportation Evaluation Matrix

Objectives (based on values

identified in the process) Indicators Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4

Pri

nci

ple

: C

reat

e a

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Sys

tem

th

at is

ac

cess

ble

, in

terc

on

nec

ted

, an

d

mu

ltim

od

al

Accommodate development but shift more travel to walking, biking and transit use (i.e. "mode shift") to reduce congestion

trips

Reduction in the number and length of auto trips, esp. single occupant auto trips; predicuted pct of walking, bike and transit

trips

Integrate transit with key transit routes and other modes of travel to increase

ridership

Increase in ridership, decrease in throughput times, improved travel

reliability, stop/station sidewalk connectivity and ped/bike amenities, use

of park and ride lots

Improve bike travel through thestreet network in the study area for all types of

existing and potential bicyclists

Bike quality index, number of miles of designated bike routes

Pri

nci

ple

: Sa

fely

an

d e

ffic

ien

tly

mo

ve p

eop

le a

nd

go

od

s o

f al

l ag

es a

nd

ab

iliti

es t

hro

ugh

th

e co

rrid

or

Improve the performance of the overall transportation system

Population and employment to VMT ratios

Supports the buildout of the land use scenarios with acceptable traffic

operations without shifting through-traffic to the neighborhoods

Intersection Delay (peak Hr auto LOS D or better), Corridor throughput time;

potential shift of auto or truck travel onto neighborhood streets

Retain or improve emergency vehicle response times

Emergency response vehicle travel times

Pri

nci

ple

: Im

pro

ve t

he

iden

tify

o

f th

e co

rrid

or

as a

"p

lace

" th

at is

wal

kab

le,

acce

ssib

le a

nd

sa

fe

Safety, reduce crash frequency and severity (all types)

Relavite expected number and severity of crashes

Increase walking and improve pedestrian environment that will improve public

health outcomes

Potential for wider sidewalks, room for amenities, more frequent and convenient

crossings, including for those with disabilities

Potential to promote creation of a distinct character for the corridor in both the

public and private realm

Space for distinguishing features that contribute to the use and enjoyment of the

planned plazas, open space and walking along the street

Pri

nci

ple

: P

rovi

de

a h

ealt

hy

livin

g en

viro

nm

ent

that

pro

mo

tes

acti

ve li

vin

g an

d in

crea

ses

clea

n

air

Encourage walking with inviting streetscapes, "buffer" from autos, vibrant

store fronts, convenient pedestrian crossings, destinations to walk to

% of corridor redesigned, "walk score" and/or multi-modal quality of service

factors, increase in ADA crossings, addition of street level pedestrian attractors and

amenities

Stormwater quality Amount of imprevious surface, potential to

have low impact stormwater design infrastructure

Decrease per capita VMT and transportation-related emissions

Air quality and traffic volumes, health indicators

Transportation Evaluation

Michigan/College Intersection Alternatives

Next Steps

More detailed analysis (modeling) of intersection alternatives

Comparative evaluation of the alternatives Selection of short and long term solutions Begin design

Thank you!

DISCUSSION

Please fill out a short feedback survey on the back of your forum agenda and leave it in the box at the front of the room.

Take some time in the central atrium area to explore the other sessions.

Parking & bus passes will be available at the name tag table.