Snelling Avenue Multi-Modal Transportation Plan Design Workshop Summary July 10-11, 2012 (Technical Memorandum #2)
Note: The material contained in this presentation is a summary of the 2-day workshop. It should not be considered to represent final decisions. This is the starting point for further refinement and analysis.
Plan Status Existing Conditions Phase Complete Report: June 29 th First Open House: June 12 th Concept Phase Underway Design Workshop July 10 th and 11 th
Purpose of the Design Workshop Provide an opportunity for the design team, agency partners and stakeholders to: Assimilate site information and existing conditions Identify programmatic needs of the corridor Refine project vision Explore range of solutions Recommend potential alternatives for further refinement and consideration
Desired Outcomes Identify low-cost, high-benefit options Identify near-term and long-term (25-year) solutions Overall goal Improve connections and safety
Design Workshop Schedule 8am- 10am 10am- 12pm 12pm- 1pm 1pm- 3pm 3pm- 4pm 4pm- 5:30pm Tuesday, July 10 th Core Team TAC Meeting Lunch Task Force Meeting Core Team Wednesday, July 11 th Core Team TAC Members Welcome Lunch Core Team Task Force Members Welcome
DAY ONE TAC & TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Initial Design Assumptions TAC Day One Based upon meetings with agency partners and community stakeholders, initial design assumptions were made to provide a start point from which to develop concepts prior to the design workshop.
TAC Meeting Agenda TAC Day One Introductions/purpose What has been completed so far Initial design assumptions Bike facility options Bike lane w/buffer Bike lane Cycle track (1- or 2-way) Bike boulevard options Policy and operational considerations Day Two activities/next steps
Initial Design Assumptions TAC Day One 11' Through lanes 10' Right turn lanes/left turn lanes 1' Left side curb reaction 2' Outside through lane curb reaction 1' Right turn lane curb reaction 11' Bus pullout 3' Bicycle buffer with 5' Bike lane 8' Parking lane 4 Reaction to median barrier, 45mph or greater 2 Reaction to median barrier, less than 45mph Proposed reduction to Zone 5 speed limit to design speed, 40mph Auxiliary lanes and shoulders in Zone 5 may be repurposed
Feedback on Sidewalk Assumptions TAC Day One Minimum widths established by context zone Issues include condition, width and obstructions MnDOT sidewalk design guidance 6-8 feet for circulation 3-6 feet for buffer (furnishing zone, boulevard, etc). Transit shelters + pedestrians + bicyclists require more space than exists on some sidewalks New right of way (ROW) lines could be established in the future with new development, setbacks could be required Where sidewalk width is restricted is where its most important to get bikes off of the sidewalk and on the road Preference to design widths to demand, not to only ADA compliance
Feedback on Transit Assumptions TAC Day One Desired transit shelter dimensions: 2 loading, 6-8 shelter, 6-8 pedestrian circulation. Rapid Bus Service Far side stops at curb extensions, 80 in length 6 per hour Stops at Como, Hewitt, Minnehaha, University and Concordia Local Service At existing and rapid bus stops 2 per hour Bus pullouts Width of 8 acceptable for pullout 120-150 length needed to cross buffered bike lanes to get to curb Not preferred by Metro Transit for Rapid Bus
Feedback on Roadway Assumptions TAC Day One Basic ground rules from MnDOT A minimum of 2 lanes each direction will remain Assume ROW will not change ADA compliance is a given Bike lane width: 6-feet without buffer In accordance with the Flexible Design Memo in process from MnDOT, flexibility is requested, perhaps within speed and volume context Zone 5 Freight movements between ramps provide safety conflicts to cyclists Freight is concerned about repurposing or eliminating he auxiliary lanes Consider plans and geometry beyond project limits
Bike Facility Options TAC Day One Purpose: Preliminary concept development was conducted prior to the design workshop to identify the implications of adding the following to Snelling Avenue generally without impacting existing median or curb (i.e. a re-striping near term condition): Buffered bike lanes Conventional bike lanes Cycle track Photos and descriptions of the different types of bicycle facilities were presented
TAC Day One Buffered Bike Lane Description Typically include a 5-6 conventional bike lane plus 2-4 striped buffer between the bike lane and the motor vehicle travel lane Sometimes a buffer is also provided between the bike lane and parked vehicles providing space for opening car doors
Buffered Bike Lane Option The aerial layout indicates in heavy red highlight where the buffered bike lane would not fit within the corridor (based on initial design assumptions) without impacts to the number of motor vehicle lanes, parking, median or sidewalks. This occurs primarily in the more urban context zones (Zones 1, 3 and 4).
TAC Day One Conventional Bike Lane Description Typically 5-6 wide Color pavement or skip striping can be used to designate conflict zones where bicyclists and motorists cross paths such as right turn lanes
Conventional Bike Lane Option A layout was prepared to learn the impacts of a conventional 5 bike lane because Context Zones 1, 3 and 4 could not accommodate a buffered bike lane without impacts to the number of motor vehicle lanes, parking, median or sidewalks. While there are more areas that provide room for a conventional bike lane than a buffered bike lane, there are not continuous areas within Context Zones 1, 3 and 4 without impact to the number of motor vehicle lanes, parking, median or sidewalks.
Questions/Comments Regarding Bike Lane Options TAC Day One Only Type A bicyclists will use a bike lane on Snelling Use will depend on the motor vehicle speeds The bike lane is a buffer for pedestrians if the parking goes away, though parked cars might provide a more consistent buffer than through bicyclists Concern if parking were considered for removal to provide bike lanes that community would be opposed. Concern if parking were removed to provide bike lanes the speeds might increase with lack of constant presence along street while through bikes would be an intermittent presence.
TAC Day One Cycle Track Description A bike lane that is separated from traffic by bollards, planters or curbs stops It may be twoway on one side of the street or one-way with lanes on each side of the street
Cycle Track Option TAC Day One It may be possible to fit a two-way cycle track in Context Zone 5, from Taylor to Midway Parkway It would require shifting the existing centerline or repurposing the auxiliary and shoulder lanes Crossing the ramp intersections is a particular challenge for a two-way facility on one side of the street Field data show more bicyclists appear to be using the east side of street, rather than the west side.
Questions/Comments Regarding the Cycle Tracks Option TAC Day One Could the cycle track be a multi-use trail for both bicycles and pedestrians? The team also needs to look at bike lanes on both sides of Snelling
Parallel Routes Bike Boulevard Description TAC Day One Bicycle boulevards are low volume, low speed residential streets where improvements have been made to give bicyclists some priority for travel These streets are suitable for all types of bicyclists They are sometimes used as an alternate or to supplement to routes on higher volume and higher speed streets
TAC Day One Parallel Routes Bike Boulevard Option A map was presented showing potential routes for parallel routes/bike boulevards (next slide) Feedback at the public open house indicated these routes as preferred alternatives to Snelling Avenue Identified routes included: Aldine and Fry west of Snelling Pascal east of Snelling Each route provides crossings over I-94 and terminates at Hewitt on the north end Each route has issues with south end connections Consider both a bike lane along Snelling and a parallel bike boulevard route(s)
TAC Day One Other Comments Received During the Review of Bike Facility Options Parking Is parking controlled by the city or the state? How much does on-street parking impact bikes (only onequarter of available parking is used today) Was a parking utilization study done? Parking provides a buffer for pedestrians Parking is located where the sidewalks are the narrowest could widen the sidewalks if there was no parking Parking is useful to the small businesses along Snelling Retail space is under-utilized; don t want to further impact this A discussion of trade-offs is warranted Pedestrians may need more space What are the modal priorities? Bikes have other options; pedestrians do not
Other Comments Received During the Review of Bike Options TAC Day One Eliminating SB Left turns onto Taylor allows easier pedestrian access Hamline University would accept eliminating on-street parking near the stadium; would like to see speeds reduced on Taylor The sidewalk on the bridge needs to be widened it is only 4 feet in some areas and needs to meet ADA requirements and comfort/demand Would there be any issues on bridge loading if traffic was shifted? Would there be any behavioral issues that would need to be addressed where transitioning from one type of bike lane to another? What are the grades in Zone 5? Are there grade limits for bicyclists? Is a cantilevered pedestrian walkway on the side of the bridge an option?
TAC Day One Policy Considerations for Concept Development Crosswalk policy for corridor where, type, material Signals Unsignalized Snelling Ave Unsignalized side street Lighting considerations Corner radii Free right turns, signalization & geometry Right turn on red and restriction of left turns Stop control approaches to bridge sections in Energy Park area Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK signal) Flashing Yellow Arrow: protected/permissive left turns vs. protected left turns (overall & time of day)
Comments Crosswalk Policy TAC Day One Crosswalks are City maintained Concern from MnDOT related to marking crosswalks at unsignalized intersections May require additional elements for safety McCalester College set the bar to a certain degree Clay pavers for crosswalks didn t work on Lexington south of 94, they were replaced with stamped concrete that fell out, and international crosswalk is in place now Pedestrian scaled lighting. Look to University Avenue to see what is desirable, twin lanterns. LED is on the way HAWK consult MnDOT traffic
TAC Day One Comments Related to Complete Streets Complete streets policy for Saint Paul New consultant just undertaking MnDOT will acknowledge and respect city policy More aggressive pedestrian environment is anticipated State has had complete streets policy underway longer but is further behind Corridor is operated and maintained by city
Comments Related to Curb Radii TAC Day One Bus transit has the following turns on and off of Snelling: SB/WB at Marshall SB/WB at University WB/NB at Energy Park There are no intersections where truck turning movements are a concern they are typically through traffic
DAY ONE TASK FORCE MEETING
Task Force Day 1 Task Force Meeting Agenda Introductions/purpose What has been completed so far Initial design assumptions Bike lane options Bike lane w/buffer Bike lane Cycle track (1- or 2-way) Bike boulevard options Snelling avenue priority crossing locations Wed s activities/next steps
Task Force Day 1 Comments Design Assumptions The City recommends residents to use neighborhood streets rather than Snelling Look for parcel by parcel redevelopment opportunities for additional right of way gained through setback requirements Como Avenue bridge is a tight fit for bicyclists (there is only a 4 shoulder) Pedestrian refuge islands/medians are a valued resource in the north and should be considered in the south end of the project area
Task Force Day 1 Comments Design Assumptions Curb extensions will not achieve speed reduction Local bus service will hold up traffic longer without bus pullouts.
Task Force Day 1 Comments Related to Tradeoffs Losing pedestrian space for bicycle alternatives is not preferable Type A cyclists will take the bike lane but B and C riders will take a parallel route Bike boulevards are not a substitute for bike facilities on Snelling Provide more bike parking Prioritize facilities according to vulnerability (pedestrians/people with disabilities, bikes, drivers, and parking)
Task Force Day 1 Comments Tradeoffs Hamline University representative comments Reduction of traffic on Taylor is desirable (reduced access at Snelling would be acceptable) Loss of Snelling Ave parking south of Taylor is acceptable Green medians for traffic calming but may not fit to accommodate facilities for bicycles and pedestrians
Task Force Day 1 Comments Pedestrians The team described that the short term improvements focused on the curb to curb with ADA corrections a priority The team described that the long term improvements will recommend changes in between building faces and may also recommend some zoning and land use study, or the leveraging of redevelopment The nature of the today s agenda didn t focus on pedestrian aesthetics or sidewalk widening Will the study recommend sidewalk widths? Is the study looking at building face to building face or curb to curb? Although ADA compliance is a given for the study, there is a desire to go further: Incorporate complete streets work Enhance pedestrian facilities aesthetics Saw joints are preferred for sidewalks for surface smoothness
Task Force Day 1 Comments Pedestrians Concrete crosswalks preferred to reduce rutting/grooving from vehicles Marked crosswalks desirable Pedestrian facility continuity and amenities are a priority for MnDOT Consider colored concrete at crosswalks for visually impaired Consider redevelopment setbacks of 4 to add width to sidewalk width as done for University Avenue A zoning study would be helpful if this project made redevelopment a possibility Use auto parking spaces for bicycle parking and shared parking practices within lots. Hamline University is working with Xcel to get Utility poles in the sidewalk near the Hamline Stadium relocated
Task Force Day 1 Comments NW Quadrant Study Study did not show reduction of truck traffic south of Pierce Butler Desire for improved truck movement from Pierce Butler to Energy Park O/D data on truck traffic would be informative State Statutes designate Snelling Avenue a truck route. MnDOT does not foresee this changing.
Task Force Day 1 Comments General Increase coordination among groups and ongoing study Provide links to other studies including: NW Quadrant Study TLC Road Safety Audit Green Streets Report Saint Paul Complete Streets Plan Active Living Ramsey County efforts Sierra Club efforts Project team does have understanding of these studies and findings
Task Force Day 1 Bike Facility Options The preliminary concepts for bicycle facilities that were presented at the morning TAC meeting were also shared with the Task Force: Buffered bike lanes Conventional bike lanes Cycle track Photos and descriptions of the different types of bicycle facilities were presented
Task Force Day 1 Buffered Bike Lane Conventional Bike Lane
Task Force Day 1 Comments Bike Lane Options May bus pullouts be used for bike lanes? How do buffered bike lanes work with rapid bus? No consideration has been made for widening the sidewalks
Task Force Day 1 Cycle Track and Parallel Route Options Cycle Track Concept -Minnehaha to Midway Parkway Parallel Route Options Aldine, Fry, Pascal
Task Force Day 1 Comments Bike Boulevard Options Aldine and Pascal are far away from Snelling, is Simpson an option? Redevelopment of the Midway Shopping Center would help to re-establish the street grid and be helpful to bicyclists Pascal Busy but good cycling street Challenges University to Sherburne Connects to many land uses Parallel routes should compliment, not substitute for, major routes such as Snelling
Snelling Avenue Priority Crossing Locations Priority crossings along the corridor were identified using the following data: Pedestrian/Bike Volume Nearby trip attractors Transit stops Bike lanes Bike/Ped collisions Motor vehicle collisions Crossing length
Task Force Day 1 Comments Priority Crossing Locations The preliminary list of St. Anthony, Spruce Tree, University, and Hewitt is acceptable The following locations should also be carefully considered: Charles (due to current Charles bike facility study) Thomas (due to bike friendliness) Minnehaha (neighborhood hub, bike route) Englewood (First Hamline building with Snelling Frontage under construction here) Hubbard (high use and crossings with elementary school) Taylor (a gateway possibility) Midway (due to state fair and event parking)
Task Force Day 1 Comments Priority Crossing Locations Spruce Tree Signal is too close to Snelling can it be taken out? Provides access to shopping center Lots of pedestrians at this intersection Hewitt elementary students cross here and at Minnehaha
DAY TWO CORRIDOR VISION (BY MODE) REVISED DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS VISION TYPICAL SECTIONS CORRIDOR LONG-TERM CORRIDOR NEAR-TERM
Corridor Vision If Snelling Avenue were built today, how would we like to see it designed? The design team and TAC members asked ourselves this question during the morning of Day 2. The group brainstormed a Corridor Vision for Snelling Avenue that sought to balance the many functions of the street with the varied contexts of the neighborhoods through which it travels. We assumed the street would serve the same multi modal mix it serves today. The Corridor Vision set the stage for our concept development, refinement and analysis moving forward.
Corridor Vision The Vision elements were discussed with the Task Force in the afternoon of Day 2 Task Force comments to the Corridor Vision are shown on the following slides in brown text.
Corridor Vision Urban Street Lower speeds 30-35 mph south of Taylor (or Como) 35-40 mph north of Taylor (or Como) No freeway style ramps Except at I-94 Signalize the intersections in Context Zone 5 Four motor vehicle thru lanes Limited turn lanes Only where really needed Especially north of University Consistent speed and flow of traffic Seamless for all modes Rapid Bus presence Task Force Comments in Brown
Corridor Vision Character of Street Green Corridor Trees, plantings, innovative storm water management Streetscaping/Landscaping Furnishings, benches, etc. Pedestrian-scale lighting On sidewalks Beautiful Vitality People, community/neighborhood connections, economic development, property maintenance, small businesses Well maintained, no trash Especially at bus stops, recycling Task Force Comments in Brown
Corridor Vision Sidewalks Minimum 10 (building front to face of curb) Clear walk zone minimum 6 Expand sidewalk width for: High pedestrian activity Transit stops Clear furnishing zone at transit stops Wider than 10 on bridges ADA-compliant Streetscaping/landscaping/lighting Curb extensions
Corridor Vision Crosswalks Add more crosswalks, not less Enhanced visibility, lighting and treatments Determine appropriate treatments for nonsignalized intersections
Corridor Vision Buffered bike lanes Bikes No bikes on sidewalks Ability to cross Snelling Bike Parking Key destinations In parking lane, less on sidewalks Curb cuts at key destinations More bike accommodation on buses
Corridor Vision Transit Rapid bus (6 buses/hr) Local bus (2 buses/hr) No bus pull-outs for Rapid Bus (buses stop in traffic lane) Transit shelters in own space (not using sidewalk clear space) Waiting space for passengers Cross-street and Snelling Avenue pedestrian access to bus stops Task Force Comments in Brown
Corridor Vision Parking Strategically placed on-street parking Commercial areas Loading zones Strategically provided off-street parking Bike parking in parking lanes Curb extensions
Corridor Vision Urban mixed use Land Uses High transit ridership Future uses required to have a 4 setback for wider sidewalks University/Snelling TOD Up to 5 stories Retail/commercial first floor Office/residential above Step-down density to existing residential neighborhoods Station area plan
Design Assumptions Revised Design Assumptions Travel lane: 11 Left turn lane: 11 (10 + 1 reaction) Right turn lane: 11 (10 + 1 reaction) Median: 6-8 Buffered bike lane: 8 (5 lane + 3 buffer) Bike lane: 6 desirable; 5 minimum Parking lane: 8 No bus pull-outs Rapid Bus Sidewalk: 12 desirable; 10 minimum Rapid bus station: 12 (see next slide)
Design Assumptions Design Assumptions for Rapid Bus 80 platform w/ 9 raised curb At curbline or on curb extensions/bump-outs for in-lane loading 60 platform minimum where conditions do not allow 80 Rapid Bus study assumed 80 at all locations in Snelling Plan project area Platform width varies based on conditions Stations sized to match demand and conditions Concept station depth 4 2 clear zone from curb desirable Raised curbs require grade transitions (TBD during design) Operation Buses stop in travel lanes Short dwell times estimated (<30 seconds)
Corridor Vision Task Force Comments Corridor Vision ADA compliance is the minimum, strive for universal design which increases accessibility for all Add trash and recycling removal at transit stops Add connecting bike routes Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety across Snelling from alternative routes and at important intersections
Corridor Vision Median? Task Force Questions to be Resolved Peak period left turn restrictions? Number/spacing of signalized intersections? Impact to trucking? Crosswalk treatments, especially at unsignalized intersections?
Typical Cross Sections Using Vision Design Principles Typical Cross Sections were developed to fit within the existing right-of way of 100-feet. The two sections show the areas including the following conditions: Rapid Bus stop location with bike lane behind shelter, no parking, no turn lanes, no median On-street parking with buffered bike lane, no turn lanes, no median
Typical Cross Section Rapid Bus stop location with bike lane behind shelter, no parking, no turn lanes
Typical Cross Section On-street parking with buffered bike lane, no turn lanes, no median
Near Term Visioning Near-Term Applying the Vision Design Principles to a near term condition was also done during the workshop. The near term condition is assumed to include targeted low cost high benefit improvements. The following slide lists the corridor wide recommendations for the near term within the project area.
Near Term Visioning Near-Term ADA compliance (is the minimum safe, convenient, accessible for all users) Remove sidewalk obstructions to create min. 6 clear zone Identify parallel bike routes and connections Accommodate all modes Signal timing revisions to enhance pedestrian/bicycle mobility (crossing Snelling, in particular) Task Force Crosswalk enhancements Comments Achieve speed limit compliance in Brown
Concepts Concepts Several concepts were discussed during the design workshop. The following slides share the concept work that was completed by the design team. North End Signals replace ramps North End - Bike lanes replace auxiliary lanes and ramp radii tightened up Reallocation of width to accommodate all modes
Long Term Concept Zone 5 Concepts Applying the Vision Design Principles a concept was developed for the Expressway area north of Taylor Avenue. This concept replaces the freeway style ramps at Pierce Butler Route, Energy Park Drive and Como with traffic signals. Bridges are still required to cross railroad tracks however, the premise is that Snelling Avenue elevation would be dropped as much as possible to meet grade returning this section to an urban street condition.
Long-Term Concept Zone 5 North of Taylor Avenue Signalized intersections at Pierce Butler Route and Energy Park Drive. May require through traffic from these routes to travel through signals which needs operational review.
Long-Term Concept Zone 5 North of Taylor Avenue Signalized intersection at Como with channelized right turns. Requires through traffic from Como to travel through signal which needs operational review.
Comments Long Term Concept Zone 5 Concepts What is impact to BNSF related truck traffic? Worth exploring as a vision, it improves the north end of the study area. What could infill pattern be if the road were brought down to grade? Changes would need to be integrated with land use. Traditional neighborhood development would thrive and economic development would improve with this scenario. This could be the impetus for the city to reestablish the neighborhoods. Residents are still unhappy about the loss of the downtown Como area from the 60s. Frontage road improvements are likely to do little to invigorate neighborhoods without at grade improvements. Additional at grade intersections were suggested, and recommended for inclusion in a larger city plan. May send traffic through the neighborhoods. OK for long range vision, but what little things we can be done now?
Concepts Near Term Concept Zone 5 Applying the Vision Design Principles a concept was developed for the Expressway area north of Taylor Avenue. This concept utilizes the existing shoulders and auxiliary lanes for one-way buffered or protected bike lanes on each side of Snelling. The radii are reduced at the existing ramps at Pierce Butler Route and Energy Park Drive and the approaches to Snelling are stop controlled.
Near-Term Concept Zone 5 North of Taylor Avenue The radii are reduced at the ramp entrances and exits to encourage slower entry. It is possible that with lane width reductions and addition of a buffered or protected bike lane speeds could be reduced minimizing need for auxiliary lanes.
Near-Term Concept Zone 5 North of Taylor Avenue Como ramp entrances and exits are utilized for bike lanes because the existing bridge width is not sufficient to accommodate a buffered bike lane. Ramp bike lanes also provide connections to Como bike lanes.
Concepts Comments Near-Term Concept Zone 5 North of Taylor Removing the free rights will reduce vehicle LOS What can be done to improve speed compliance? There is a need to accommodate pedestrians on the bridge Pedestrians and bikes will go straight to state fair and not go down the ramps at Como
Long Term Concept Zones 1, 3, 4 Concepts Applying the Vision Design Principles to accommodate all modes a concept was developed for three of the Context Zones in the project area: Zone 1 Selby Mixed Use Zone 3 University Neighborhood Center Zone 4 Hamline Mixed Use The concept was developed using typical sections throughout the three zones. The following slides present the assumptions and concept.
Long Term Concept Zones 1, 3, 4 Concepts Lane Budget The concept reviews the lane budget how many feet exist in current condition and how might they be repurposed by lane. Based on the vision design principals, lane budget for all modes would require more than the current 100 feet of right-of-way that typically exists between building faces.
Long Term Concept Zones 1, 3, 4 Concepts Parking Maintain parking in the neighborhood business districts Bike Lanes Provide buffered or conventional bike lane as allowed by lane budget Sidewalks Maintain existing width
Long Term Concept Zones 1, 3, 4 Concepts Turn lanes Remove where capacity is not needed Median Reduce or remove median where lane budget requires to include all modes
Long Term Concept Zones 1, 3, 4 Lane Budget Spreadsheet Concepts
Wrap-up Design Realizations Near and Long Term Concepts require consideration of: Removal of turn lanes intermittently Removal of parking intermittently Additional sidewalk width Median removal, reconfiguration or addition Flexibility in lane widths for all modes
Concepts Comments Long Term Concept Zones 1, 2 and 4 Is a left turn pocket at Shields necessary? Where does the traffic go if frustrated when stacked behind buses? Vehicles are required not to block the intersections
MnDOT Comments Concepts MnDOT has very strong concerns about 10 through lanes Traffic will be emphatic about 11 through lanes for LOS and safety. Begin discussions. There is opportunity MnDOT Metro District is open to considering ideas outside of the box We were pleased to see that we could do more than we thought with the 100 of ROW Future funding will be a challenge for MnDOT corridors and projects.
Wrap-up Near Term Implementation Strategies City maintenance projects without concrete removal and replacement Leverage Rapid Bus Implementation to extend curbs and remove bus pullouts Repurpose underutilized parking, bus pullout and exclusive turn lanes spaces CCLRT funding presents opportunity for improvements related to 2014 opening
Wrap-up Design Challenges Challenge of near term and long term problem solving Working within the existing curb width in the short term which varies along corridor Visioning a reconstructed Snelling between building faces or curb to curb Accommodating all modes Improving safety Finding opportunities for flexibility in design assumptions
Wrap-up Analysis Phase The Design Workshop represents the completion of Phase 2 of the Plan. The next phase, the Analysis Phase, includes the following: Refine and test concepts: Near/Short/Long Term Feasibility analysis Geometrics Transit Cost Estimates Design implications MMLOS/Vehicle LOS Develop evaluation criteria
Note: The material contained in this presentation is a summary of the 2-day workshop. It should not be considered to represent final decisions. This is the starting point for further refinement and analysis.