City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session

Transcription

1 City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session Agenda Item # 4b City Council Meeting 6/2/2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE(S): SUMMARY: FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION: RESPONSIBLE STAFF/ POC: COORDINATION: ATTACHMENTS: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Robert Sisson, City Manager Old Lee Highway Study Presentation of Alternatives The City Council will receive a presentation on the Old Lee Highway Study from the City s consultant, Brian McMahon with Parsons Brinckerhoff. The presentation will outline the comments heard at the first public meeting and review the conceptual alternatives that will be presented at the second public meeting on Thursday, June 4. The City hosted a public input meeting in March to solicit feedback from users of Old Lee Highway. Questions asked included: what is your vision of Old Lee Highway, what is important to you as a user, what are your key concerns, where are there problem areas along the corridor? Meeting participants were able to input through a variety of methods. Based on the input received, staff and the consultants have developed two conceptual alternatives for the three segments of Old Lee Highway for the public to review. All alternatives include accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists (shared use path and variations of on-road bicycle lanes). Also, segments are shown with and without medians. The presentation will review advantages and disadvantages of the programmatic elements for discussion. None. The City was awarded $60,000 in technical assistance through the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government s Transportation/Land-Use Connections Program (COG TLC). The Adopted FY 16 Capital Program includes $4M for implementation/construction ($2M in FY 16 Revenue Sharing and $2M in 30% NVTA funds) if the Council chooses to proceed with this project. Receive presentation from Parsons Brinckerhoff Do not receive the presentation Wendy Block Sanford, Transportation Director Public Works, Planning Presentation for June 4 th Public Workshop

2 OLD LEE HIGHWAY GREAT STREET June 4, 2015

3 2 AGENDA 1. Review Input from First Community Meeting 2. Discuss Proposed Key Elements and Alternatives 3. Provide Input 4. Review Schedule and Next Steps

4 3 Project Purpose 1. Bring diverse users together 2. Give precedence to people walking and biking 3. Be memorable and reflective of local community 4. Provide comfort 5. Clearly communicate the edges 6. Exhibit special design features

5 4 Your Input Workshop 1

6 Top Priorities Your Input Workshop 1 1. Pedestrian Comfort (79 dots) 2. Bicycle Comfort (50 dots) 3. Landscaping/Buffers (46 dots) 4. Consistent Design (40 dots) 5. Lighting (30 dots) 6. Signage/Wayfinding (19 dots) 5 7. On-street Parking (9 dots)

7 6 Your Input - Tonight 1. Review Key Elements 2. Consider Alternatives 3. Review the Boards 4. Complete the Evaluation

8 7 Potential Elements Landscaped Medians (commercial segments only) Bicycle Lanes Shared Use Path Low Impact Development Techniques

9 8 Landscaped Median An Option for Commercial Segments Only Benefits Refuge for pedestrians crossing OLH May allow additional tree canopy Disadvantages Short block faces and left turn pockets Longer pedestrian crossing distance

10 9 Bike Facilities Bike Facilities shown as option in all segments Two options for bike facilities Protected (buffer) Dedicated (no buffer)

11 10 Protected Bike Lanes Benefits Separation from motorists and pedestrians Greatest degree of rider comfort Buffer strip for landscaping Space for burying power lines Pedestrian refuges for crossing OLH Allows higher speeds for cyclists

12 11 Protected Bike Lanes Disadvantages Additional cost Wider street section Transitions for on-street parking + turning movements

13 12 Benefits Separation from pedestrians Improved rider comfort Allows higher speeds for cyclists Disadvantages Lack of separation from motorists Wider street section Requires enforcement Dedicated Bike Lanes

14 13 Shared Use Path shown as option in all segments Benefits Accommodates all cyclists types Separation from motorists Shared Use Path Flexible design based on level of use Disadvantages Conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians

15 14 Low Impact Development (LID) Retain water on-site Improve aesthetics Low Impact Development

16 15 Segments 1. North Street to Community Center commercial 2. Community Center to Ridge Avenue residential 3. Ridge Avenue to Old Pickett Road commercial 1 2 3

17 16 Segment 1 1. North Street to Community Center 2. Community Center to Ridge Avenue 3. Ridge Avenue to Old Pickett Road 1 2 3

18 17 Segment 1 Alternative 1

19 18 Segment 1 Alternative 1 Key Elements Protected Bike Lane Shared Use Path Center Median Smaller Front Yard Setback

20 19 Segment 1 Alternative 2

21 20 Segment 1 Alternative 2 Key Elements Dedicated Bike Lane Shared Use Path No Center Median Larger Front Yard Setback

22 21 Segment 1 Key Differences Between Alternatives Alternative 1 Type of Bike Lane Protected (Alt 1) Dedicated (Alt 2) Presence or Absence of Center Median Center Median Present (Alt 1) Center Median Absent (Alt 2) Alternative 2 Amount of Front Yard Setback Less setback (Alt 1) More setback (Alt 2)

23 22 Segment 2 1. North Street to Community Center 2. Community Center to Ridge Avenue 3. Ridge Avenue to Old Pickett Road 1 2 3

24 23 Segment 2 Alternative 1

25 24 Segment 2 Alternative 2

26 25 Segment 2 Key Elements Key Elements for Both Alternatives Bike Lane Shared Use Path No Center Median On-Street Parking

27 26 Bike Lanes + Parking Option 1 Driver side dual striped lane Adequate width important to avoid dooring and close pass zone Option 2 Passenger side parking protected lane

28 27 Segment 2 Alternative 1 Key Differences Between Alternatives Type of Bike Lane Protected (Alt 1) Dedicated (Alt 2) Amount of Front Yard Setback Less setback (Alt 1) More setback (Alt 2) Alternative 2

29 28 Segment 3 1. North Street to Community Center 2. Community Center to Ridge Avenue 3. Ridge Avenue to Old Pickett Road 1 2 3

30 29 Segment 3 Alternative 1

31 30 Segment 3 Alternative 1 Key Elements Protected Bike Lane Shared Use Path Center Median Four Lanes for Vehicular Traffic (maintain existing lane configuration)

32 31 Segment 3 Alternative 2

33 32 Segment 3 Alternative 2 Key Elements Dedicated Bike Lane Shared Use Path No Center Median Two Lanes of Vehicular Traffic (Modify lane configuration to match Segment 2)

34 33 Segment 3 Alternative 1 Key Differences Between Alternatives Type of Bike Lane Protected (Alt 1) Dedicated (Alt 2) Presence or Absence of Center Median Center Median Present (Alt 1) Center Median Absent (Alt 2) Amount of Front Yard Setback Less setback (Alt 1) More setback (Alt 2) Number of Lanes Four Lanes with Median (Alt 1) Two Lanes without Median (Alt 2) Alternative 2

35 34 Schedule and Key Dates 1. Public Workshop No. 2 June 4, Concept Plan Adoption - July 2015

36 35 Thank You Contact Information: Wendy Block Sanford