• Scope of Phase 2- Mike Bobinsky plans to draft Scope of combined Feasibility Study/Intersection study. This will be presented to committee for input, and then to Maine DOT for negotiation. Maine DOT would manage joint project in this arrangement.
• CSS characteristics of Phase 2- Mike Bobinsky will include certain CSS conditions that the City sees as essential to the Feasibility Study, to help ensure all parties understand and agree to what process will be like. These could be conditions for agreeing to combine study.
• Committee Input Regarding Combining Phase 2 and Intersection Study
• Concern that a combined study would over-emphasize Intersection design and not first thoroughly assess all alternatives
• Suggest that any/all agreements or conditions be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement between City and State
• Opposition expressed to combining study- should keep local control- this project cam from neighborhoods
• Combined study would be more integrated, in concert
• Not combining could be duplicative
• DOT comfortable with either arrangement
• Local Control is important; could a memorandum of understanding preserve this?
• Stakeholder group will have input either way
• May be better to put Intersection study on hold until end of Feasibility Study
• What is deadline for Intersection project? 10 yrs from granting of funds (2016-ish)
• Combining creates continuity; you can overcome issue of control with agreements
• Risks either way: control vs. disconnect; a well articulated agreement could address these issues
• Committee concerns should be addressed
• Phase 2 should lead, Intersection should follow
• The transportation design will advance/promote land use, economic development, and neighborhood visions; transportfacilities must be in a supporting role.
• Intersection work should not begin until the Feasibility study has clearly indicated what should happen at Marginal/Somerset.
• Where will CSS expertise come from? Local control- Consultant. Combined- MDOT?
• Will MDOT project manager be able to fully explore/advance committee ideas that DOT is not comfortable with? Manager will have to follow lead of DOT bosses.
• Committee wants to be sure it’s product is delivered

3. Public Evaluation MeetingCommittee Reviews Meeting Format, offers suggestions indicated:Public Evaluation Meeting- DRAFT AGENDASept 2, 2009Merrill Rehearsal HallHandout should be prepared- agenda, brief narrative of each alternative, etc.1. Welcome and Introduction Co-chair 1 6:10-6:15committee members/staffplan for evening2. Presentation of Study Goals, Process Co-chair 2 6:15-6:25

• Range of options
• mix and match
• phase 2- just mention, come back to at closing
• long term visioning

3. Presentation of Franklin Concepts Lucy 6:25-6:55

• The ‘STORY’ behind each one
• evaluation matrix
• what does it look like

4. Getting a closer look/ Giving Feedback- Instructions ??? 6:55-7:005. Concepts Stations Teams of Committee members at tables

• describing details of concept
• answering clarifying questions 7:00-7:45
• public indicates preferences/concerns on color-coded sticky notes
• Pre-determined groups should go to each station for 15 minute presentation/questions/feedback. Groups will then rotate through all three stations in 15 min intervals. Three separate diagrams should be used so that one groups comments do not influence comments of other group.

6. Closing Remarks Co-chair 1 7:50-8:00Next StepsPhase 2Should arrange Press releaseCo-chairs writing Op-Ed piece for PPHImportant to dispell ‘rumors’, set stage for understanding that nothing is set in stoneA questionnaire could get helpful feedback about specific issues- Markos to follow up with Liz on this.Station AssignmentsStaff to fill in as needed. Other committee members to be added .4. Review of Materials for Public Meeting

Review Modeling for Multi-Way and Parkway. Comments:
• Urban Boulevard to be renames Urban Parkway
• Green/shared corridor needs to be added to Urban Parkway
• Modeling should be shown at end of Power Point presentation- from a variety of specific locations show: Existing (base modeling), and each of three alternatives in succession
• Label each slide with alternative name and location in BIG FONT, centrally located
• Play around with building colors to emphasize existing buildings a little more
• Any way to highlight a few landmarks to help orient people?

5. Review of Final Report

• Many sections drafted
• some sections still need completed- chairs to follow up on
• Ethan will write up Workshop section
• Committee asked to review electronic draft circulated, to discuss at late Sept meeting.

6. Homework: OutreachPublic Awareness: be sure people understandGoals, Process, and Purpose of Final Products of Study. Get them to the meeting.Study Matrix, Performance Criteria, Diagrams, etc. to be able to speak about your assigned concept; know the story behind the concept. New Matrix to be sent out next week.7. CommentsFuture Mtgs9/2- Public Presentation9/16-Responding to Public Feedback10/7-Finalizing Report

• Future Mtgs

8/5-Draft Report, Short Term Recommendations8/19-Preparationfor Public Presentation9/2-Public Presentation??Resignations of Laura Thibideauand Mike Langhella (personal reasons), Cathi Debo recently resignedfrom CBITD, need to follow up on Committee participation

• Committee will not seek to refill seats since study is nearing completion, but will ask resigningmembers to review final report and to help communicate report findingsto their respective stakeholder groups

3. Review of Concept Drafts w/ PerformanceCriteria

Lucy Gibson presents latest workof 3 concepts: Urban Street, Urban Boulevard, and Multi- lane Boulevard.Series of clarifying questions regarding concepts.

Somehighlights include:

• • Traffic Analysis of Roundaboutat Marginal results in LOS improvement to C or B (currently D or F)for morning peak hour. This could work with proposed Exit 7 design.
  • Medians in plans turn intoleft hand turn lanes, when needed, with pedestrian refuge
  • Oxford is restored to fullyfunctioning 4-way intersection on all concepts
  • Multi-lane Blvd is only conceptthat could accommodate 3 off-ramp lanes

CommitteeInput:

• • We need to figure out howto show and describe redevelopment opportunities in a way that highlightsenhanced value of properties, not threaten property owners
  • Be sure details (turn lanes,etc) are clearly marked on maps
  • Clear up references to Crosssections
  • extend Bike Blvd concepton down to Commercial St. along Franklin
  • Pedestrian Bridge at Franklinworks with Roundabout
  • Need to emphasize that designof reconnected streets is critical to maintain, strengthen neighborhoodnature of cross streets
  • Please show Roundabout asan inset on map
  • Federal should be reconnectedfor auto as opposed to Newbury
  • Please show separated bikefacility on Urban Blvd concept, in addition to bike lanes
  • Please place bike lanes onUrban Street concept
  • describe building heightsof Multilane Blvd as 5+ stories

Phase2 Issues

• Would a roundabout at Marginalrequire a roundabout at Fox/Somerset?
• Appropriate design of reconnectedcross-streets to maintain and strengthen neighborhood nature
• Unsignalized roundabout atCommercial St.
• Need to look closer at ROWof Lancaster St. at Noyce building
• Access road connections toMulti-lane Blvd
• Can Access roads be phasedin with development? Would this be prefereable/not?
• what warrants are neededfor new signals?
• What will grade of Franklinlook like?

Other

• Do we have a time frame forreconstruction of Franklin?

4. Homework:

• Outreach- start telling peopleabout our goals, our process, and our three concepts
• What Short Term Recommendationsdo you want to have included in the report?

5. Comments

• What does ’short term’ mean?
• Keep bike in the road.

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Updates
   • 7/15 – State of Maine Room: Assess Concept Designs
   • 8/5- Draft Report/Short term recommendations
   • 8/19-Prep. fro Public Mtg
   • Early September: Public Meeting
3. Review Concept Designs [view concept designs here]Committee decides that it does not have expertise to rate various components of the concepts without Lucy’s guidance. Committee wants consultant to provide information on each concept’s relation to the Performance Criteria.Other feedback from the committee included:
   • Presentational:
     • Want to see cross sections with each concept; aerial map is difficult to read for road details
     • Would like to see individual intersections and blocks and know how one concept or design might mix or match with another at any given location
     • Graphic information provided on Urban street is helpful- please provide this for all designs
     • Please show roundabouts on paper, if not on map- these are still in the mix
     • Be careful how we show redevelopment opportunities; we don;t want to scare property owners
     • Can we be shown ‘kit of parts’ and how this cold be used in various road segments?
     • Want to know what concepts preclude each other
   • Design Issues
     • Urban Street and Urban Blvd are too similar- we need 3 distinct concepts
     • Need to see Public Transportation in concepts
     • Need to see distinct bike options in each concept
     • Want to see distinct treatments of Congress to Commercial stretch: development opportunities, 4 lanes, 2 lanes
     • What is appropriate amount of public land? Emphasis on Parks seems “public land’ heavy.
     • Want information on economics: zoning, massing, heights, etc
     • Concern about development in Lincoln Park
4. Homework: Outreach
5. Comments

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Report on Roundabout Field Trip
   • Alex Landry reported out on the Roundabout Fieldtrip to Augusta and Auburn. Cathi Debo, Markos Miller, Greg Mitchell, and Mike Bobinsky also participated. Mike Laberge and Dan Stewart joined the group in Augusta along with Steve Landry of DOT.
   • Augusta roundabout did not have signage or landscaping yet; poor ped safety, little striping, entrances of up to three lanes wide, and slip lanes. Wide radius.
   • Auburn roundabouts are much tighter, one lane each way, with good signage. Felt much safer for pedestrians. Better lighting needed. Also met with Roland Miller, Auburn Economic Dev Director and member of police force who spoke about research process, safety improvements, and challenges- primarily in educating public.
3. Public Workshop Planning
   • Facilitators/Members (arrive @ 5:30)
   • Food/Donations

   Running through Workshop Agenda

   • Lucy Gibson presented draft of Power Point presentation for Public Workshop, committee offered feedback regarding content.
4. Design Work: Small group activity
   • Committee divided into two groups to run through abbreviated design activity planned for Public Workshop. Products presented to larger group.
5. Reflection/Feedback on process
   • Streamline design activity, provide more information on maps for participants, focus on land-use and transportation elements, and be aware of time constraints and time management issues.
6. Updates
   • PHA/EBNO Workshop. April 21st, 7-8:30, 47 St.
   • Walking Tour of Franklin planned for May 6th meeting, now planned for May 20, meeting, as the group decided to cancel the May 6 meeting.

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Update on Public Workshop, April 29th, Ocean GatewayFollow Up committee meeting on April 30th, 6-8 pm, Ocean Gateway
   • Details and format will be discussed at April 15 meeting.
3. Final Review of Performance Criteria
   • Minor additions to Performance Criteria made: ‘amenities’ added as sidewalk quality; ‘for all users’ added to width of travel lanes under Urban context; ‘Appropriate mix of land-use types’ added to Land Use
   • Performance Criteria approved by all members present
4. Follow Up on Peninsula Traffic Data- Mike Laberge
   • MIke Laberge presents comparative volumes and crash data between State/High and Franklin. See attached AADTCRASHMAPNOTES. Summary: S/H has 10% more volume, 50% more vehicular or pedestrian accidents.
5. Exit 7 Project and Process
   • Ernie Martin from MDOT gave a presentation on Exit 7 project to address traffic backing up onto I-295.
   • Northbound off ramp to become two lanes, ending at traffic signal/intersection with end of SB ramp.
   • Southbound ramp to be extended from Washington Ave on ramp, widened to two to three lanes, coming to a signal at intersection with NB ramp.
   • A separate “Intersection” project will address intersection of Marginal/Franklin through to Fox/Somerset, including crosswalks, etc (Will be based on Franklin study-We are stakeholder group for Intersection project).
   • Questions/Comments of committee include:
     • Being sure crosswalks and necessary sidewalks are included
     • City to include sidewalks
     • Why not roundabouts at this location-Review Roundabout Guidelines-”may be better @Fox/Somerset” EM
     • Want to see data supporting dimensions of new SB lane
     • Need to phase signals with Franklin lights
     • Community desire for Pedestrian Trail connection to Back Cove Trail at Exit 7- want to see designs that would be compatible
     • Off ramp signals appear to create safer environment for Pedestrians
     • Is there a Pedestrian refuge island?
     • Construction will impact Exits 3 and 4.
     • Public Meeting anticipated for June.
     • Other projects (Veteran’s Bridge, 295 Exits) may push Exit 7 schedule back
     • Franklin Committee to play a ‘check in’ role
       • Check the I-295 Corridor study website, as it reflects data.
       • Committee discusses option to take a position in favor of Trail Connection
       • Concerns about Committee getting bogged down in Exit 7 discussion
       • Can look at data and compare with other exits, other communities
       • May want a 3rd party review
       • Committee to revisit Exit 7
6. Updates
   • PHA/EBNO Workshop. April 21st, 7-8:30, 47 Smith Street.
   • Roundabout Field Trip planned to Augusta and Auburn for April 2nd.
   • Walking Tour of Franklin planned for May 5th meeting
7. Comments
   • Request a scaled section of Exit 7 plans
8. Next Mtg:Workshop PrepApril 15 Design ExerciseDiscussion Points

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Update on Public Workshop, April 29th, Ocean Gateway (6:05pm)
   • Follow Up committee meeting on April 30th, 6-8 pm, Ocean Gateway
   • Registration available online
   • Jaime Parker asks that the committee be given an opportunity to explore design ideas.
3. Continue Work on Performance CriteriaGroup finished draft copy of performance criteria, which will be used to evaluate future concept designs. This will be sent out to committee members, who can offer comment prior to next meeting. Performance Criteria to be finalized at next meeting.
4. Update on Multi-Cultural Outreach
   • Mark Adelson reports on City’s Multi-cultural outreach meeting, which ended up being a much more general ‘outreach’ session to community liaison’s regarding numerous city efforts. Franklin may have gotten lost in the mix.
   • PHA and EBNO are planning a community meeting for the Kennedy Park/East Bayside neighborhood for mid April. Details to follow.
   • Possibility of getting assistance with student’s in Alan Holt’s USM course.
5. Burning Issues/Short term recommendations/Final Report
   • Committee may want to consider submitting a list of short term recommendations for Franklin
   • Let’s start thinking about what our Final Report is going to look like.
6. Plan a Roundabout Field Trip (Augusta, Auburn, and Gorham)Four committee members express interest in visiting some roundabouts to better understand them. Co-chair to send out some possible dates/times and those interested to set final date with staff. Date/time will then be sent out to entire committee so other’s can join if interested.
7. Other Issues: Looking ahead to Workshop
   • Possibility of developing a poster or flyer?
   • Coming up with a tag-line.
   • Markos and Mike B. met with Nicole Clegg, City Communications Director, to discuss and strategize outreach to media. PPH may do a historic series on Franklin leading up to Public Workshop.
8. Homework
   • share our work with your community and City Councilor
   • spread the word about the public workshop
   • Website and Workshop Registration: http://www.portlandmaine.gov/franklinstreetarterial.htm
9. Next Meeting: April 1Performance Criteria, Traffic Comparisons, Exit 7 planning with Ernie Martin, from Maine DOT.

Click the images to view them full-size.
Please feel free to leave your comments on these concepts for the Committee below.

Urban boulevard with an emphasis on Lincoln Park:

Urban boulevard with an emphasis on open space:

Urban street (narrower width than in above schemes) with an emphasis on development opportunities:

Meeting #7, March 4, 2008

Notes

Com. Members present: Alex Landry, Greg Martin, Liz Hoglund, Markos Miller, Katie Brown,  Mark Adelson, Cathi Debo, Ethan Boxer-Macomber, Mike Langehella, Laura Thibideau
Staff: Mike Bobinsky, Kathi Earley, Alex Jagerman, Bill Needelman,Greg Mitchell

Consultant: Mitch Rasor
1. Welcome and Introductions      

2. Introductory Presentation to invited Business and Property Owners  

• Markos Miller introduces Study Committee and Scope of Study
• Mike Bobinsky reviews data studied by Committee to date: Historical Franklin, acreage, traffic counts compared to High/State, Volumes along corridor, crash areas, Franklin crashes compared to High/State,
• Bill Needelmand reviews relevant development plans: Eastern Waterfront/Maine State Pier, Bayside Plan, Peninsula Traffic Study
• Mike Bobinsky follows up with new data uncovered by Study: Traffic Count Projection comparison, Transit Study recommendations, Travel time/consistency and predictability, Speeds and Ped safety, Traffic Calming/Economic Development/Sales
• Markos Miller presents Study Vision Statement, opens floor to questions and comments from public.

3. Input from Business and Property Owners       

• What opportunities do you see for your business or property given a redesigned Franklin Street?

     Comments:

• Please improve pedestrian crossing opportunities/safety
• Transportation Hub at Exit 7; park car, transit for peninsula
• Importance of Gateway Quality
• Don’t forget Tracot Trucks and other Commercial Vehicles; volume has tripled since 1970’s
• overhead pedestrian bridges are unsightly and unsafe, tunnels are not safe
• center lane as transit lane
• Original plan was to submerge road; should still pursue, lease space above
• can traffic signals be adjusted for better dlow?
• sinking the road may be worse than what you already have; cost projections do not include capping submerged road
• Would Eminent Domain be considered?  Response- highly unlikely, on contrary, land may be made available for purchase/development
• How do you evaluate the impacts on the neighborhoods
• choose 3 radically different concepts, be innovative
• consider funadability
• selling parcels may be a funding mechanism
• what is the process from here? planning board? city council? etc
• Could there be another way to get northbound traffic off of 295 to take load off of Exit 7?
• What is relationship to lack of North bound options and high number of left hand turns at Fox St?
• Get trafic count at Fox St.

4. Committee Continues Work on Performance Criteria.

• 9 Performance Criteria include: Motor Vehicles, Public Transportation, Pedestrians and Bicycles, Economic, Environmental Quality, Design, Land Use, Neighborhood Impacts, Implementation

5. Update on Public Workshop   

• Consultant Lucy Gibson has been called as an expert witness for a court case on April 1 and 2 and will not be able to attend Public Workshop planned for April 1. Committee decides to reschedule due to importance of having Lucy present at workshop. April 29th is choosen as best date; April 15 is 29th does not work. (Maine State Pier Workshop on April 11 is too clse to April 15th- seen as unnecessary burden on staff and community.

6. Homework: Choose 2-3 of your favorite Performance Standards and begin to flesh these out. 
7. Comments- reflections on public comments

• want a design that Ray xxx of VIP will be satisfied with
• keep trucks in mind
• 3 very different options
• traffic follows path of least resistance, be aware of it’s desire to redirect
• Importance of connecting neighborhoods; safe crossings for kids and seniors
• casts and practicality, funding solutions
• transit hub, parking garage at 295, not waterfront
• reality that ‘Tunnel’ concept is still alive
• self-funding is a possibility
• Business development on Franklin
• danger of shifting traffic to other streets
• what is data on economic impact?
• what is the cost?

Public Comment

• PSA is interested in helping to plan workshop: clear objectives, focus, structure, usable end products
• check in with Vision Statement; performance criteria should be rooted in Vision Statement, don’t get to detailed, can be qualitative
• provide some context for traffic numbers, compare to other streets
• Connect MSP to Franklin in discussion
• Don’t let fundability limit creativity

Next Mtg  Preparation for Public Workshop

Mar 18  Performance Criteria

Discussion Points

Meeting #6, February 26th, 2008

Notes

Com. Members present: Alex Landry, Greg Martin, Liz Hoglund, Boyd Marley, Markos Miller, Katie Brown,  Mark Adelson, Mike Laberge, Cathji Debo, Cyruss Haggee
Staff: Mike Bobinsky, Kathi Earley, Carl Eppich, Gerald Varney, Alex Jagerman, Greg Mitchell
Consultant: Lucy Gibson
1. Welcome and Introductions: Greg Mitchell, Economic Development Director in attendance  

2. Updates

• PSA to be approached regarding helping w/ Public Workshop facilitation
• Rachel Talbot Ross will be meeting with multi-cultural community liaisons on March 12th to discuss outreach to East Bayside community.
• PHA offers to host future meeting to directed at this community
• Mark Adelson and Rachel to coordinate on surveys

3. Refining Vision Statement   

• committee work to finalize and streamline Vision Statement. Co-chairs asked to address final wordsmithing. Final Vision Statement reads:

Franklin Street will be a critical transportation facility for all modes of travel, linking the highway & Back Cove to the waterfront & Island ferries.
Franklin Street will be a vibrant urban corridor serving as an attractive gateway to the city connecting neighborhoods and destinations while enhancing the urban fabric of the city through the mixed use development of appropriate and functional residential, commercial and recreational space in the midst of attractive streetscapes.

All modes of travel, including motor vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian shall be able to coexist in a design that is safe and environmentally sound for an urban setting through state of the art design utilizing optimum architecture, street widths, curbs, sidewalks and street level crosswalks and other appropriate amenities such as vegetation, trees and art.

• • • • • • • some comments on order of statements offered by members

4. Follow Up with Lucy        

• Roundabouts: yield lines for entering traffic, safer, fewer accidents, little direct collisions, less delay, higher capacity, lower speeds. Some key differences from Rotaries-Roundabouts have smaller diameter, clear yeilding rules.
• Roundabouts work best in high pedestrian areas. Cars slow for peds in crosswalks before entering roundabout; drivers need to be aware of/expecting peds,
• Roundabouts best on flat cvorridors
• difficult for visually impared since traffic is not forced to stop
• do not integrate well with signalized intersections nearby
• Congestion Mitigation Bonds can be used for roundabouts
• Commercial trucks?
• not good for change in grade
• take up space
• Request for overlays of Roundabouts at various intersections
• Reversible Travel Lanes: Franklin volumes are imbalanced (am/pm peaks)- is ideal for RVL, can increase capacity, require lot’s of signage, education; mostly used in long, high speed corridors; may increase speed, more capacity, less pavement.
• Connectivity:
• Vehicles: grid give more options, same # of lanes over grid increases capacity vs fewer, wider roads, dispurses left hand turning options, less time needed inleft hand turn phases
• Pedestrian: smaller streets are easier to cross, better control of speed, signal progression better maintains desired target speed
• Traffic Counts: nature of street varies as move away from Marginal (high volume) to Commercial (light volume); greater connections may decrease demand for left turns at Fox St (130 pm count). IDEA: limit hours you can make a left hand turn here.
• Data on Speed/Travel Time/ Economic Development: key to travel time is how intersections function, not speed; goal is predictability of travel time; 20-25 mph range is ideal for pedestrian safety; slower design speed allows more compact development.
• Golden, CO case study: Roundabouts in a corridor: much fewer accidents, increase in sales tax
• Burlington, VT, US 2, Main St.: similar volumes to Franklin (30,000 AADT), along university campus: lots of pedestrians. New at grade crossing: push button ped crossing, light traffic volumes crossing at intersection. Bikelane and sidewalk changes to wide sidewalk accomodating bike lane; undersized median.
• State Street, Portland: similar volumes to Franklin one-way. Nice features for pedestrians: raised sidewalk, wide buffer between sidewalk and road, scale of development

5. Performance Criteria: Committee begins work on articulating Performance Criteria categories and measures. To continue next meeting.         

6. Homework: follow up on Performance Standards        

7. Comments                       

• We need to know what volumes we will be designing for.
• What can we learn from Bayside traffic projections for new devlopments?
• What role can we expect TDM to play?
• Summarize Lucy’s Economic Development information for Business Community
• Concerns about Pedestrian Safety w/ Roundabouts
• Take a field trip to Auburn to see new roundaboputs near (Walmart?) Greg Mitchel has contacts.
• Lucy can send video links for roundabouts
• Steve Hirshon: commitment to neighborhood connectivity
• Don O’Neil: Vision Statement- include water and road, emphasize ped context, don’t lose sight of residential development
• Liz Trice: a ped count for Franklin is needed

Next Mtg  Business/Property Owner’s

Mar 4  Performance Standards/Design Criteria

Discussion Points

Meeting #5 February 4, 2008

Notes

Com. Members present: Alex Landry, Greg Martin, Liz Hoglund, Jaime Parker, Boyd Marley, Markos Miller, Katie Brown, Ethan Boxer-Macomber, Catherine Debo, Mark Adelson, Michael Langella, Mike Laberge/Dan Stewart

Staff: Mike Bobinsky, Kathi Earley, Bill Needleman, Carl Eppich, Gerald Varney, Alex Jagerman, Rachel Talbot-Ross, Regina Philips

Consultant: Mitchel Rasor
1. Introductions
2. Updates          

• meeting schedule: 2/26 meeting w/ Lucy Gibson, consultant,  3/4 invite business/property owners, Econ Dev Director, 3/18 finialize performance standards, prepare for Public Workshop,
• Public Workshop: Committee feels we need 2 public workshops. First in Early April. Open to weekday evening or weekend. Committee willing to do back to back workshop and debrief, if appropriate; willing to work with/scribe for/small groups. Facilitators were favored.
• Reporting back from stakeholder constituents:

• • MHNO: excitement, new Observer to raise awareness
  • EBNO: pedestrian issues are priority, excitede about possibility of ped. crossings, reconnecting streets, at least for peds
  • Ethan (Off-Peninsula): see Franklin as eyesore, mistake, ‘charged’ about Vision statement
  • Liz (Off Pen): all have stake in Frankin
  • Peaks: importance as conduit for islanders, unattractive, importance of walkability, connecting Metro and boats
  • BNA: excitement, need for short term/immediate improvements: pedestrian lighting

3. Traffic Data             

   Mike Laberge presents data on traffic volumes. Questions/Comments:

• These 3 year (2005-7) averages are year round average (not summer avg)
• Peak Hour 8-9 am, 4-6 pm
• Marginal Way and Commercial have increases ; Cumberland and Congress, decreases
• Points out that need to compare intersections to like intersections.
• Do we know where traffic is coming from? (only traffic through ‘portal’ not on peninsula traffic
• Commercial street has most increase in volume (more to come)- we must be planning for this
• Please compare Congress @ Franklin to rates at Congress @High and State

   Crash counts Data for Franklin intersections

• I-295 ramp and Congress Street are high crash locations
• what is relationship between volume and crashes year by year? (appears to be more crashes when less volume
• Knowing types of crashes at each location give better idea what’s happening
• Current design encourges/supports dangerous driving choices (high speed, lane changes, etc)
• Need transitions between Contexts
• Continuity in context is important to controlling speed, maintaining even speed
• City requested to look into traffic infractions on Franklin (2005-7) Is it even enforced?
• Could put up a speed detector on Franklin? Generate a Speed Profile (graph)
• What is relationship between development and traffic ?
• What is relationship between  speed limit and # of accidents?
• Reconnecting Streets may create more ‘conflict points’
• need to know all factors contributing to unsafe conditions and address the most influential
• Dan Stewart will bring Peninsula Maps of Traffic and Ped counts/ accidents
• How have traffic calming efforts in other parts of city worked (Stevens Ave)?
• Would like research on incidents involving pedestrians- Requested of Staff

   Preliminary discussion on Exit 7 plans/stakeholder process

• DOT moving forward with this process, to run parralel to Franklin Study
• Subgroup of Franklin Com. can have serve on Exit 7 stakeholder process
• Must be multiple feedback loops between Franklin and Exit 7 group

4. Refining Vision Statement (postponed until next meeting)                   

5. Discussion on public workshop/community outreach      

• March 4th meeting: invite Business and Property owners (abbutting properties, India St, Lower Congress, East Marginal Way, Washington Ave), local developer community, Economic Develpoment Director for first half of meeting.
• Work with City Community Liaison’s-survey for multi-cultural community in East Bayside, brief Liaisons. Possible follow up: meetings with Community Leaders, larger forum w/ multi-cultural community (Parkside, Kennedy Park, Root Cellar?) What is the ‘hook’ that will get this population engaged? Also opportunity to ‘piggy back’ on other event with this population. Chairs to follow up with survey, meeting with City Staff/Community Liaison.
• Public Workshop- Committee wants to see 2 public workshops focusing on generating solutions, not describing problems, (second to refine input from first). First to be around early April mtg date. Discussion around weekday eveing or weekend- (perhaps one each). Committee open to a follow up meeting day after workshop, if appropriate. Committee members interested in working with small groups (perhaps as scribes, with volunteer facilitators-PSA?, Institute for Civic Leadership?). Committee would like to see Workshop plans as developed. Also questions around balancing input of attendees w/ Study Committee work, what ‘parameters’ might we want to set? Get media involved!. Also: may want to consider smaller, more tailored events. Locations; OceanGateway, Cathedral Guild Hall?

6. Performance Standards/Design Criteria- (postponed until next meeting)

7. Homework: Vision Statement-committee members to make edits they would like to see in final version

8. Comments                        

• • • Mitch Rasor- Consultants need to have an idea of what our Performance Standards are

Next Mtg  Lucy – response to earlier issues discussed at Mtg #4

Feb 26  Vision Statement

Performance Standards/Design Criteria