Franklin Street Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2013-06-26

Public Advisory Committee
 Meeting 1
Franklin Street Feasibility Study Phase II
 IBI Group with Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc.
 S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc. | Titcomb Associates | Morris Communications

 June 26, 2013
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

  Those Present and Consultant Team
  Presenters
  • Mike Bobinsky/Jeremiah Bartlett (City of Portland)
  • Tegin Teich (IBI Group) Project Manager/Transportation Planner/Urban Planner
  • Carol Morris (Morris Communications) Public Involvement/Communications
  Others Present
  • Representatives from the City, PACTS, MaineDOT
  • Ritesh Warade (IBI Group) Transportation Engineer/Planner
  • Molly Casto (Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers) Planner/Public Involvement
  • Scott Hastings (Morris Communications) Planner/Public Involvement
  Team Members
  CRJA-IBI Group (Streetscape/Landscape Architecture)
  Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers (Traffic Engineering)
  Morris Communications (Public Involvement)
  S.W. Cole Engineering (Geotechnical Engineering)
  Titcomb Associates (Surveying)

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 2
CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION

  Presentation Contents
  • Welcome and Introductions (5 min)
  • Overview and Purpose of Study and PAC (20 min)
  • Old Business/Questions from PAC (10 min)
  • Key Concepts: TOD, Complete Streets, CSS (10 min)
  • Visioning (35 min)
 – *Interactive Session*
  • Goals and Objectives (35 min)
 – *Small Group Break-out*
  • Wrap-up (5 min)




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 3
MEETING PURPOSE/EXPECTED OUTCOME

  Background
  • Understand better what the study is all about
  • Understand all of our roles and responsibilities
  • Hear background on Transit-Oriented Development, Complete Streets
 and Context Sensitive Design and ask questions

  The Vision Statement
  • Evaluate the Vision Statement that was developed as part of Phase 1
  • Does it still apply?
  • Are any parts more important than others?




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 4
MEETING PURPOSE/EXPECTED OUTCOME

  Vision Goals and Objectives
  • How would the Vision Statement translate into measurable Goals and
 Objectives?
  • Thinking about this, are there Goals we want to achieve that might be
 missing from the vision statement?
  • Is anything else missing?

  Expected Outcomes
  • A better defined Vision Statement (VS)
  • General understanding and support for the principals in the VS
  • An understanding of how the we will use measurable goals and
 objectives to live up to the VS


 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 5
PURPOSE OF STUDY

  Purpose
  Phase I (Reclaiming Franklin Street)
 “…developing a broad spectrum of possible solutions that balance
 the interests of all stakeholders”
 – Extensive public process
 – Vision-oriented
 – ‘Kit of parts’

  Purpose of Phase II (Feasibility)
 – More detailed study: depth/refinement
 – Continued public process
 – Possible outcome: new or hybrid concepts




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 6
PUBLIC PROCESS AND ROLE OF PAC

  PAC Process
  • A collaborative process
  • Recommit to desired outcomes: Keep focused
  • Restate Meeting Objectives every time
  • Strive for hands-on workshop environment
  • Be flexible
  • Emphasize tradeoffs
  • Support means implementation




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 7
PUBLIC PROCESS AND ROLE OF PAC

  Public Outreach
  • Broad, inclusive public input: Your role outside this room
 – Your constituents
 – Transparency
 – Media

  • Other Outreach
 – Social Media
 – Posters

  • Two Public Forums
 – Workshop format
 – Provide feedback on tradeoffs




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 8
SCOPE OF WORK




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 9
SCOPE OF WORK

 Phase II Simplified Approach

 Guiding Principles Model Results


 Vision / Goals /
 Objectives
 Final
  Data Collection/ Alternatives Alternatives Recommend- PDR
 Existing Conditions Development Analysis ation


 Future Conditions


 PAC Involvement/Public Process




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
 IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 10
 SCHEDULE OF WORK

 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Task 1 Project Management A

 #3/ #4/
Task 2 Public Involvement #1 #2 #5
 P1 P2

Task 3 Needs/Goals/Objectives B

Task 4 Existing Conditions C

Task 5 Future Conditions D

Task 6 Alternatives Development E

Task 7 Alternatives Analysis F

Task 8 Recommendations G

Task 9 Study Report H, I J

Task 10 PDR K




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
 IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 11
SCOPE OF WORK

  Developing Alternatives
  Foundation:
  • Vision/Goals/Objectives
 – Founded on guiding principles and previous study
 – Refine vision based on changes since previous study
 – Transparent link to goals and objectives

  • Existing Conditions Analysis
 – Ground the alternatives in reality
 – Provide a fresh perspective

  • Public Process in Alternatives Development
 – Involvement of the PAC throughout
 – 3 PAC meetings and 1 Public Meeting during development of alternatives
 – 1 PAC meeting and Public Meeting during analysis of alternatives
 – All interactive meetings with the foundation of principles, supported by analysis

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 12
SCOPE OF WORK

  Analyzing Alternatives: Tools
  Tailor to Project Requirements
  • Specific Measures of Effectiveness
 (MOEs) for goals and objectives

  Microsimulation Model (Synchro)
  • To assess the effects of alternatives

  Multimodal Level of Service
  • CompleteStreets LOS Software




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 13
OLD BUSINESS/QUESTIONS FROM PAC

  Road Widths and Lanes
  1. What is MaineDOT's traffic count cut off from a 2 lane to a 4 lane design?
 – There is no standard, other factors come into play
 – 2-lane roads rarely carry more than 20,000/day, 4-lane roads rarely less
 than 10,000
 – Franklin Street carries ~5,000 to ~26,000, depending on location
 – Other factors that affect capacity and Level of Service
 • Curb cuts/access
 • Turning/crossing traffic and ‘pockets’ to accommodate turning movements
 • On-street parking
 • Transit stops
 • Pedestrian crossings
 – Per the three-party Cooperative Agreement, the capacity and Level of
 Service (LOS) shall not be worse with a preferred alternative design than
 the future capacity and LOS of the current configuration


 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 14
OLD BUSINESS/QUESTIONS FROM PAC

  Road Widths and Lanes
  2. MaineDOT's policy regarding road lane widths
 – Depends on the roadway’s functional classification
 • Franklin Street is a “minor arterial”, part of National Highway System
 • Highway Corridor Priority 2 under the Highway Corridor Priority (HCP) approach
 • Travel lane width recommendation:
 – 12’ full depth pavement
 – 11’-12’ striping
 – 4’ -10’ shoulders
 – Maine DOT Policies:
 • 8’ minimum parking (AASHTO)
 • 5’ minimum sidewalk (ADA)
 – We will explore needs based on classification as well as with Metro



 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 15
OLD BUSINESS/QUESTIONS FROM PAC

  Road Widths and Lanes
  3. Designs should consider minimizing width of travelled way (2 lanes each way)
 from Marginal to Congress
 – Noted.


  Repaving Schedule
  4. Repaving schedule for Franklin and implications for timing of design
 – 2014: I-295 to Middle Street
 – 2015: Middle to Commercial Street
 – Mill and fill: removal of existing pavement surface to a specified depth and
 replacing it with suitable depth of new hot mix asphalt
 – Expected service life: 10-12 years


 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 16
OLD BUSINESS/QUESTIONS FROM PAC

  Mapping Data
  5. Base maps, recent and historic data
 – Consultant team will provide a set of base maps showing the range of
 existing conditions
 – Can compare to historic data shown in the first phase report:




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 17
OLD BUSINESS/QUESTIONS FROM PAC

  Temporary Installations
  6. “What short term recommendations or trail efforts from Phase 1 (i.e. on street
 parking around Middle/Fore, reducing the travel lanes to what is suggested in
 Phase 1 concept designs) can we be experimenting with right now…”
 – Recommend exploring in 2014 once alternatives are better developed and
 being analyzed

  Examples
  Outer Congress Street Corridor Study
 – Recommended reduction in travel way widths and restriping to 3
 lanes in some areas (center turn lane) for additional room for cyclists
 – City of Portland/MaineDOT partnered on pilot program prior to
 permanent installation

  • Route 1 Falmouth between the Martins Point Bridge and Route 88
 – Adopted a road diet reducing 4 lane section to 3 lanes
 – Implemented on a trial basis with paint and monitored for a year
 – Trial was successful and permanent installation was completed in 2
 phases

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 18
KEY CONCEPTS

  Smart Cities smarter, not bigger
  • Efficiency and Sustainability
  • Interconnectedness
  • Demand Responsiveness

  • What can be smart?
 – Economy
 – Environment
 – Mobility/accessibility
 – Governance
 – People

  • Examples:
 – Smart signals
 – Smart parking
 – Reporting applications

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 19
KEY CONCEPTS


  TOD placemaking around transit
  16 principles:
 – Multi-modal Transportation
 – Interconnected (grid)
 – Walkability
 – Bicycle Friendly
 – Narrow/Calmed Streets
 – Mixed-use Land Use
 – Compactness
 – Neighborhood Retail St/Employment Center
 – Street facing
 – Urban Parks/Plazas
 – Urban Placemaking Design
 – Streetscape/Design
 – Architectural Variety
 – Safety/Security
 – Relaxed Parking Standard Policy
 – Market Acceptance
 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 20
KEY CONCEPTS


  Complete Streets holistic design
  A street is a single entity - consider
  the needs of all users
  • Multimodal
  • Intermodal
  • Flexible




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 21
KEY CONCEPTS

  Context Sensitive Solutions
  Collaborative, Interdisciplinary

  Project Design
  • CSD includes aesthetic/social/cultural aspects at
 same importance level as engineering

  Public Process
  • Shared Stakeholder Vision
  • Comprehensive Understanding of the Context
  • Communication and Collaboration
  • Flexibility and Creativity




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 22
REVISITING THE VISION STATEMENT

  Reclaiming Franklin Street, Vision Statement
  From 2009 Final Report
 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, public 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.

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 23
REVISITING THE VISION STATEMENT

  Reclaiming Franklin Street, Vision Statement
  Smart Cities / Complete Streets / TOD / CSS
 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, public 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.

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 24
REVISITING THE VISION STATEMENT

  Reclaiming Franklin Street, Vision Statement
  Smart Cities / Complete Streets / TOD / CSS
 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, public 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.

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 25
REVISITING THE VISION STATEMENT

  Reclaiming Franklin Street, Vision Statement
  From 2009 Final Report
 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, public 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.

 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 26
REVISITING THE VISION STATEMENT

  Report on Visioning Exercise




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 27
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

  GOALS
  • Express the purpose(s) for which an action is intended: the END RESULT
  • Will often be complex and not directly measurable
  • Grounded in established visions, policies, or strategies
  • May be so broad as to achieve widespread consensus without surfacing possible inherent
 tensions or conflicts
  • Provide framework for defining objectives

  Objectives
  • Are expressed in terms of observable behaviors or outcomes
  • Identify a desired level of attainment or at least a direction in which the behavior or
 outcome should move relative to the present
  • Provide framework for specific evaluation criteria (Measures of Effectiveness) to
 measure each objective’s success
  • Provide a way to make conflicts between different aspects of goal achievement visible
 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 28
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

  Sources/References
  • Reclaiming Franklin Street Phase 1
  • RFP 313
  • Destination Tomorrow
  • Portland Transportation Plan
  • PACTS Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Update
  • A New Vision for Bayside
  • Sustainable Portland
  • Portland Comprehensive Plan
  • Green Spaces Blue Edges


 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 29
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

  GOALS
  1. ACCESSIBILITY
 – To improve the local and regional accessibility of people and the movement
 of goods

  2. URBANISM & LAND USE
 – To enhance the urban fabric of the city through respectful, compact, and
 sustainable development

  3. ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY
 – To conserve and efficiently use nonrenewable energy resources, protect the
 environment, and improve the urban quality of life

  4. HEALTH & SAFETY
 – To provide a healthy and safe urban environment in which to live and work

  5. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
 – To foster community improvement and enhance social prosperity of the local
 economy


 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 30
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

  Objectives Exercise


  Other Components of Evaluation
  Perception
 – It improves neighborhood mobility and accessibility
 – It improves the built environment of the neighborhoods along Franklin
 – It fosters a healthy and safe environment for the neighborhoods along
 Franklin
 – It improves green spaces and recreation opportunities for the neighborhoods
 along Franklin
 – It contributes to the vitality of local businesses in the neighborhoods along
 Franklin

  Level of Investment
 – Relative Cost to Implement
 – Relative impact on regional and municipal budgets
 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 31
NEXT STEPS

  Wrap-up / Next Steps
  Meeting Minutes/Website/FB

  Next Deliverable: Goals and Objectives Memorandum

  Next PAC Meeting (#2): October 2nd
 – Major Focus: Refined Goals and Objectives, Existing Conditions, First
 Discussion of Alternatives
 – Pre-meeting materials: Existing Conditions, No-Build Traffic Results,
 Forecasting Assumptions

  PAC #3 / Public Meeting #1: Late January
 – Major Focus: Alternatives Development




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
  IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 32
 Thank You




 Franklin Street Corridor Feasibility Study Phase II, PAC#1
IBI Group Team
 June 26, 2013 33

Franklin Street Redevelopment Study Phase II
 Public Advisory Committee Meeting
 June 26, 2013
 Portland City Hall

Committee Members: Markos Miller, Hank Berg, Scott Markowski, Christian MilNeil, Bob
Stevens, Doug Foss, Jamie Parker, Jon Graback, Yugo Yobo, Chris O’Neil, Ethan Boxer-
Macomber, Elizabeth Hoglund, Sally Oldham, Chris Wells, Alex Landry, Hugh Nazor, Mark
Adelson

Staff: Mike Bobinsky, Jeremiah Bartlett, and Bruce Hyman, Bill Needelman, City of Portland;
Carl Eppich, PACTS; Darryl Belz, MaineDOT; Tegin Teich and Ritesh Warade, IBI Group; Molly
Casto, Gorrill-Palmer; Carol Morris and Scott Hastings, Morris Communications

Meeting Summary: This first PAC meeting of the Phase 2 study focused on providing an
overview of the study principles, tasks and timeline and how it will differ from the Phase 1
study. The role and responsibilities of PAC members was outlined, with an emphasis on their
key role in public outreach. The major work was to get the new PAC’s feedback on the
Phase 1 Vision Statement.

An important message is that the goal of the study is not to pick one of the three alternatives
created in Phase 1, but to look at the elements in all alternatives and find the combination that
best supports the Vision Statement.

The meeting provided answers to specific PAC questions on MaineDOT requirements on two
and four-lane roads, Levels of Service, and emphasis on new housing.

Members were asked to review the Phase 1 Vision Statement to determine if any changes were
needed.

They also heard about the difference between a Goal (general and easy to support) and an
Objective (more specific, sometimes conflicting and can be a source of disagreement) and the
Measures of Effectiveness the study would use to quantify these. Members gave feedback on
proposed Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness to be incorporated into the first deliverable
for this project.

Meeting Decisions: Members made suggestions for minor tweaks to the Vision Statement
around housing, affordability and walkability.




 Franklin St. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes 1
Meeting Report

Meeting started at 6:01 pm

Markos Miller, chairman of the Public Advisory Committee (PAC), opened the meeting and
asked everyone in attendance to introduce themselves.

Mike Bobinsky, Director of Portland’s Department of Public Services, thanked the committee
members who had been involved with the Phase 1 project for their patience and commitment
in the time between phases. He also announced the partnering agreement that the city has
entered into with MaineDOT and PACTS that should help the project move forward quickly and
with clearly defined roles.

Tegin Teich, from IBI Group, and lead of the consulting team, introduced herself and the rest of
the consulting team. She then turned the floor over to Carol Morris of Morris Communications.

Carol reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She then discussed the role of the PAC and the
schedule for the project. The PAC will meet five times of the course of the 16-month project.
She noted that meetings will need to be focused and productive.

Carol then went over the differences between the current Phase 2 study and the previous
Phase 1 study. Phase 1 was a long and intensive public process with a large number of PAC and
public meetings. It created a solid Vision Statement and three alternatives that covered all of
the potential ideas and elements seen as good ideas for the corridor. Phase 2 will work on
taking the elements identified in the three alternatives and putting together one feasible and
implementable recommendation.

The PAC meetings will be collaborative, hands on affairs. The goal is for them to have more of a
workshop feel then a traditional meeting format. Ultimately the group will be seeking to
achieve general support for the end solution so that it can be moved forward to
implementation.

Carol reminded the group that they were not just there as individuals but as representatives of
their respective neighborhoods, communities and advocacy groups. The committee members
were asked to seek feedback on the project from these constituencies so as to better inform
the process. The study team will be working hard to be transparent and will be posting
materials and minutes to a webpage within the city website. A Facebook page will also be
maintained to make information easily available to the general public. There will be two public
meetings in the course of the study, so getting the word out will be an important job that the
committee members will take a lead role.

At this point Tegin took the floor. She reviewed the study area, noting that it is a fairly narrow
corridor but that data collection and mapping will cover a larger area. She then presented the
project tasks. First the project would revisit the Phase 1 work to make sure that nothing has


 2
changed in the intervening time. Additional, in-depth data analysis will be done of the existing
conditions. From this and PAC input, three refined alternatives will be developed. Those will be
assessed in measureable ways from which one final recommendation will be made. Throughout
this process there will be regular PAC involvement. The project is scheduled to be completed in
December of 2014.

Tegin said that the alternatives developed will be based on the vision statement and identified
goals. The meeting would review those and adjust them as necessary. The alternatives and
final recommendation would also be heavily influenced by the existing conditions analysis and
the input from the PAC and public meetings.

Carol added that email will be used by the study team to distribute information and materials
to the PAC between meetings, so an ongoing stream of information will be available.

Tegin continued with a quick review of how the alternatives would be evaluated. They would
be measured against a list of Measures of Effectiveness that the team will develop based on
their expertise and input from the PAC at this meeting. They would also be run through a micro
simulation Syncro model and be evaluated using a Complete Streets Level of Service rubric for
all modes.

A committee member asked what the baseline data for the bike and pedestrian evaluation was
like.

Tegin responded that they did have some counts, but that primarily the model would
determine the bike/ped evaluation. It will take into account road/sidewalk geometries, curbs,
crash data, and viewsheds, among other data. The Multimodal LOS is a tool that is increasingly
used for this type of work.

A committee member commented that MDOT’s 2011 traffic counts appear to show a continued
lack of volume growth.

Tegin agreed and noted that some data showed an increase, specifically in the vicinity of the
marginal way intersection due to new commercial development in the area.

A committee member noted that due to the currently unfriendly conditions over much of the
corridor, the proposed changes could have a significant effect on bike and pedestrian usage.
Tegin agreed. She then presented the answers to some questions the PAC had asked at an
earlier date. First, the PAC has asked what MaineDOT’s cut off was between a 2-lane and a 4-
lane road. There is no standard traffic count for this distinction. Two-lane roads rarely carry
more than 20,000 cars a day on average and 4-lane roads rarely carry less than 10,000 cars a
day on average. This leaves some middle ground. Depending on where in the corridor, Franklin
carries an average of between ~5,000 and ~26,000 cars a day. Other factors that influence the
capacity of a road include number of curb cuts, turning and crossing traffic, on-street parking,
transit and pedestrian crossings. Part of the partnering agreement between the City,
 Franklin St. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes 3
MaineDOT, and PACTS is that level of service on the corridor cannot be made worse at any
point. This provides a baseline that the consulting team will be working from.

A committee member noted that they had asked that question and the reasoning behind it was
if the road was dropped to two lanes south of Congress St., how much developable land would
be gained and would the loss of capacity be regretted as the eastern waterfront continues to be
developed.

Tegin responded that she could not answer that at the moment but that currently that section
of road carries very little traffic in comparison to the rest of the corridor. There is a very large
right of way along the corridor and all three of the previous alternatives show a reduction to
two lanes for that portion of the road.

A committee member noted some concern about the partnership agreement to retain level of
service on the corridor.

Tegin noted that the statement allowed for some flexibility but that she would ask PACTS, the
MaineDOT and the City for their official thoughts.

Darryl Belz from the MaineDOT noted that it was written that way so that the road’s capacity
was not diminished but that it was felt to have a lot of room for flexibility in the forms the final
alternative could take.

Ritesh Warade, from IBI Group, noted that the overall goal for the project was to improve the
level of service for all modes along the corridor.

A committee member asked how levels of service were determined.

Tegin responded that that was a more technical topic and while there was not time to answer
the question now the study team would follow up via email to the PAC afterwards.

A committee member said that there was a lot of land to be freed up just from moving the
sides of the road together and asked if the land being freed up could possibly be developed for
housing.

Tegin responded that housing was definitely on the table and the opportunity to prioritize it
would be part of the vision session. The first phase did discuss what development could happen
with a narrowing of the road and this phase will continue with that discussion.

The second question that the PAC had given to the study team ahead of time was in regards to
MaineDOT’s policies on lane width. Again, MaineDOT had no strict cut and dried answer.
Federal recommendations for a minor arterial call for 11 to 12-foot lanes. This is a
recommendation for travel lanes and transit does generally call for 11-foot lanes. The
recommended minimum width for parallel parking is eight feet. Sidewalks are recommended


 4
to be a minimum of five feet and Tegin noted that this was really a bare minimum and where
possible they should be wider.

The third point the PAC brought up ahead of time was that lane width should be minimized and
Tegin said that that was noted and the team would make sure to keep that in mind. The fourth
point was a question on when the road was up to be repaved. The section from I-295 to Middle
Street was scheduled to be repaved in the summer of 2014 and the section from Middle Street
to Commercial St. would be done in 2015. This would allow for trying out some striping
changes on the second portion.

The fifth question asked by the PAC was related to the mapping that would be done for this
project. Tegin emphasized that a large set of maps were being developed and that a list could
be shown if desired. This information will be forthcoming in an email.

Finally the PAC had asked what parts of the Phase 1 plan could the city be working on now.
Tegin answered that the study team would be coming out with some short-term
recommendations in early 2014.

At this point Tegin presented the four overarching principles of the project. She hoped that
they would inform the PAC’s work in the review of the visioning statement. The four principles
are as follows:

  Smart Cities: The idea of smart cities is that of maximizing efficiency and sustainability
 through careful planning and application of technology where appropriate.
  Transit Oriented Development: Transit oriented development is concerned with making
 sure that development encourages a robust transit system. This means appropriate land
 use and design combined with policy that encourages transit.
  Complete Streets: Complete Streets is the idea that streets must serve all modes of
 transportation. There must be consideration given to how and where people change
 modes of transportation and the transportation system should be flexible to meet the
 needs of everyday life. Different streets serve different needs and they should reflect
 this in how they serve different modes of transportation.
  Context Sensitive Solutions: The context sensitive solutions approach to problems
 acknowledges that every place is different and so every place needs its own solution to
 its own problems. It is a collaborative interdisciplinary way of looking at and solving
 problems.

Tegin then presented the Vision Statement from Phase 1. She noted that it was a very
comprehensive statement and portions of it could be directly mapped to the four principles she
had just introduced. The vision statement was then broken down into pieces and the PAC was
asked to vote on which pieces were most important to them. The opportunity to add points
that were felt to be missing was also available.



 Franklin St. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes 5
Carol took the floor to quickly review the purpose of this exercise. She noted that she
understood that the people on PAC that were involved in Phase one were likely already happy
with the Vision Statement as is. However she noted that it was now years later and with new
people present, it was important to come back to it and make sure that it still reflected the
group’s values and desires. The purpose of the exercise was to get an idea of what parts of it
were most important to the group and to make sure that nothing important was left out.
Nothing would be removed from the Vision Statement, even if that section received no votes.

A committee member asked if they should approach the exercise as to create a vision
statement that covers the existing three alternatives or one that will guide the final alternative.

Carol said the latter, and Tegin agreed, saying that this was not to create a new vision
statement but to give the team some idea of the relative importance of the various parts of the
statement as it exists. Carol added that it would also give the team an idea of where agreement
and disagreement might be, and what areas might need more discussion.

There was a question about what the term “optimum architecture” meant in this context.
Members of the Phase 1 PAC explained that they had considered it to mean, “the best we could
get”.

At this point the PAC was invited to stand up and go to prepared boards where they could vote
via stickers and write any comments they had.

After the exercise was completed Carol quickly reviewed the boards and noted that the two
items with the most votes were: Vibrant urban corridor and enhance the urban fabric. Four
new items had been added: Maximize residential development, conserve capacity of working
waterfront, preserve equalitarian nature of development, and accommodate tourist uses.

Carol asked for comments on the “maximize residential development” point:

A committee member noted that at first glance they appreciate the point and agree with it.
One of the Phase 1 alternatives tried to maximize residential development and they felt putting
it so expressly in the vision statement would make it favor that one alternative over the others.

Carol asked the group if this point was something they would like to add to the vision
statement.

A committee member noted that they felt it was already covered by the mixed-use
development reference in the existing vision statement.

Another committee member agreed, but felt an emphasis on the residential part of mixed use
could be added. They noted that residential development is an important part of making a lot
of other things work.



 6
A committee member said that they were reluctant to add anything to the vision statement
because it was already quite long but felt that it was worth emphasizing this point. He also
wanted to add that if this effort was to update the vision statement for 2013, the PAC might
want to consider the realities that have changed in the last few years. Federal funding sources
have diminished and MaineDOT is seeing a slow but steady decrease in fuel tax funds. This
means the project needs to be more conscious of the maintenance and construction costs of
the road as well as maximizing the city’s economic benefits. They felt that it was already
covered but important to keep in mind.

Another committee member agreed and noted that that those costs might influence the
placement of the road as the project progresses.

A committee member said that it is important to keep in mind development off of the
immediate corridor. Improving the road will improve the developmental prospects of parcels
that do not front on it and those developments will create traffic that will affect the corridor.

Jeremiah Bartlett from the City said that he gets leery about talk about the expected amounts
of development. He felt that the group should be considering complementary development
and think more about the type of street that they want rather than being held hostage by
traffic counts.

A committee member mentioned that providing egalitarian housing opportunities is an
important issue to the East Bayside neighborhood. They want to keep things in the area
affordable. It was acknowledged that this might involve building a lot more housing in the area.
The area was seen as having some of the only available land in Maine where housing could be
built to serve less affluent populations who may not have or want a car. They pointed out that
new development creating traffic does not have to be the case if that development is oriented
to people who do not have cars. They pointed to the lower end of Franklin Street that has seen
significant new development including multiple large hotels in the last few years and there has
not been an associated increase in traffic.

Carol asked if anyone disagreed about added language about equality to the vision statement,
another suggestion.

A committee member said that they felt it had been discussed extensively during the creation
of the vision statement and so should already be a part of it.

A question was asked what would happen to the points that received less or no votes.

Carol repeated that nothing was going to be removed from the Visions Statement. She then
asked how people defined a “vibrant urban corridor”.




 Franklin St. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes 7
This led to some discussion but the overwhelming agreement was that it required more people,
at more times of day. Buildings should front on the street and actively interact with it. Activity
was the desired result.

A committee member added that diversity was also a key point. Not just racial diversity but
income diversity and diversity in housing. They also felt that transit to serve the increased
people and activity was important.

A committee member agreed with that and said that they could sum up their earlier comments
on equalitarianism as economic diversity.

Another committee member mentioned a diversity of small businesses

A committee member said that they would like to see more emphasis on bikes and pedestrians
over cars and cited a Canadian city that has officially committed to serving those modes over
car modes.

Carol noted that this would be a big discussion.

A few city officials responded with the general consensus that the city was committed to
serving all modes of transportation equally.

A committee member agreed with the City, saying that while some streets could be prioritized
Franklin will always need to be able to handle fairly significant car traffic.

A committee member countered that a more developed street grid would take some of the
traffic off of Franklin and slow traffic.

Another committee member said that “walkable” should be added to the definition of a vibrant
urban corridor.

Seeing no further comment Carol closed the vision exercise, noting that she did not see the
need for any major changes to the vision statement, though there would be some minor
tweaking. A revised Vision Statement would be sent out to the PAC for comment via email in
the next few weeks.

Tegin took the floor to begin the discussion of goals and objectives for the study. She first
made the distinction between goals and objectives clear. Goals are high-level concepts that are
supported by the whole group. They are broad, can be a bit vague, and are open to some
interpretation. They come out of the Vision Statement and provide framework for the
objectives. Objectives are more detailed and may be disputed. They can even be in conflict
with one another. For example, calming traffic and avoiding traffic diversion could both be
objectives but to some extent traffic calming measures can increase diversion. Objectives must
be measurable and will be weighted so as to help resolve conflicts.


 8
The study team had identified five broad categories of goals and objectives that they pulled
from the Phase I report as well as in review of similar projects throughout Portland. They are:
  Accessibility: The accessibility of people and movement of goods into and out of the
 area.
  Urbanism and Land Use: Creating development that is respectful of context, efficient
 and sustainable; enhancing the urban fabric.
  Environment and Energy: Using resources efficiently and improving quality of life while
 having a small environmental impact.
  Health and Safety: Create a safe and healthy place to live and work.
  Community and Economic Development: Foster community involvement and increase
 the social prosperity of the local economy.

Tegin asked if these were good goals to have and if there was anything major missing.

Carl Eppich, from PACTS, said that he felt equity should be expressly included.

This sparked some discussion about the meaning of equity and where it would fit. Many felt it
was a part of all of the goals, particularly accessibility with that possibly including accessibility
to housing and jobs. It was clear from discussion that the intent for this project is that all
people should benefit from it.

A committee member asked where aesthetics and design would fit and if it was part of
Urbanism and Land Use.

Tegin said that it did fit under that category and that it came out more explicitly in the specific
objectives.

Another committee member said that they would like to see a more dynamic word than
“enhance” and suggestions were, “enliven”, “vitalize”, and “enrich”.

Tegin described the next exercise. The group would break up in to five smaller groups and each
would be given one of the categories of broad goals. Each group would then examine the
proposed objectives and their proposed measures of effectiveness for that category

At this point, the group split into five smaller groups to undertake the exercise.

After the excise was completed, Tegin noted that she felt some good discussion had taken place
in the groups and reviewed the next steps, in which the study team would create a list of
objectives and their proposed measures of effectiveness for the PAC to review.

At this point Carol took the floor to review next steps. She said that minutes of PAC meetings
would be completed with two weeks and that each would have a summary and list of decisions
made. The next PAC meeting was to be in early October but the study team would keep the
 Franklin St. PAC Meeting 1 Minutes 9
PAC up-to-date through email. The PAC was asked to look for the revised Vision Statement and
the list of objectives in the near future. She asked that PAC members endeavor to get
comments back within a week on material emailed to them. She also asked that PAC members
“reply all” so that the rest of the committee can see everything that happens. A question was
asked if conversation and discussion could be done in a medium other than email. There was
some discussion about this and the study team agreed to look into it.

Markos Miller reminded the committee that any questions could be sent to either Carol or
himself and that they would send them on to the consulting team.

Carol asked if materials and updates should be saved up for a monthly blast of information or if
they should be sent out piecemeal as they are available.

There was some discussion but no real answer to this question as opinions were different as to
which was best.

A committee member asked if they could give Carol the times in which their respective groups
(such as neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups) meet so that the release of material
could be timed so that it is available for these meetings.

Carol felt that this was a good idea and asked that anyone in that situation email her the
meeting times of his or her groups.

Mike Bobinsky wanted to remind the PAC that the city has a Transportation and Energy
Sustainability Committee that will be discussing the study and will officially receive and review
the final document. He also felt that the PAC members should remain in close contact with the
city council where possible and reminded them that the council had appointed them to the
PAC.

Jeremiah thanked the consultant team for their work in presenting the large amount of
information in the meeting quickly and coherently.

Markos thanked the new PAC members for coming and agreeing to be involved and then
thanked the PAC members that had been previously involved for sticking with the project.

The meeting ended at 8:01




 10