Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACHD CommentApril, 19, 2007 To: City of Meridian, Matt Ellsworth 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: Ten -Mile Interchange Plan Review John S. Franden, President C° Rebecca W. Arnold, Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Dave Bivens, Commissioner Carol A. McKee, Commissioner APR 19 2007 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office ACHD has reviewed the Ten -Mile Interchange Plan as submitted by the City of Meridian with the assistance from HDR. Overall the plan was viewed as strong in overall substance, thoughtful and thorough in its comprehensiveness, and creative in its design and vision for what the location should eventually resemble. The plan has a few major issues and several minor points that ACHD wishes to comment on. The "major" points are below, while the minor points are attached: 1. The first signalized intersection location- The plan state the intersection is to be located "1000 feet north of the hightop of the new interchange...." Since this is measured from the highest point of the interchange and assuming the elevation relief would require at least 200-300 feet before being level, this means the first signalized intersection would be located closer to 700-800 feet from the off/on ramps and creating similar issues to that of Eagle Road. ACHD recommends this intersection be moved further north to avoid to likely staking that would take place. 2. Impact Fees and Funding Mechanisms- The plan does not accurately reflect the ACHD impact and extraordinary impact fee structure and does not address realistic possibilities for funding the collector street system in this area. While noting the importance of finding methods in which to develop the desired network it is our recommendation this section be either rewritten or removed all together. We are happy to assist in refining this language if necessary. 3. Overland Road- This Overland Realignment study is not complete. The South Meridian plan has yet to be fully developed and has not been finalized by the consultant, ACHD, or the City of Meridian and is therefore not ready for official action. Until this is the case, which will be well after the Ten Mile Plan is finalized, discussing the possible alignments of Overland may be premature and should be handled with the delicacy it warrants due to the unknown factors that surround the future of the roadway. We thank you for the coordinated process in this area and hope to continue to participate with the city on these types of efforts. Sincerely, John Franden Cc: Commissioners Katey Levihn Don Galligan, HDR Inc. J. Schwitzer Central File & P&P Files Anna Canning, City of Meridian C:;Docunnents and Settings),smithsiLoeal Settings Temporary Internet Files`OLK.I BF` 10 Mile Interchange Area Plan Coin nents.doc 10 Mile Interchange Area Plan Comments Overall the plan was well received by ACHD. The level of detail concerning so many of the important elements of this potential development pattern was done in a very thoughtful and careful manner. Recognizing that an area of this size and with the uniqueness of the ideas contained within the plan there are only a few issues worthy of comment. Land Uses: I. Under Complete Streets (3-19): The "complete streets" movement is not accommodating all modes as the plan suggests. Land use is the final and most pressing factor in creating a "complete street" - e.g. plenty of roads in Ada County have properly provided for the ped/bike facilities, as well as transit, but almost all are severely lacking in the land use component to complete the street (see Dan Burden's presentation for TLIP). 2. The discussion over appropriate densities to support local bus, light rail, rapid transit, etc. the plan states several times that it is different, unique, etc. but yet the densities suggested are bare minimums to support these transit possibilities. Perhaps this area ought to elaborate a bit by exploring the optimizing of transit rather than supporting it. What densities would really make a LRT/BRT work well with 5-10 minute, or even 15-20 minute headways? 3. After calculating designated land use acreage and density recommendations for dwelling units it appears the number could be 7000-13000. If this is accurate, perhaps a table showing this would be helpful? Transportation Plan: 1. There has been strong concern over the use of "Intersection already designed by ACHY under 3-23. Franklin and Ten Mile Road is accurate, but the other three are not. It is recommended that either these graphics are pulled or that the statement be removed. 2. Under Street Geometries, (3-21), the plan calls for 25 feet of curb radius. The concern over this statement is the potential conflicts with truck traffic, especially considering the industrial nature of the area as of now. (Need to follow ISPWC standards for curb radius with pedestrian ramps.) 3. Both network maps (3-18, 3-22) imply that some of the roads will utilize standard intersections across roadways. The first two are on Ten Mile. The first intersection (underpass) and the third (right in/right out) appear to be no different than the mid -mile intersection that has cross traffic. The same is true for the first intersection heading east on Franklin from Ten Mile. 4. Page 3-23, under Proposed Intersections w/Arterials, second paragraph reads, "...ten new intersections onto the arterial network: two on Ten Mile Road, five on Fairview..." This should read Franklin Road not Fairview. 5. Page 3-24, under curb radius, the description for intersection distance is limited to collector to collector and does not mention arterials to collector. 6. Under 3-25 the paragraph talking about medians states that medians should not be less than 16 feet but both cross sections A & B show 12'. 7. Page, 3-20 Street Section B shows 11 foot middle lanes, since they are next to medians they need to be 14'. (this applies to the outside lanes as well when there are no bike lanes) Under section 3-21 Street Section E shows a parking space on the west side of the road backed in. 8. Cross Section distances need to be recalculated for Section A and E. A is 64' as shown and E is 70'. C:;Documents and SettingsismithslLocal Settiugs'Temponary Inteniet FileslOLK.I BF\10 Mile Interchange Area Plan Comments.doc 9. Overland Road: The study mentions right in/right out configuration of the old intersection and the approximate location of the new Overland being 1500 feet to the south. While this may end up being the ultimate location and configuration, nothing is official and won't be until the results of the South Meridian Transportation Plan is completed, adopted, and ultimately with developer driven construction and cooperation, implemented. The plan should state something similar to this for final draft. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Pedestrian- 1. Concerns were raised numerous times about the idea of the textured crosswalks. Although aesthetically they may be more appealing, they are not ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant. If this is the consensus, then language stating very clearly and strongly should be added that reinforces the obligation ACHD has towards legal requirements. 2. Another ADA issue is meandering sidewalks. Although the plan does not call for them, it also doesn't dissuade them from being an option. There is current energy toward drastically limiting the use of meandering sidewalks from an ADA standpoint. Language that discusses this at some level should be included. 3. Curb ramps should align with the crosswalk and not simply one curb ramp following the radius of the corner. Additionally, mentioning truncated domes along with pictures would be recommended. 4. In "Street Section A", there is confusion over the type of facility being shown. Is this a sidewalk, walkway, or shared pathway? If this is a pathway, then the width should be annotated and marked 10' Shared Pathway, to meet ADA standards. Bicycle- 1. Signage of bicycle lanes, "share the road" signs, and bike route signs should be mentioned and perhaps illustrated. 2. Adding bike racks or bike lockers to each transit stop, every other transit stop, etc. should be added just as much as focusing on accommodating pedestrian amenities such as shelters, furniture. 3. At roundabouts, ramps to allow inexperienced bicyclists to exit onto sidewalks/ off road pathway. On this same line of thought, language is in the plan that prohibits bicyclists on sidewalks or walkways. This may need clarification for the sake of small kids, inexperienced riders, etc. and their Implementation: need in certain areas to ride on these facilities. 1. Impact Fees- This area has been the subject of the most discussion. The description in the document (section 2.6) states "The ACHD Impact Fee ordinance would be amended to include collectors as part of the "system" definitions." The first problem with this statement is that a change to policy would not be done for an area plan but rather would require a change in county wide planning. This discussion has been had numerous times and will not change due to the development community's willingness to construct collector level streets. In areas where no street network exists, extraordinary impact fees can be utilized to improve impacted arterials as well as build collector roads. This is the option that could take place for the Ten Mile Interchange Area however, changes to the current impact fee system will not be considered. The challenge with this area is that for extraordinary impact fees to work, ACHD needs all the developers to cooperate and participate concurrently. C:1Docunients and Settings mitlwLocal Settings`Tempojary Internet Files:OLK.I BF10 Mile Interchange Area Plan Comnients.doe 2. Median and Right of Way Costs- a section that is always a challenge is somewhat cloudy in this plan. Although there is a general statement (5-2, "...while streetscape and other street amenities are generally the responsibility of the City.") their never states clearly that the City of Meridian, developers, or tenants will maintain street trees, planting strips, shrubs, etc. This needs to be explicitly clear. Along with this is the question about who pays for additional right-of-way necessary due to the proposed 16-foot medians? 3. In the Action Plan page 6-3, ACHD should be included on developing "a program to fund streetscape improvements like landscaping and medians...." This statement also implies developers will be paying for all of it? C ' Docunients and Settings'smithslLocal Settiugs'Temporary Internet Files\OLK.I BF 110 Mile Interchange Area Plan Comments.doc