NWDA Feedback Regarding Con-way Transportation Analysis
February 22, 2012
Sent by emal to Dan Seeman, Kittelson
We are pleased to have participated in the development of the Master Plan and the review of
the transportation impact analysis, with three meetings to review interim findings. This e-mail
provides comment on the more complete documentation, provided in “Multi-Modal
Transportation Impact Analysis: NW Portland Conway Redevelopment, Portland Oregon”
February 2012, but Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for Con-way. Our review of the report was
limited to Jeanne, Ron and myself.
In summary, our review draws the following conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The transportation impact analysis methodology seems to be sound and uses traditional methods for
assessing growth and traffic impacts.
Growth assumptions based on the Metro/City growth model and the limited number of traffic counts
appear low relative to the trend for recent on-the-ground development in the district.
The NWDA would like to see the results of another round of analysis, based on a more aggressive growth
assumption as supported by recent and near-term development throughout the neighborhood and in the
“Slabtown” sector in particular. This “sensitivity test” should be based on a 2 to 2.5% annual background
growth.
Any double counting for trips from the Conway properties should be culled from the analysis so as not to
confuse the conclusions.
Based on this sensitivity test, further traffic mitigation strategies should be actively considered for
feasibility and their mitigating benefit.
The combination of strategies should look beyond status quo performance of the transportation system, but
should correct deficiencies, consistent with ODOT and City of Portland performance standards.
While assumed to be beyond the scope of this study, the cost of improvements should be assessed and the
capacity of System Development Charges from both Conway and surrounding development to address
those improvements estimated.
We understand that the study area is a dynamic environment that is and will be constantly
changing, independent of development of the Con-way properties. We further understand that:
1.
2.
It may not be appropriate for the redevelopment of the Con-way properties to address existing
infrastructure performance deficiencies. (Discussion on page 23 of Portland Operating Standards suggests
“status quo” is sufficient.)
It is difficult to predict the extent and intensity of development on parcels that would appear to be equally
ready for redevelopment around the Con-way properties.
Indeed, the analysis notes that the identified improvements at best maintain a status quo
condition at the deficient NW 23rd/Vaughn intersection, which the we suggest is not a
satisfactory outcome. Our specific concerns are noted below (this is a long list, but some
comments are perfunctory and some repeat):
Executive Summary:
1.
2.
3.
Page 4 “Street Designations” of the report notes that all streets within the Master Plan area are included in
the Pedestrian District of the Portland Transportation Systems Plan. It should be noted that there is a
portion of the Con-way properties that is not a part of that plan designation, but might be assumed to be
included with the next Transportation Systems Plan update.
Page 5: The proposed northbound free right turn from NW 23 rd onto the I-405 freeway ramp may create
some weaving conflicts once those cars enter the freeway ramp. This dynamic will need to be reviewed by
ODOT engineers, but at meeting for this purpose is being set up.
Page 6: As previously suggested by the NWDA, the redesigned intersection with a new traffic signal at
NW 23rd / Raleigh should discourage through westbound traffic into the residential neighborhood. This
4.
5.
6.
7.
could be accomplished by narrowing the street with curb extensions and installing appropriate signage. The
impact of the identified dedicated northbound turning lane on the sidewalk and curb extension dimensions
requires careful consideration. (This is stated as a westbound turn lane on page 6, though it would seem
“northbound” was intended in this description.)
Page 6 refers to an extension of the Line 17 bus route into the Con-way development. That route (proposed
for re-designation as Line 77) already bi-sects the Con-way properties along NW 21st and NW Thurman.
Any further coverage of the Con-way properties by this route is hard to imagine.
Page 6: The bike lanes along NW 18th and 19th already extend the full length to the north, as far as NW
Vaughn Street. (This is correctly stated on Page 19).
The neighborhood suggested that the Con-way redevelopment include a full service bike station, which is
not identified as a multi-modal improvement on page 6.
Page 7: the Transportation Demand Management Plan should be coordinated over time with the proposed
creation of a neighbor-wide Transportation Parking and Demand Management Association.
Introduction:
8.
9.
Page 9 “Project Description” assumes that vehicular traffic will access the Con-way properties from NW
Vaughn and NW Raleigh. NW Vaughn does not provide direct access. Access actually would come via
NW 23rd and NW Thurman Street. This assessment ignores any traffic coming from the south via NW
Lovejoy, to the southeast through the Pearl neighborhood or northeast via Naito Parkway. Those impacts,
however acceptable, should be noted.
Page 9 misstates that vehicular access will not be permitted on the Pettygrove Greenstreet. Traffic on that
street will be “calmed” with skinny lanes, but two-way traffic will be retained.
Existing Conditions:
10. Page 16, Table 1: On-street parking along NW Vaughn is limited to certain blocks.
11. Page 19: The Line 17 bus does not serve St Helens, Oregon. It travels beyond Montgomery Park, through
the industrial district, and then in part along St Helens Road to Sauvie Island and St. Johns. The #15 bus
serves NW 23rd Avenue, not the #18 and it splits onto NW Thurman and NW Vaughn with a terminus at
Montgomery Park. The #18 serves the Hillside neighborhood, with little direct influence on the Con-way
properties. It might be stated that the #77 bus also serves the Pearl and Union Station.
12. It would make sense to include a TriMet service map in the report.
13. The most logical connections from the Con-way properties to the MAX network should be called out. The
references to MAX are useless for purposes of this report.
14. Page 23: The “Crash History Review” is based solely on auto-to-auto crashes and ignores crashes involving
pedestrians or bicycles. For example, there were 5 reported pedestrian crashes along NW 23 rd between
Lovejoy and Thurman between 2006 and 2010. There were 4 bicycle crashes along NW Vaughn in the
same period.
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Analysis:
15. The statement on page 27 “No approved but not-yet-built development were identified to occur within the
study area that would impact the roadway system beyond the volume forecasts included in the regional
traffic volume model” is a questionable statement, as numerous housing projects have recently or will soon
be coming out of the ground. These include projects at: the Vaux west of 23 rd at NW 23rd & Savier/Raleigh,
Park 19 on the east of the Conway properties, 1984 NW Pettygrove, Savier Flats on former Con-way
property at NW 23rd & Raleigh, NW 19th & Johnson, NW 23rd & Lovejoy comprising over 1,000 housing
units.
16. The analysis fails to consider the threshold of further development pressures in the northeast quadrant of
the neighborhood. Development is creeping into this quadrant from all directions, including the North
Pearl.
17. The analysis is based on traffic counts and Metro and City of Portland growth projections, which is a
traditional approach in the absence of other intuitive information that uses a more dynamic review of
development trends.
18. The traffic counts were taken during a time when employment and household patterns were shifting in
response to an economic downturn.
19. The Metro/City of Portland growth model uses aggregate data that become less reliable for this type of subarea analysis.
20. In spite of the traffic counts being corroborated by the model results, the NWDA believes that a 1% growth
in background traffic will yield deceptive results. The sensitivity tests are tied to the initial overly
conservative conclusions and thus are not helpful in validating the results of this analysis.
21. The report does not define the study area considered for this analysis. It would be helpful to identify the
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) and their coverage. We note that TAZ’s 27, 28 and 31 are clearly in the
district and TAZs 29 and 30 straddle the Northwest and Northwest Industrial Districts. We would want
assurance of consistency in the area used in this analysis.
22. Our meetings have noted that this analysis double counts trips from the Conway development – understood
to be the background trip from these properties being left in the analysis as the new Master Planned
development is added in. The assertion that this provides a buffer for other conclusions should not be
accepted and confuses interpretation of the outcome. The double counting needs to be isolated and removed
for clarity and accuracy.
23. Page 29: What is the split of peak trips as a percentage of all trips by each category? AM & PM? Why
would there be almost as many office trips OUT in the AM peak as there are IN; and just the opposite for
PM Peak? Shouldn’t almost all the trips be OUT and not many in the PM? What percentage of trips is
considered AM & PM peak trips? I get that residential trips occur throughout the day, but MOST office
trips are concentrated in the peak hours.
24. It seems the report is counting all the residential units as apartments. Is that a correct assumption? It the ITE
trip generation rate the same for condominium as for apartments?
25. Internal trips are not identified. These trips will have their own mode split properties in a walkable
neighborhood. Why does the PM peak have internal trips by not the AM peak? What are the assumptions
behind this?
26. The report uses the same ITE code (820) for shopping centers as for non-grocery retail. Is there a better ITE
codes that reflects urban retail for trip generation rates?
Proposed Development Plan:
27. The assumptions regarding trip generation and the assignment of trip to the road network appear to be
logical and correctly executed.
28. Year 2022 Mitigated Total Traffic Conditions: The NWDA remains cautious that the NW 23 rd/Vaughn
eastbound leg of the intersection will operate without significant degradation with the loss of one of the two
existing through lanes. The analysis suggests that additional green time will mitigate this change. We
would want to know the sensitivity of this condition to even small increases in traffic.
29. There will be some increased tension for the eastbound on-ramp weave between the 1) northbound free
right turn, 2) the westbound U-turn lane and 3) the through eastbound traffic. We agree, however, that the
proposed changes should be a significant overall improvement to the performance of the intersection. The
needs to be examined by ODOT.
30. In spite of the assertion that the proposed traffic signal at Raleigh would not attract traffic into the
residential areas west of the intersection, the NWDA nonetheless believes that tight curb extensions across
Raleigh on the west side of NW 23rd would be a proactive means of precluding that induced pattern. The
question is not one of rational motorist motivation, but more that of 1) perception and 2) the increased
activity at this intersection due to the Con-way development itself.
31. Other considerations: Regarding the NW 21st ramp to US 30; the NWDA never intended to suggest
facilitating access to US 30 northbound (onto the Fremont Bridge). While the alternative location using the
existing southbound on-ramp stub is dismissed as too expensive, it would have been helpful to actually
measure it’s potential for relieving PM peak traffic through the NW 23 rd/Thurman and NW 23rd/Vaughn
intersections. The last sentence says such a ramp is infeasible, though the analysis only claimed that it is
too expensive – not infeasible. It would appear that such a connection is indeed geometrically feasible and
may indeed be the most cost-effective means of relieving local PM peak traffic pressure, particularly on the
NW 23rd/Thurman intersection.
32. The report does not address the inconsistency in the designation of NW Quimby Street as a
bike/pedestrian/emergency street with its designated conversion in the Transportation Systems Plan as a
local auto-accessed street. We believe this needs thoughtful consideration given the designation of the
adjacent NW Pettygrove as a traffic-calmed green street.
Transportation Demand Management Program:
33. Page 55: The analysis draws on various resources to establish mode splits by trip type. It relies on the
Nation Household Travel Survey to determine that 15.6% of average annual person trips per household as
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
for the purpose of work commute trips. It is unlikely that trip making patterns in the dense Northwest
neighborhood reflect those of the national average, though the bias is hard to predict. More linked trips?
Fewer school trips? More non-work trips given the extraordinary number of seniors?
Page 56: Similarly, the density and walkability of the neighborhood suggests that more than 87.8% of retail
trips will be made by car. This SOV auto percentage is likely to be lower than the National Household
Travel Survey might suggest.
Page 59: It is highly desirable to add a full-service bike station to the list of TDM strategies.
Page 59: The provision of a monthly transit pass subsidy for renters of housing developments might be
considered.
Page 60: References to the Transportation and Parking Committee should be cross-referenced to the
anticipated neighborhood Transportation and Parking Management Association (TPMA) as part of the
City’s comprehensive parking plan for Northwest Portland.
Page 62: The coverage of capital costs for new shelters and transit information displays needs to be
complemented with a means of offsetting operating costs (trash management, information updates,
vandalism response, etc.) This would need to be addressed with TriMet.
Strategies on Page 62 are very general. What is the ratio of bike spaces to auto spaces? What priorities are
given to the location of bike facilities? What arrangements are to be made for the separation of bikes and
pedestrians on internal pathways/greenways?
Conclusions and Recommendations
40. Page 70: Again, the Line 17 (soon to be 77) route already bisects the Conway district. It is unclear how an
“extension” could be achieved to any further benefit of the district.
41. Page 70: Again, bike lanes already are in place for the full length of NW 18 th/19th. They cannot be extended
any further!
We look forward to reviewing these concerns at the convenience of the Conway Master Plan
team.
Thanks!
Phil Selinger