1	Grant Road Improvement Plan Task Force Meeting June 5, 2008
2	Agenda Introductions First Call to Audience Task Force Comments Report on Media Volunteer Activities Round 2 Character Segment Workshop Overview & Summary Methodology Project-wide Design Concepts Representative Location Design Concepts Next Steps Second Call to Audience Adjourn
3	Task Force Media Volunteer Group Media Training Discussion of Key Messages Question and Answer Development
4	Community Character Segment Workshop, Round 2 May 5, 7, 8, 2008
5	Round 2 Workshop Objectives Present project background & what we’ve heard from Round 1 & other public input Review & refine design concepts for the entire project Review design options for representative locations in each segment
6	Community Character Segment Workshops Round 2 Overview & Summary Methodology
7	Workshop Overview Format Informational presentations Facilitated small group activities Worksheet gallery Comment cards for detailed comments, concerns, and suggestions Received valued community input that- Leads to new design solutions Identifies options for further investigation Informs Task Force decision-making
8	Workshop Overview Workshop Attendance East Segment 64 table participants Central Segment 69 table participants West Segment 36 table participants 233 Total Attendance !
9	Workshop Overview What we heard: 96 worksheets from small group sessions Many consensus points Thousands of comments New concepts Questions that prompt further analysis 32 facilitator report-back summaries on small group sessions 110 comments from Comment Cards Individual concerns and issues
10	Workshop Overview
11	Workshop Overview How we have assessed public input
12	Workshop Overview How we have assessed public input
13	Workshop Overview How we have assessed public input
14	Workshop Overview How we have assessed public input
15	Workshop Overview How we have assessed public input
16	Community Character Segment Workshops Round 2 Results Design Concepts for the Entire Project
17	Project Wide Concepts Worksheet
18	Project-Wide Design Concepts Typical street sections Bicycle lanes Crossings and access Transit features Intersection improvements Water harvesting
19	Basis for Design Concepts What we’ve heard from Round 1 & the public Issue guidelines from the City Relevant guiding principles
20	Issue Guidelines City’s Roadway Development Policies require that striped bicycle lanes be included in major roadway projects Separate multi-use paths can be in addition to bike lanes Grant Road improvements will serve as the build-out Grade-separated intersections (GSIs) are not recommended by the City but will be considered if requested
21	137-foot Street Section
22	137-foot Street Section
23	160-foot Street Section Local Access Lane
24	160-foot Street Section Local Access Lane
25	Street Section Summary Adopt 137-foot and 160-foot typical street section for planning Identify contexts where access is not an issue or access strategies are feasible Identify contexts where access to existing & future development is required Develop business area landscape concepts Identify parallel bike route opportunities (more on this in next section)
26	Bike Lane Design Concept Width: 6-foot Lane buffer: 1-foot painted stripe Conflict areas: painted
27	Bike Lane Themes
28	Bike Lane Summary Given striped bike lanes must be provided, adopt design concept for future planning Identify parallel and connecting bike routes as alternatives to Grant Road bike lanes Suggestions: Pima, Glenn, Jacinto, Edison, Copper or Water, Elm, Seneca, and Flower Include multi-use paths where feasible, safe, and where there is demand Coordinate with city staff and T/P BAC on ongoing bike lane design research
29	Crossings & Access Signalized intersections Pelican and Hawk crossing opportunities Toucan crossing opportunities Access to neighborhoods & businesses via median openings
30	Crossing & Access Opportunities
31	Directional Median Opening A strategy for balancing access & mobility Allow left-turns to cross-street Allows U-turns Does not allow for left-turns from cross-street
32	Crossings & Access Themes Support Themes Strong preference of Pelicans over Hawks Provide lots of pedestrian crossings Provide crossings at bus stops and Doolen Liked added refuge areas in intersection concepts Provide more median openings Concern Themes ¼ mile spacing…way too many crossings Consider overpasses or underpasses
33	Crossings & Access Summary Retain 13 signalized intersections with pedestrian crossings (relocate Dodge signal to Palo Verde) Review feasibility & demand for Pelican crossings on approaches to signalized intersections Toucan crossings at Treat & Dodge (if signal is relocated) Pedestrian / bike grade crossings at Doolen & west of Campbell Directional median openings versus crossings at ¼ miles
34	Bus Pull-Outs vs. Continuous Transit Lanes Criteria Bus Pull-Outs
35	Enhanced Bus Stop Lighting Bicycle parking Benches Wayfinding signs Landscaping and shading Water harvesting potential
36	Transit Themes Support Themes Strong support for pull-outs over transit lane Pull-outs should combine with local streets and pedestrian crossings Liked bus stop locations Strong support for enhanced bus stop concept Concern Themes Where will light rail go? Transit lanes encourage transit use Extend transit routes on Grant Road
37	Transit Design Summary Coordinate with Sun Tran for support on Far-side bus pull-outs at ¼-mile spacing Enhanced bus stops at all stops (45 total) Connections to continuous sidewalks along Grant Road Transit route changes Convert travel lane for future transit technologies if demand dictates (subject to Mayor/Council approval)
38	Major Intersection Improvements Grade separated intersections are not recommended by the City unless requested At-grade intersection improvements Enhanced traditional intersections Indirect left-turn intersections
39	Enhanced Traditional Intersections
40	Indirect Left-Turn Intersection
41	Traditional versus Indirect Left-turn Criteria Traditional Left-Turn
42	Enhanced Traditional Intersection Themes Support Themes Wider right-of-way results in redevelopment Drivers are more familiar with intersection Some consider it more pedestrian & ADA friendly Concern Themes More businesses will be impacted
43	Indirect Left Turn Intersection Themes Support Themes Increased capacity a plus Like narrower right-of-way Like shorter pedestrian crossings Might work better at less busy intersections, maybe not at Alvernon Concern Themes Worried about impacts on neighborhood cut-through traffic from those not wanting to make U-turns Potential problem for visitors Access to businesses could be more difficult How do bikes turn left?
44	Major Intersection Summary Workshop participants were divided on intersections Many saw right-of-way benefits of indirect LT during representative locations activities Traffic operational and safety benefits of indirect LT are well-documented and will be summarized for the Task Force Concept is not understood by the public and a simulation of traffic operations will be prepared Design and operational issues on narrow median arterials not well known. Experience by other jurisdictions will be obtained Meet with city staff on signal timing and signal system capabilities signal pre-emption operational benefits and design feasibility
45	Water Harvesting Concept Collect and harvest local flow on the new Grant Road so existing flooding does not worsen Harvest in median and pedestrian realm French drains, swales, & micro-basins in median & pedestrian realm where feasible Storm drains will collect harvesting overflow Landscape with native plants Water harvesting demonstrations
46	Water Harvesting Themes Of course! Great idea! Like the idea of trying different systems Water harvesting should address pollutants Near unanimous support for water harvesting concepts
47	Water Harvesting Summary Continue development of combined stormwater / water harvesting system Identify opportunities to demonstrate and evaluate water harvesting technologies and strategies Develop native plant landscape palettes
48	Project-Wide Concepts Other Issues Posted speed Walls and buffers Neighborhood cut-thru traffic / traffic calming Access to businesses Air quality / noise Landscape maintenance Utility location Signing / billboards Preservation of historic buildings Construction impacts
49	DISCUSSION Community Character Segment Workshops Round 2 Results Design Concepts for the Entire Project
50	Community Character Segment Workshops Round 2 Representative Location Design Concept Report Back & Alternatives to Consider
51	Representative Location Design Concept Report Back General Issues Intersection Design Replacement Parking Buffering Neighborhoods Location Specific Issues Alignment Use of Excess Right of Way Other Issues
52	General Issue - Intersection Design Preferred Enhanced Traditional 25 - 34% Preferred Indirect Left Turn 57% - 66% (if show it can work)
53	General Issue - Intersection Design Location specific issues regarding Indirect Left Turn- What was liked Pedestrian refuge size - Campbell & Alvernon Less impact adjacent properties - Campbell ‘we love making left turns in Tucson’! - Regional? What was a concern Not as concerned about impact to properties - West How will it work for disabled? - Alvernon How will access to businesses work? - Campbell & East Will it encourage neighborhood cut-through traffic? - Campbell
54	General Issue - Replacement Parking Shared Parking is a good concept 66% Yes, reduce area for parking Shared entries more efficient But don’t concentrate just on one side of street Issues Protect neighborhoods from traffic Keep enough parking close to businesses What about deliveries? Create ‘green’ parking lots
55	General Issue - Buffering Neighborhoods No specific questions asked Overall a frequently raised concern Several positive comments to buffer with buildings 25% of West Segment 13% in Central Segment Some mentioned walls Some mentioned pollution as well as noise Traffic definitely a concern!
56	Location Specific - Alignment East Segment - Alvernon 52% mainly to the north 8% down the middle ‘Impact just one side, not both’ ‘Acquire from both sides’ Acquire some from south mainly from north
57	Location Specific - Alignment Central Segment - Campbell Eastside 41% down the middle 18% to the north 41% no preference Westside 32% to the south 68% no preference The ‘Curve’ - 23% maintain or enhance
58	Location Specific - Alignment Central Segment - Campbell Comments & Concerns: Mixed feedback on preserving or redeveloping Walgreens and Bookman’s Reduce acquisition costs Acquire less Acquire more and sell for reuse Parks Redevelop existing Expand - particularly southwest corner
59	Location Specific - Alignment Central Segment - Preserve & Enhance Neighborhoods 45% - standard local access lane 32% - reduced local access lane 23% - neutral or no opinion
60	Location Specific - Alignment Central Segment - Preserve & Enhance Neighborhoods: Comments & Concerns Prefer reduced ROW - but don’t want to ‘cram right of way’ Prefer standard ROW - Don’t try to save both sides, too compromised One vocal opinion about wanting to have their house to south acquired
61	Location Specific - Alignment West Segment - First Avenue to Park 50% - northern alignment 39% - southern alignment 11% - neutral or no opinion
62	Location Specific - Alignment West Segment - First Avenue to Park: Comments & Concerns ‘Shopping center to north is unappealing for homes behind it’ Is it less costly to acquire homes and smaller businesses to the south? ‘No partial acquisition of front yards (entire or nothing)
63	Location Specific - Alignment West Segment - Fontana Ave. & Mansfield Park 64% - standard local access lane 11% - standard without access lane 25% - neutral or no opinion
64	Location Specific - Alignment West Segment - Fontana Ave./Mansfield Park Comments & Concerns Local access lane makes better pedestrian environment ‘Want to look like a modern city’
65	DISCUSSION Community Character Segment Workshops Round 2 Representative Location Design Concept Report Back & Alternatives to Consider
66	Next Steps June 26^th – Further discuss project wide and specific location concepts July 12^th – All day workshop; develop and refine DRAFT design concept August – Further refine and finalize DRAFT design concept September – Task Force approves DRAFT design concept for public for comment October – Task Force reviews public comment & refines design concept November – Task Force forwards FINAL design concept to Mayor/Council & RTA
67	Agenda Introductions First Call to Audience Task Force Comments Report on Media Volunteer Activities Round 2 Character Segment Workshop Overview & Summary Methodology Project-wide Design Concepts Representative Location Design Concepts Next Steps Second Call to Audience Adjourn
68	Grant Road Improvement Plan Task Force Meeting June 5, 2008
69	Location Specific - Other Issues What to do with ‘Excess Right of Way’ after acquisition? Diversity of opinion Building heights Some favor residential - others concerned about too many students Some like open space - others concerned it will not be well used or maintained More to come later…
70	Location Specific - Other Issues Safety Concern about parking garages Higher police visibility is needed Provide lighting for buildings & public spaces
71	Location Specific - Other Issues Revitalization of businesses Redevelopment of sites Traffic impacts to adjacent neighborhoods Long term transit vision Location & number of crossings Some have asked for grade-separated pedestrian & bicycle crossings Some mentioned Tucson has a lot of ‘transients’ in population: ‘snow birds’ ‘students’