Franklin Street Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2014-04-03

Franklin Street Redevelopment Study Phase II
 Public Advisory Committee Meeting
 April 3, 2014, 5:30‐7:30 pm
 Merrill Rehearsal Hall


Committee Members: Markos Miller, Christian MilNeil, Jaime Parker, Jon Graback, Chris O’Neil,
Ethan Boxer‐Macomber, Elizabeth Hoglund, Sally Oldham, Alex Landry, Hugh Nazor, Kevin
Donoghue, Bill Hall, Steve Hewins

Absent Committee Members: Sam Cohen, Bob Stevens, Hank Berg, Mark Adelson

Staff: Mike Bobinsky, Jeremiah Bartlett, and Bruce Hyman, City of Portland Public Services; Alex
Jaegerman, City of Portland Planning Department; Carl Eppich, PACTS; Darryl Belz, MaineDOT;
Tegin Teich, IBI Group; Don Ettinger, Gorrill Palmer; Carol Morris and Scott Hastings, Morris
Communications

The meeting started at 5:41 pm.

Markos Miller, Committee Co‐chair, opened the meeting by thanking people for their flexibility
in being able to attend the meeting in spite of the change in date. He felt that the meeting was
an important opportunity for the PAC to weigh in before the consultants conducted their
analysis of the feasibility of the three alternatives. He stressed that the three alternatives were
not fixed plans but merely buckets for holding the different features and that these features
could in most cases be mixed and matched in a final alternative. With that in mind, the PAC was
asked to do two things: make sure that no features that should be included in the analysis had
been missed, and remove any that are unnecessary. He then turned the floor over to Mike
Bobinsky, Director of Public Services for the City of Portland.

Mike also thanked the committee for their attendance. He explained that the city really wanted
to hear what the PAC had to say regarding the groups they represented points of view, and he
wanted to make sure that everyone is on the same page going into the analysis phase of the
project.

Carol Morris of Morris Communications then reviewed the agenda for the meeting and again
stressed that the three alternatives should be taken as collections of parts rather than rigid
plans. She also emphasized that none of the components of the alternatives have yet been
tested, and the next step for the consulting team is to model and analyze the components of
the three alternatives, noting that this analysis would be a big help in guiding everyone to the
best combination of components. She also reminded the PAC again that the final alternative
would most likely be a combination of different components from all the alternatives, so it is
not a choice among the three. Carol then turned over the floor to Tegin Teich of IBI Group.
Tegin explained that they were at the meeting today to make sure that the alternatives are in
order before the team begins to evaluate them. Based on previous feedback from the PAC and
from the public meeting, the alternatives being evaluated were two versions of the Urban
Street and a modified version of the Urban Parkway. The Multi‐Way Boulevard alternative has
been removed due to feedback expressed at the public meeting as well as concerns expressed
by the technical staff. She mentioned that while the options themselves have not yet been
vetted by analysis, the team has looked closely at roundabouts at the north end of Franklin
Street to see if they warranted further analysis. This examination ruled out using a roundabout
at Franklin St and Marginal Way to control traffic due to property impacts, vehicle and bike/ped
safety issues and the scale required to serve the demand.

Tegin then reviewed the meeting materials provided to the PAC. They included a handout on
transit options, a handout detailing key topics taken from the public outreach and a table
comparing the three alternatives based on a list of criteria. Maps of the three alternatives were
also provided.

Tegin began by noting that the Urban Street Option 1 alternative focuses on reducing roadway
width and reconnecting all the cross streets. She noted that all three alternatives have two
through‐lanes in each direction from Marginal Way to Congress St. and one through‐lane in
each direction from Congress St. to Commercial St.

A discussion ensued about the medians. In Urban Street #2 there is a central median
alternating with turn lanes. In Urban Street #1, the additional cross streets means that the
median is dropped but the space is used for turn lanes. The Urban Parkway option has a wider
median with few breaks for turn lanes/cross streets.

Urban Street #1 has the most space given over to exclusive pedestrian use. Urban Street #2 has
more space given to non‐car modes and part of this is a cycle track separated from the street
and from the pedestrian sidewalk, The team has been looking carefully at how separated bike
facilities function at intersections; currently they are leaning toward bikes in the cycle track
joining with pedestrians to navigate intersections.

The Urban Street options favor a bus shuttle for transit. In Option 1 this would run on parallel
streets to avoid conflict with bicyclists. In Option 2 it would run down Franklin St.

In addition to a full reconnection of all cross streets for all modes, Urban Street #1 looks at
changing Federal and Newbury to two‐way streets. There would be parallel parking on Franklin
from Congress to Commercial Street. Urban Street #1 shows mostly 3‐4 story development
focused on nodes at major intersections, which may have higher buildings. Separate from the
transportation work, the team is looking at form‐based codes and mixed‐use overlays to get an
idea of how they might work in the corridor. Urban Street #1 is the alternative depicting the
maximum new developable space and the road is pushed to the west.

A question was asked about Lincoln Park’s potential in terms of gaining space.
Tegin explains that in Urban Street #1’s role of showing the maximum new developable space,
the park gains no new land. Other alternatives do have the park gaining space. Tegin noted
again that pieces are interchangeable and in the end the park could gain land while using the
road cross sections seen in Urban Street #1.

A committee member said that he felt that certain issues needed to be decided before other
things could be productively discussed; namely street alignment, road width, and road cross‐
connections, in that order. They felt that by presenting options as part of alternatives things
were being unnecessarily lumped together. They felt more conversation was needed about
road widths and alignment before other things were decided.

Tegin agreed that some aspects did heavily influence other aspects. She said that after the
technical evaluation, the various measures of effectiveness would be used to more objectively
assess the different arguments for each component. She added that packaging the different
components into three separate alternatives was necessary in order to run the traffic modeling.

Carol added that a lot of study team work was yet to be done on the best way to present and
evaluate the choices post‐evaluation.

A committee member felt that they had heard a lot of support at the public meeting for a
compromise road alignment that was not shown in the current alternatives. He felt that the
Urban Street #2 option came the closest to the compromise except in Bayside where it should
be pushed more west to make use of the existing building wall of Whole Foods. He felt it should
then go more east around Franklin Towers and Lincoln Park but swing to the west to provide
developable land for the India St. neighborhood.

There was some discussion about whether this exact alignment was feasible based on
topographical and regulatory constraints. It was determined that further research was
required.

A committee member commented that they did not think a general consensus had been
reached on the road alignment but did note that they liked the previously mentioned
compromise alignment.

A committee member representing Greater Portland Landmarks (GPL) noted that from GPL’s
perspective none of the three alternatives as presented were something they would advocate
for. They strongly felt that the street section, including sidewalks, should be much narrower
with the 22’ sidewalk shown being completely unnecessary. They also wanted to restore Lincoln
Park as much as possible. Aside from land used for the park they were interested in seeing as
much development as possible and felt that the cross streets should be reconnected. New
development and new connections would help to activate the space with more people. She was
also interested in the potential for two‐way traffic on Federal and Newbury Streets, as that
would encourage more use around the courthouse.
Carol asked for clarification on GPL’s stance on the park expansion.

The committee member replied that the option with the largest expansion of the park was
acceptable. GPC understands that a full restoration is not possible.

Tegin asked for some more information on what sidewalk width would be appropriate.

The committee member responded that they felt 10’ sidewalks would be appropriate.

After some discussion it was decided to go through the rest of the meeting topic‐by‐topic
rather than alternative‐by‐alternative.

Tegin started this with a look at vehicle right‐of‐way width. In all alternatives there would be
one through‐lane in each direction from Congress St. to Commercial St., plus turn lanes where
needed. All lanes would be 11’ wide. Urban Street #1 would also have bike lanes with a painted
buffer. Urban Street #2 and the Urban Parkway options would instead have 4’ shoulders.

Darryl Belz of MaineDOT noted that the state requires 5’ shoulders. The city would have to get
4’ shoulders approved as a design exception. This would be very possible but is another step
everyone should be aware of. UPDATE: Darryl has reported back that a design exception is NOT
needed for 11‐foot travel lanes and 4‐foot shoulders.

Tegin pointed out that the numbers provided were the road widths including bike lanes and
shoulders as appropriate. These widths varied along the corridor but the Urban Parkway option
had the widest road width due to a wider median.

There was some discussion about shoulders vs. bike lanes. Bikes would be allowed in shoulders
but shoulders would not have the painted buffer as offered in the bike lane and would not
necessarily count as new bicycle infrastructure when evaluating the alternatives.

A committee member asked would it be possible to ask for 2’ shoulders instead? He pointed
out that trimming the width of the roadway by a mere 2’ on each side, along the 4000' length of
the street, means the difference between spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pave
and maintain 16,000 more square feet of pavement, compared to selling that 16,000 square
feet and collecting property taxes on 1/3rd of an acre's worth of new downtown housing and
offices. The difference of 2 feet is a difference of roughly half a million dollars' worth of net
project costs in the short term and tens of thousands of dollars in the city's budget each year
for the next five decades or so. He said that whether or not engineers consider this a practical
consideration, it absolutely is a consideration for elected officials and for taxpayers who will pay
for this project.
Tegin said that in addition to safety concerns, wider shoulders would give more flexibility in
future changes to the road. Also, she pointed out that while 4’ shoulders would likely be
approved by MaineDOT, 2’ shoulders might be harder to get approval for.

A committee member noted that they wanted to echo previous opinions that the narrowest
width possible was desirable. He wanted to be clear that this wasn’t just road width but the
width of the whole right of way including sidewalks and bike lanes.

The group moved on to discussion of the median. Urban Street #1 has very little median
anywhere in the corridor, Urban Street #2 had some median, mostly acting as pedestrian
refuges, and the Urban Parkway had by far the most median. The Urban Parkway includes
more median in order to allow space for future transit and in the meantime provides a central
cycle track.

A committee member asked what the tradeoffs were in having a larger median.

Tegin responded that a larger median restricts options for road alignments and reduces the
amount of developable land opened up. And in this option they wanted to show fewer conflicts
for the purpose of the analysis, so it was not as desirable to reconnect cross streets.

A committee member asked for clarification on the space for transit, asking if it is correct that
even in the Urban Parkway model this space was only preserved between Marginal Way and
Congress St. He also asked if it is possible to retain the center cycle track but reduce the median
width.

Tegin answered that they were correct about the space reserved for transit. The median width
around the cycle track was largely dictated by safety standards.

Another question as asked about how the median affects cross street connectivity.

Tegin responded that the wider and more substantial the median the less cross streets could be
reconnected for vehicles, although pedestrian‐access cross streets were still possible. The
center cycle track also meant added conflicts at any cross streets.

The group then moved on to pedestrian infrastructure. As was before mentioned, Urban Street
#1 has up to 22’ wide sidewalks. Urban Street #2 moves the bike path between the sidewalk
and the road so while the sidewalks are narrower, the bike/pedestrian zone is wider. The Urban
Parkway option has narrower sidewalks at 12’ wide. Tegin asked if the group felt narrower
sidewalks were a priority.

A committee member responded that it depended somewhat on zoning, as retail areas need
more sidewalk than residential areas.
Another committee member felt that narrower sidewalks should be put next to Lincoln Park
with land being used for the park rather than wide sidewalks.

There was a brief discussion about the expansion of the park. It was reiterated that the park
could be expanded in any of the alternatives though none restored it to its original size.

A committee member said that they felt 12’ sidewalks were sufficient for commercial areas and
that they would work for residential areas as well for consistency’s sake. They did want to
make sure that crosswalks were made easy and intuitive to use. They felt that the plans
showed many crosswalks that did not take the direct route across a road and that people would
not stay in the crosswalks if they were built that way.

A committee member agreed and said that he would like to see crosswalks being more direct
across intersections.

Tegin appreciated the input but noted that that level of detailed planning would take place in
the future during a detailed design phase. For this study, they are currently more interested in
the number of crossings rather than the exact location of them. She did say she would talk with
the consultant team so that they would keep that in mind.

Don Ettinger of Gorrill Palmer noted that crosswalks in the Urban Parkway alternative that
crossed the central cycle track were purposely offset to minimize conflicts.

Another committee member agreed that they would like to see more direct crosswalks and
added that more innovative crossing treatments would be appreciated when the design stage
came around. They also wanted to see the Bayside Trail brought more into line as it crosses
Franklin.

Tegin responded that they had spent a lot of time thinking about how to improve the Bayside
Trail crossing. She felt there was the most leeway in addressing it in the Urban Parkway option
due to the way the Marginal Way / Franklin intersection is being treated. This alternative
removes through‐movements on Marginal Way across the intersection and so allows the
intersection to be signalized.

The committee member responded that they were not really in favor of that intersection
treatment but wanted to make sure the Bayside Trail was kept in mind.

There was some discussion about the Urban Parkway intersection treatment at Marginal
Way/Franklin and it generally met with disapproval. Alex Jaegerman, from City of Portland
Planning, felt that if the Urban Parkway alternative hinged on this treatment it should probably
just be disregarded. It was pointed out that the city has an agreement with MaineDOT to
prohibit left turns at the intersection if traffic ever begins to back up onto the highway before
resorting to prohibiting through‐movements on Marginal Way. There some debate about the
need to worry about this at this time.
A committee member noted that the intersection treatment shown would push a lot of traffic
onto Somerset St. They felt that this would change the character of the street detrimentally.
Somerset St. is already being rebuilt to 11’ lanes with 2’ shoulders and they felt the added
traffic would be a deterrent to walking, biking, and general street life.

The group moved on to the topic of bike infrastructure. Urban Street #1 would have 5’ bike
lanes with a painted buffer. Urban Street #2 would have a 10’ cycle track on one side of the
road, separated from traffic by parked cars. It would have a 4’ verge on either side separating it
from parked cars and the sidewalk. The Urban Parkway would have a two‐way cycle track
down the center of the road inside the median. Urban Street #1 looks at putting bike lanes on
the cross streets while the other two alternatives use shared lane markings.

A committee member commented that how bikes are accommodated has an impact on right‐
of‐way width. He also noted that they felt the Mindmixer responses showed a general approval
of bikes being separated from traffic.

Another committee member agreed that there seemed to be some preference for separated
bike facilities but noted that they were not in favor of two‐way cycle tracks.

There was some discussion at this point about the confidence level of various potential bike
users and how these groups would feel about the various bike options. There was little
consensus.

A committee member asked how the cycle tracks would interface with the two trailheads at
either end of the corridor. They wondered if the ability for bikes to access theses trails from
Franklin could be measured and incorporated in the measures of effectiveness.

Tegin responded that it would be hard to measure but assured the committee that a lot of
thought was and would be put into the problem of how bicyclists would interface with the cycle
tracks and the trailheads.

A committee member pointed out that in the Urban Street #2 option, the cycle track might be
better on the west side as it would interface better with the Back Bay trail. The Marginal Way
intersection is the most complicated and so it is more desirable to have this connection provide
easy access to the Eastern Prom trail at the Commercial St. end.

Tegin agreed.

Markos asked if there is an alternative that would model a non‐buffered bike lane.

Tegin clarified that in the Urban Street #1 alternative the bike lane was only buffered by paint,
not by a physical barrier.
Markos responded that this was sufficient to fulfill his desires to see a non‐separated bike
alternative.

Tegin asked for people to prioritize other aspects of the project that they felt were most
important, as time was running short.

A committee member commented that in the situation with all the cross streets connected, the
signals would have to be carefully timed in order to handle traffic. Further it would be
important to keep the turn lanes long enough to keep turning traffic from contributing to
backups.

There was some brief discussion about this. It was mentioned that some roads could be right
in/right out at peak hours. Tegin noted that the traffic modeling would look into signal timing
and right in/right out options.

A committee member felt that even if the streets are not all connected in an alternative, they
should be designed so that it would still be possible to connect the streets in the future with
minimal reconstruction of Franklin.

Tegin answered that was a good idea but also pointed out that there are some areas with
significant grade issues and that some alignments would make some connections challenging.

The committee member responded that they understood and that they just wanted to make
the pitch for it.

A question was asked about turn lanes at the Lancaster intersection.

Don responded that in all options the current dedicated right‐turn lane would be removed. The
right through‐lane would become a right turn and through‐lane. He also pointed out that the
lane is wider at this point to accommodate truck turning movements.

A committee member representing the India St. Neighborhood voiced the opinion that the
table’s wording of a Federal St. connection “limiting” open space was incorrect and that instead
it would eliminate the opportunity for new open space. He said that the India St. neighborhood
would like to see two things come out of this plan; usable open space at Federal and Franklin,
and Franklin Street moved to the west to open up developable land within the India St.
neighborhood.

Tegin noted that even with a full connection, there would still be some space opened up at that
location for public open space. There was some debate about this as it was felt that that space
would be highly desirable for development.

A committee member asked to see a new right‐of‐way on the elements table comparing trail
connections across the alternatives.
Another committee member noted that the current alignment of the Fore Street / Franklin
Street intersection favors vehicular movements turning onto Franklin and can make it hard to
safely cross the intersection towards India St. They would like to see the plan look at ways to
improve this situation.

A committee member felt that the development penciled in for the corridor, particularly
around Lincoln Park, was too tall. Rather than 5‐story buildings, she would like to see 3‐4
stories that relate to the historic development pattern. She did note that they were not
opposed to looking at 5‐story buildings but that they wanted to make sure 3‐4 story buildings
remained an option.

Tegin responded that building heights coming out of this study would be rough
recommendations and the City would have to look more closely at them in the future. They had
put in the 5‐story building note around Lincoln Park because the Congress St. intersection was
seen as an important development node.

A committee member asked that in a scenario that sees full or nearly full reconnection of cross
streets, would these reconnections adversely affect traffic, particularly if pedestrians have push
button priority?

Jeremiah Bartlett, Transportation Systems Engineer for the City of Portland, said that the short
answer was, “It depends.” The study’s next step was to look at the traffic implications of all the
alternatives. The city is already addressing these concerns around pedestrian movements. In
many places they are using concurrent pedestrian movements rather than exclusive phasing
and this helps to keep vehicles and pedestrians moving.

A committee member asked if there would be a layer created showing development
recommendations.

Tegin responded that they would be creating a rough sketch of what they saw as development
opportunities. The weight of the study was on the transportation part of the project but they
would be blocking out development potential.

She then thanked the committee for their input, and said that the team would make
modifications based on what they heard that day and then move ahead to test the alternatives.

Carol took the floor and reviewed the next steps. The committee will receive minutes of the
meeting as well as a list of the modifications the team would be making as a result of the
discussion. The next committee meeting will be scheduled soon for around the middle or end
of June. The next public meeting would be scheduled for shortly after that.

The meeting ended at 7:37 pm.
 Addendum: Adjustments and Additions Made to Concept Plans
 Based on Meeting Discussion

General:

  Additional discussion with the PAC will take place on the general alignment of the
 roadway via Google Groups before the next meeting in June.
  The team is asking the PAC for input on classification of neighborhood streets and
 activity centers for the purposes of the evaluation.

  The team will reach out to the bike/ped committee and community before finalizing
 recommendations.
  The team will also be meeting with City operations heads (Fire/Police/Emergency) prior
 to the next PAC Meeting for their input.

Input from PAC Meeting and Resolution (shown in italics):

 ∙ Move bike facilities in Urban St #2 to opposite side of road (west): Agreed
 ∙ Realign Fore St. to be safer: A challenge but ideas in process now
 ∙ Align cross walks with sidewalks: This level of design is not necessary at this
 conceptual phase but has been noted.
 ∙ Dislike of Median at Marginal Way in Urban Parkway – Instead of modeling this
 worst case scenario, the two phases of turning movement restrictions in the Bayside
 Crossing agreement will be modeled. Urban Street #1 will have no turning restrictions,
 Urban Street #2 will restrict left turn movements from eastbound Marginal Way to
 Franklin/I‐295, and Urban Parkway will have the restriction in Option 2 AND restricted
 left turn movements northbound Franklin Street onto Marginal Way westbound.
 ∙ Sidewalk widths: Sidewalk widths will not be modified for the purposes of evaluation,
 as a range of widths are included and the related MOEs tend to focus on the length of
 sidewalk facilities. In final recommendations, sidewalk widths will vary depending on
 location given feedback (e.g. need less sidewalks in front of Lincoln Park).
 ∙ Use existing street wall where available: Generally agreed to maximize use of
 existing street walls. We will look into shifting alignment east at Lincoln Park then
 west between Federal and Newbury, maximizing the park on one block and
 development on next, but there are likely some technical limitations.
 ∙ Shoulder widths/design exceptions: A narrower shoulder design exception will likely
 be hard to achieve given the extensive existing right of way. Darrl Belz, MaineDOT will
 provide feedback. For now the evaluation will include the 4’ shoulders.
 ∙ DOT request to show one option where Pearl Street not reconnected between
 Fox/Somerset and Marginal Way: Connection will be removed on Urban Parkway.
 ∙ Understanding how much land is reclaimed with the different alignments and
 making sure developable lot size is considered: Agreed, part of existing MOEs
 ∙ Designing all perpendicular streets with possible future reconnection: There are
 potential cost and other implications, but will keep this in mind for recommendations.
∙ Varying the scale of development across from Lincoln Park: Agreed, will show one
 option with 3 story development across from Lincoln Park (Urban St # 2).
∙ Add comparison of trail connections to elements table: Agreed
∙ Prepare list of minimum guidelines/standards for PAC: Agreed.