Summary of full list of project allternatives   entrips
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Summary of full list of project allternatives entrips

on

  • 1,044 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,044
Views on SlideShare
1,044
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Summary of full list of project allternatives   entrips Summary of full list of project allternatives entrips Presentation Transcript

  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency4.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION KEY ●●● Greatest benefit ○ Neutral ●●● Greatest impactFull list of project alternativesThe EN TRIPS project team developed a total of nine project alternatives. These alternatives are described and evaluated for each design principle in the Figure 4-2. The project alternatives share a number of similarities. First, all of themprovide dedicated transit lanes (either on the center or the side of the street), as well as other transit priority treatments such as near-level boarding and transit signal priority. All would restrict left turns for vehicles at most intersections on16th in order to maintain capacity for through-travel. Most would remove a large share of the parking on 16th Street. It is important to note, however, that with 90 degree parking present on most side streets in this segment, the parking on 16thStreet represents a relatively small share of the total parking in the corridor (most parcels on the corridor front onto at least one side street). All would require substantial public investment in transit and pedestrian facilities. Key differencesbetween the alternatives include the placement of bicycle facilities (either 16th or 17th Street), the type of transit only lane (center or side-running), and the placement of bus stops (boarding island or curb stops).Figure 4-2 16th Street: Full List of Project Alternatives Bicycle Pedestrian Transit circulation Vehicle circulation The public Parking and Cost Description Cross Section Performance and safety circulation and safety realm loading comparison Notes Disposition1 Median Provides strong transit Carried forward – evaluated Transitway ●●● ○ ● ●● ●●● ● $$$ priority. Removes existing bicycle lane on 16 but further below. replaces it with an enhanced bicycle corridor on 17th. Wide sidewalks would benefit pedestrian safety and the public realm.2 Median This alternative provides most Not carried forward because Transitway + Bike ●●● ○ ● ● ●● ●● $$$ of the same advantages as Alternative 1. However, it bicycles can be accommodated on 17th Street Lanes reduces sidewalk space to in an improved facility maintain bicycle lanes on 16th street.3 Median This alternative would Not carried forward because Transitway + Bike ●● ○ ● ● ●● ●● $$$ maintain space for wide sidewalks by foregoing transit of insufficient transit performance improvement Lanes + boarding islands, instead and potential bus-bike Curb Stops bringing buses out of the conflicts. transitway to stops at the curb.4 Median Provides a center "queue Carried forward – evaluated Queue Jump Lane ●● ○ ● ● ●● ○ $$$ jump" lane that would allow transit to safely bypass traffic further below. + Parking in either direction. Would permit both wide sidewalks and maintenance of parking lanes. Carried forward, but most appropriate for other segments of 16th. 4-9 16th Street Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation AgencyFigure 4-2 16th Street: All Alternatives (Continued) Bicycle Pedestrian Deliverability Transit circulation Vehicle circulation The public Parking and and cost- Description Cross Section Performance and safety circulation and safety realm loading effectiveness Notes Disposition5 Median Identical to Alternative 4, but Not carried forward because Queue Jump Lane ● ○ ● ● ●●● ●● $$$ would provide bicycle lanes instead of parking. bicycle lanes can be accommodated on 17th Street. + Bike Lanes6 Median This alternative would provide Not carried forward because bikeway ● ○ ● ● ● ●● $$ side-running transit, and would accommodate two-way of uncertainty about functionality of the bicycle travel in a 12’ median. While facility. this would be a premium facility for through-travel, it is not clear that bicycle turning movements could be safely accommodated.7 Median Side-running transit lanes Carried forward – evaluated Green ● ○ ● ●● ●●● ●● $$$ would provide some transit priority, but buses would wait further below. behind right turning vehicles. Would provide for a wide landscaped median, improving streetscape.8 Reversible This alternative would provide Not carried forward due to low Lane ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ●● $$ a reversible vehicle lane on 16th, maximizing traffic pedestrian and public realm benefit. capacity in the peak direction of travel. It would require overhead gantries that would negatively affect the streetscape.9 Side- Side-running transit lanes Not carried forward because Running Transit ● ○ ● ● ● ●● $$ would provide some transit priority, but buses would wait bicycle lanes can be accommodated on 17th Street. Lane + Bike behind right turning vehicles Lanes and potentially conflict with bicycles. 4-10 16th Street Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency5.4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION KEY ●●● Greatest benefit ○ Neutral ●●● Greatest impactFull list of project alternativesThe SFMTA, working with other City departments, the study team and the public developed a total of eight project alternatives for Folsom and Howard Streets. These alternatives are described and evaluated for each project objective in thetables below. The project alternatives share a number of similarities. First, all of them provide reduced pedestrian crossing distances through pedestrian bulb outs; all seek to reduce vehicle speeds by progressing signals at a consistent,moderate speed. All alternatives maintain parking lanes on both streets, and most provide protected bicycle facilities. Key differences between the alternatives include the directionality of travel for vehicles and transit (there are both one-wayand two-way alternatives for Folsom Street and Howard Street), the location of bicycle facilities (either on Folsom, on Howard, or split between them), and the width of sidewalks. All eight alternatives are summarized and evaluated below. Inthe next section, the recommended alternative is developed in detail. Finally, in Section 5.6, three other promising alternatives were evaluated in greater detail presented for comparison.Folsom and Howard Streets: One-way alternativesThe alternatives presented on this page maintain one-way operations on Folsom and Howard Streets. Signals would be timed to favor a steady vehicle progression, and mid-block signals would be fixed-time. These alternatives vary withrespect to the number of one-way lanes.Figure 5-2 Alternatives featuring a one-way Folsom Street Transit Transit legibility/ Pedestrian The public performanc consolidatio Bicycle Vehicle Parking and Cost Description Cross Section conditions realm e n conditions circulation loading comparison Notes Disposition1 Folsom: One- This alternative would narrow the roadway to Carried forward way, two lanes, two-way ●●● ●●● ● ○ ●●● ● ● $$$ two, one-way lanes on each street, providing important benefits for pedestrians, cyclists, cycletrack and the public realm with 15-foot sidewalks, greatly narrowed crossing distance, wide cycletracks, and traffic calming. It would not provide for one-way circulation or consolidation of transit routes onto Folsom Howard: One- Street. It would require the expense of moving way, two lanes, curblines on both streets. It is very likely that one-way the project would be implemented on Folsom cycletrack Street first, and the Howard Street project would be optional.2 Folsom: One- This alternative would narrow the roadway to Not carried forward way, three lanes, one-way ●● ● ○ ○ ●● ○ ● $$ three one-way lanes on both Folsom and Howard Streets and provide one-way buffered because Alternative 1 provides many of the cycletrack bike lanes on both streets. It would provide same benefits with bulb outs and mid-block crossings but widen greater gain for the sidewalk on one side of Folsom rather pedestrians. than both sides. The net gain for pedestrians would be less, but the vehicle capacity would Howard: One- be higher, which would result in less transit way, three delay. Transit would not be consolidated. lanes, one-way cycletrack 5-13 Folsom & Howard Streets Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation AgencyTwo-way, three-lane Folsom alternativesEach of the alternatives summarized on this page converts Folsom Street to two-way operations in order to achieve transit consolidation. In each, Folsom Street would provide two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound. Signals would betimed to favor a steady eastbound progression at moderate speed. In some cases, mid-block signals may be pedestrian-actuated. These alternatives vary with respect to the configuration of Howard Street and the placement of bicycle faculties.Figure 5-3 Alternatives featuring a two-way, three-lane Folsom Street Pedestrian The public Transit Transit Bicycle Vehicle Parking and Cost Description Cross Section conditions realm performance legibility conditions circulation loading comparison Notes Disposition3 Folsom: Two This alternative would allow for three lanes of traffic Carried forward lanes EB, one lane WB with ●● ●● ○ ●● ●● ● ● $$ on each street plus buffered bicycle lanes. Two lanes would operate in the dominant direction of travel one-way (eastbound on Folsom and westbound on Howard), cycletrack while a third lane would operate in the opposite direction. A one-way cycletrack would be provided on each street. It allows for transit consolidation, Howard: Two upgraded bike facilities, six lanes of vehicle capacity lanes WB, one to reduce transit delay, and wider sidewalks on one lane EB with side of the street. one-way cycletrack4 Folsom: Two This alternative would create a two-way Folsom Carried forward lanes EB, one lane WB ●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● $$ Street, with two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane. Two-way travel would allow for transit service to be consolidated. All bicycle facilities would be removed from Folsom. A two-way bicycle cycletrack Howard: Two would be added on Howard Street, which would be lanes WB with narrowed to two westbound vehicle lanes. two-way cycletrack This alternative would maximize pedestrian space on a two-way Folsom Street while providing premium bicycle facilities on Howard. Howard has bicycle connectivity to the Mission District,5 Folsom: Two This alternative would provide a two-way Folsom, with Carried forward lanes EB, one lane WB with ●● ● ○ ●● ●●● ● ● $ two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound. Instead of widening the Folsom Street sidewalks, it two-way would provide a two-way cycletrack on Folsom. cycletrack Howard would also be converted to two-way, with two westbound lanes, two eastbound lanes, and a landscaped median/turn lane. Howard: Two lanes WB, one It would allow for transit consolidation, six lanes of lane EB with vehicle capacity to maintain transit speeds, and a center turn premium bicycle facility with optimal connectivity. lane/median While it improves pedestrian connectivity, It would not widen sidewalks and provides little new pedestrian space. 5-14 Folsom & Howard Streets Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation AgencyFolsom/Howard: Two-way, two-lane Folsom alternativesEach of the alternatives summarized on this page converts Folsom Street to two-way operation but provides just one through-lane in each direction. These alternatives would substantially reduce vehicle capacity on Folsom, changing its rolefrom an arterial to a neighborhood street. To maintain transit operations at an acceptable level, major diversion of vehicle traffic from Folsom would be required. To absorb part of this diversion, more capacity is provided on Howard Street.Figure 5-4 Alternatives featuring a two-way, two-lane Folsom Street Pedestrian The public Transit Transit Bicycle Vehicle Parking and Cost Description Cross Section conditions realm performance legibility conditions circulation loading comparison Notes Disposition6 Folsom: one lane in This alternative would provide one Not carried forward each direction with center turn lane ●●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● $ through lane in each direction on Folsom Street with a center turn lane, similar to because of negative impacts on transit the current configuration of Valencia due to increased Street north of 15th and South of 19th. delay and bus-bike Bicycle lanes would be provided on both conflicts. Howard: Two lanes sides of the street. Howard Street would in each direction be converted to two lanes in each direction, absorbing some of the vehicle capacity diverted from Folsom. This alternative could slow transit and introduce conflicts between buses and cyclists at bus stops.7 Folsom: One lane + This alternative would provide one lane Not carried forward peak period tow- away lane in each ○ ○ ○ ●● ●● ○ ●● $ in each direction and a parking lane on both sides of the street during off peak due to minimal upgrades to direction periods. During peak travel periods, pedestrian realm parking would be eliminated and the during peak travel street would offer two lanes in each periods. Howard: One lane + direction. This traffic pattern would be in peak period tow- place on both Folsom and Howard, but away lane in each Folsom would feature a two-way direction cycletrack, while Howard would feature a bike lane in each direction.8 Folsom: one lane in This alternative would reduce Folsom to Not carried forward each direction with bike lanes ●●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● $$$ one lane in each direction at all times of day. Private vehicles would be required because of expense and because to turn right at every intersection, planned level of eliminating Folsom as a through-route. development and Howard: One lane + To compensate, Howard would be high- transit service does one peak period tow capacity during peak periods, with two not justify eliminating away lane in each lanes in each direction and a center turn Folsom as a vehicle direction, center turn lane. I t would have just two lanes during through route. lane/median off-peak periods. This alternative provides total peak-period traffic capacity similar to the three-lane Folsom alternatives, but converts Folsom Street into a boulevard for bicycles and transit. 5-15 Folsom & Howard Streets Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation AgencyThis page intentionally left blank. 5-16 Folsom & Howard Streets Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency6.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION KEY ●●● Greatest benefit ○ Neutral ●●● Greatest impactFull list of project alternativesThe SFMTA developed a total of six project alternatives for Seventh and Eighth Streets. These alternatives are described and evaluated for each project objective in the tables that follow. Several of these concepts are very similar to projectsdeveloped for Folsom and Howard Streets. These similarities result from the fact that the two sets of streets have the same overall right-of-way dimensions (82.5 feet) and many similar functions. All of these alternatives provide reducedpedestrian crossing distances through pedestrian bulb outs, maintain parking lanes on both streets, and provide bicycle facilities. As with Folsom and Howard, key differences between the alternatives include the directionality of travel forvehicles and transit (there are both one-way and two-way alternatives), the type of bus facilities, the location and type of bicycle facilities, and the width of sidewalks. All six alternatives are summarized and evaluated below. In the nextsection, the recommended alternative is developed in detail. Finally, in Section 6.5, three other promising alternatives that were evaluated in detail are presented for comparison.Figure 6-2 Seventh and Eighth Streets: Full List of Project Alternatives Transit legibility/ Pedestrian The public Transit consolidati Bicycle Vehicle Parking and Cost Description Cross Section conditions realm performance on conditions circulation loading comparison Notes Disposition1 Seventh and This concept would narrow the roadway to Not carried forward due Eighth Streets: one-way, two ●●● ●●● ● ○ ●●● ● ● $$$ two, one-way lanes on each street and provide important benefits for pedestrians, to impact of forecast traffic queues on cross lanes, one-way cyclists, and the public realm with 15-foot streets including Market. cycletrack sidewalks, greatly narrowed crossing distance, wide cycletracks, and traffic calming. It would not provide for two-way circulation or allow for consolidation of transit routes. It would require the expense of moving curblines on both streets.2 Seventh and This concept would narrow the roadway to Carried forward, Eighth Streets: one-way, three ●● ● ○ ○ ●● ○ ● $$ three, one-way lanes on both Seventh and Eighth Streets and provide one-way buffered recommended alternative. lanes, one-way bike lanes on both streets. It would provide cycletrack bulb outs and mid-block crossings but widen the sidewalk on one side of each street rather than both sides. The net gain in pedestrian space would be less than Alternative 1, but the vehicle capacity would be higher, which would result in less transit delay and less impacts on adjacent streets.3 Seventh and Like Alternative 2, this concept would narrow Not carried forward due Eighth Streets: one-way, three ●● ●● ○ ○ ● ○ ● $$ the roadway to three, one-way lanes on both Seventh and Eighth Streets. It differs from to lack of improvement to cycling conditions. lanes, one-way Alternative 2 in that it would provide a Class II bike lane bike lane on each street instead of a cycletrack, and widen the sidewalk to 15 feet on both sides providing additional benefit for pedestrians and the public realm. 6-9 7th & 8th Streets Alternatives
  • EN TRIPS | Final Report San Francisco Municipal Transportation AgencyFigure 6-3 Seventh and Eighth Streets: All Alternatives (Continued) Transit Transit legibility/ Parking Pedestrian The public performanc consolida Bicycle Vehicle and Cost Description Cross Section conditions realm e tion conditions circulation loading comparison Notes Disposition4 Seventh and This alternative would provide two one-way Not carried forward due Eighth Streets: two lanes with ● ●● ●● ○ ● ●● ● $$ vehicle lanes and two parking lanes. In a buffered space outside the parking lane, it to impact of forecast traffic queues on cross buffered bike would provide a wide shared bus/bike lane. streets and an over- lane and This alternative would provide a high level of emphasis on transit busway transit priority. However, on a set of streets priority. with moderate planned transit frequencies (15- minute headways), this may not be the most efficient use of street space.5 Seventh: two This alternative would provide two-way Evaluated further and lanes EB, one lane WB with ○ ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● $ circulation on Seventh and Eighth Streets. Seventh Street would have two lanes proposed for further consideration if the City two-way northbound, one lane southbound, and a two- can lower vehicle travel cycletrack way cycletrack. Eighth Street would have two demand in this corridor lanes in each direction and no bike facilities. through TDM or Transit would be consolidated on Eighth diversion. Eighth: two Street. Sidewalks would remain at 10 feet. lanes WB, two This alternative improves bicycle connectivity lanes WB and consolidates transit. However, it would not improve the pedestrian realm on Eighth Street. Reduced capacity could lead to substantial traffic impacts on other streets, including Market.6 Seventh and This alternative would allow for three lanes of Not carried forward. Eighth Streets: two lanes EB, ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● $$ traffic on each street plus buffered bicycle lanes. Two lanes would operate in the However, recommended Alternative 2 could be one lane WB dominant direction of travel (northbound on converted to this with one-way Seventh and Southbound on Eighth), while a configuration if the City cycletrack third lane would operate in the opposite can lower vehicle travel direction. A one-way cycletrack would be demand in this corridor provided on each street. It allows for transit through TDM or consolidation but would not improve bicycle diversion. connectivity like Alternative 5 and has less total vehicle capacity. 6-10 7th & 8th Streets Alternatives