SR 161 Corridor Study Collaboration Strategies for Multi-Jurisdiction Projects. OTEC 2017 Session 17

Transcription

1 SR 161 Corridor Study Collaboration Strategies for Multi-Jurisdiction Projects OTEC 2017 Session 17

2 Michael Ciotola Vice President, Transportation Susan Daniels Principal, Director of NEPA/Planning Brian Davidson District 6 Local Programs Manager 2

3 Introduction 3

4 History Several Previous Studies No Consensus Stage 1 Report, SR 161 Highway Improvements (1996) City of Columbus Multi-Use Path Study (2014) MORPC State Route 161 Traffic Study (2014) ODOT Preliminary Engineering (2015) New Study with New Strategy ODOT Advertised for Consultant in January 2016 SR 161 Corridor Study began July

5 Project Partners ODOT MORPC City of Columbus City of Worthington Franklin County Perry Township Jointly funded $600k Study 5

6 Jurisdictions 6

7 Technical Strategy Previous studies ended with no action Public controversy Lack of Funding Different Approach Identify buildable and fundable solutions 7

8 Technical Strategy Advisory Committee Key Milestones Purpose & Need real vs. perceived problems Alternatives Identification, Development & Evaluation Project sections Targeted engineering solution Public Involvement gain support 8

9 Technical Strategy Technical input Traffic projections Capacity analyses Crash analyses Typical sections, footprint and impacts Cost 9

10 Critical Areas 10

11 Business impact example: LinworthLumber 11

12 Public Involvement Advisory Committee Meetings August 2016 Introduction & Input on Problems November 2016 Data Analysis/Transportation Needs January 2017 Alternatives Workshop March 2017 Concept Evaluation part 1 April 2017 Concept Evaluation part 2 July 2017 Public Comments/Proposed Recommendations Public Meeting June

13 Public Involvement Strategy Consensus needed among project partners Buy-in required from constituents Achieved through a transparent process 13

14 Advisory Committee Plan Input from committee at milestones 1. Introduction & Input on Problems 2. Data Analysis/Transportation Needs 3. Development of Alternatives 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 5. Recommendations 14

15 Advisory Committee Membership Diverse perspectives Neighborhood leaders Known advocates Purpose Focus the team s attention on the most relevant data Anticipate issues from the broader community Provide feedback on concepts 15

16 Advisory Committee Participation ODOT MORPC City of Columbus City of Worthington Perry Township Franklin County Engineer s Office City of Dublin The Ohio State University Worthington Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Worthington Schools Brookside Estates Brookside Woods Northwest Civic Association Olentangy Highlands Plesenton Rau Lane Civic Assoc. Strathaven Westbrook Civic Assoc. Yay Bikes! Safety First 161 Ohio Army National Guard Guests 16

17 Advisory Committee Meeting #1 August 2016 The Agenda: Introductions Team Process Scope Public involvement plan Their role Our goals Begin to establish trust Manage expectations Identify potential conflicts Determine if others should be involved 17

18 Advisory Committee s Role Study and Recommend Mead & Hunt Burgess & Niple Lawhon Inform and Advise Advisory Committee Public Outreach Agency Technical Experts Review and Decide ODOT MORPC Columbus Worthington Franklin County Perry Township 18

19 Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 2016 Technical Analyses Traffic volumes and growth Congestion Railroad crossing delay Crash history Access issues Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities Our goals All the same from meeting #1, plus Test for understanding Set the stage for Purpose and Need Get a sense of priorities 19

20 Railroad Signal Railroad Crossing Linworth Road 20

21 Crash History Percentage Compared to Statewide Averages for Study Area Injury Rear End Angle Fixed Object Left-Turn Sideswipe-Passing 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Crash History (Below Average) % Statewide Average % Crash History (Above Average) % 21

22 McVey Boulevard to Linworth Road 18 REAR END CRASHES 0.5 MILE SEGMENT 1.54 MORE CRASHES PER YEAR THAN SIMILAR LOCATIONS CAUSED BY BOTH ACCESS POINTS AND CONGESTION 22

23 Linworth Road to Olentangy River Road 1.45 MORE CRASHES PER YEAR THAN SIMILAR LOCATIONS 15 REAR END CRASHES 0.6 MILE SEGMENT CAUSED BY BOTH ACCESS POINTS AND CONGESTION 3 SIDESWIPE-PASSING CRASHES 23

24 Purpose and Need Primary Needs Reduce vehicular delay at the SR 161/Linworth Intersection Improve pedestrian connectivity and walkability Improve access to/from driveways and side streets Address identified rear-end crash patterns Secondary Needs Reduce delay at rail crossing Improve cycling connectivity and quality 24

25 Advisory Committee Meeting #3 January 2017 Hands-on Workshop Divide into squads Visit each station Develop ideas that should be considered Discuss among your group Tools Aerials (1 = 50 feet) Transparent templates of typical section elements 25

26 Developing Conceptual Alternatives Assign a Squad Leader make sure everyone has opportunity to be heard, keep track of time Assign a Scribe make sure all ideas are recorded on notepads or photographed by the project team Make a list of alternatives that your group would like to see investigated at each station Templates and menus are provided to assist with brainstorming 26

27 Workshop Schedule Period 1-3:45pm Period 2-4:15pm Period 3-4:45pm Squad Station Station Station A West-A Linworth East-A B West-B Linworth East-B C Linworth East-A West-A D Linworth East-B West-B E East-A West-A Linworth F East-B West-B Linworth 27

28 Advisory Committee Meeting #4-A March 2017 Evaluation presentation Analysis highlights Evaluation Open House Mark-ups on exhibits Green/red dots 28

29 Preliminary Concepts The results of the workshop revealed several key decisions for each section of the corridor: 3-lane versus 5-lane Bikelanes/sidewalks versus Shared Use Path/sidewalk If SUP, then which side in what areas Railroad grade separation versus at-grade crossing Overpass versus underpass? Existing location or bypass? Traditional intersection versus non-traditional 22 Concepts 29

30 Intersection Delay and LOS Lane and 5-Lane Morning Peak Lane 31 Seconds in Lane Seconds in 2020

31 Intersection Delay and LOS Lane and 5-Lane Afternoon Peak Lane 36 Seconds in Lane Seconds in 2020

32 Volume Increase from 3-Lane to 5-Lane Based on MORPC s Travel Demand Model

33 Designing for Anticipated Users Bike lanes Transportation Serious riders Shared Use Path Recreation Casual riders 33

34 Grade separation 34

35 Grade separation on new alignment 35

36 Evaluation Review the Concepts (open-house style) Should any of the concepts be eliminated? Why? Where will we need more information? Mark exhibits for areas of concern Provide feedback to assist in developing comparison matrix 36

37 AC Meeting #4-Part A Comments 3-Lanes or 5-Lanes The use of a 5-lane cross-section does not fit the character of the corridor. No to continuous 5 lanes. 5 lanes between Sawmill and Federated. 37

38 AC Meeting #4-Part A Comments Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Prefer SUP to bike lanes. SUP not an ideal solution for bike transportation On road facilities work better. SUP and bike lanes. 38

39 AC Meeting #4-Part A Comments Railroad Crossing Underpass: Worth continuing to study. Overpass: Too much property acquired. No over or under. 39

40 Advisory Committee Meeting #4-B April 2017 Project Team takeaways from AC input Recommended concepts to take to public meeting 40

41 Take-aways Traffic volumes increase by about 30% if additional through lanes are provided (based upon MORPC model) Traffic flow benefit for 161 to adding additional through lanes is partially offset by the traffic growth Traffic benefit may be realized system-wide by removing traffic from other routes Not within the partners intent when initiating the study Not within this project s purpose and need Not quantified in this study 41

42 Take-aways Interest in pedestrian and bicycle facilities in corridor Bike lanes/shared Use Path/Sidewalk Combinations Consensus that it is important No consensus on best way to do it Suggest letting broader public weigh in users and affected property owners 42

43 Take-aways Concern over impacts to residential property Concern over impacts to businesses Request for more information on right-of-way widths 43

44 West Corridor ROW Comparisons North CW2 69 CW3 69 CW1 79 CW1/2 85 CW5 91 South CW6 91 CW4 101 Buffers / Curb & Gutter Sidewalk Shared Use Path Tree Lawn Bike Lane Thru Lane / Turning Lane Alternatives Description ROW (in feet) CW1 3 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes and Sidewalks Both Sides 79 CW2 3 Lane with Shared Use Path on South Side, Sidewalk on North Side 69 CW1/2 3 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes on Both Sides, Shared Use Path on 85 South Side, Sidewalk on North Side CW3 3 Lane with Sidewalk on South Side, Shared Use Path on North Side 69 CW4 5 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides 101 CW5 5 Lane with Shared Use Path on South Side, Sidewalk on North Side 91 CW6 5 Lane with Sidewalk on South Side, Shared Use Path on North Side 91

45 East Corridor ROW Comparisons North CE2 69 South CE1 79 CE1/2 85 CE4 91 CE3 101 Buffers / Curb & Gutter Sidewalk Shared Use Path Tree Lawn Bike Lane Thru Lane / Turning Lane Alternatives Description ROW (in feet) CE1 3 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides 79 CE2 3 Lane with Shared Use Path on South Side, Sidewalk on North Side 69 CE1/2 3 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes on Both Sides, Shared Use Path on 85 South Side, Sidewalk on North Side CE3 5 Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes and Sidewalks Both Sides 101 CE4 5 Lane with Shared Use Path on South Side, Sidewalk on North Side 91

46 Take-aways Railroad crossing is a concern But the impacts might outweigh the benefit Need more information to evaluate this 46

47 Public Meeting June 2017 Presented corridor alternatives with 3-lane section plus: Bike lanes and sidewalks both sides Shared-use path on south side, sidewalk on north Bike lanes, shared-use path on south, sidewalk on north Linworth Intersection Concept Railroad underpass And there was much rejoicing. 47

48 Advisory Committee Meeting #5 July 2017 Discuss comments from June 6th public meeting Discuss recommendations of the Study Team Requested feedback for the Partners to consider 48

49 Achieving Consensus Representation Diverse perspectives Opposing/reflecting Context/preparation Pace Transparency 49

50 Next Steps -Funding Strategy Partners adopt study Develop funding strategy for each buildable section Identify sources and apply 50

51 Questions? 51