State Street Corridor Plan Land Use and Street Design ... · Appendix A: Street Design Alternatives...

Tier 1 Screening of Land Use and Street Design Alternatives State Street Corridor Plan

TGM 2D-14: Technical Memo #4

August 2, 2016

Final

Prepared by:

Tier 1 Screening of Land Use and Street Design Alternatives TGM 2D-14 – Technical Memo 4

August 2, 2016 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Purpose of this Memo ..................................................................................................... 1

2 Land Use Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Existing Zones ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.2 Proposed New Zones .................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Addressing Non-Conforming Situations ................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Description of Land Use Alternatives ............................................................................................ 5

2.4 Maps: Land Use Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 6

2.5 Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Land Use Alternatives ....................................................... 11 2.5.1 Goal: Promote Economic Vitality and Livability ..................................................................................... 11 2.5.2 Goal: Improve Multimodal Access And Safety ....................................................................................... 15 2.5.3 Goal: Encourage Feasible Improvements .............................................................................................. 16

3 Street Design Alternatives ............................................................................................ 18

3.1 Existing Street Conditions ........................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Description of Street Design Alternatives ................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 Alternative 1 – Four Lane ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Road Diet ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Alternative 3 – Hybrid Street Design ..................................................................................................... 23

3.3 Evaluation of Existing and Proposed Street Design Alternatives ................................................ 27 3.3.1 Goal: Promote Economic Vitality and Livability ..................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 Goal: Improve Multimodal Access And Safety ....................................................................................... 31 3.3.3 Goal: Encourage Feasible Improvements .............................................................................................. 34

4 Overall Summary of Performance ................................................................................. 38

Appendix A: Street Design Alternatives Drawings ................................................................ 40


August 2, 2016 Page 1

1 PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO

The State Street Corridor Plan (Plan) is intended to revitalize State Street into a vibrant, attractive,

walkable mixed-use corridor through coordinated land use and transportation improvements. One of

the outcomes of the State Street Corridor Plan is land use regulations for the Study Area that remove

barriers to mixed-use development and provide simple design standards that promote pedestrian-

oriented development. Another outcome of the Plan is to identify a new street design for State Street

that supports the land use vision and accommodates facilities and amenities to make people walking

and biking feel welcome and comfortable.

Previous memos and booklets evaluated the existing and future land use and transportation conditions

on State Street. The needs were then reviewed and potential solutions prioritized by stakeholders. This

memorandum presents proposed land use and street design alternatives intended to address the

priorities identified by the community. It also provides a qualitative screening of the alternatives that

describes their performance using the high-level Evaluation Criteria established in Revised

Memorandum #1.

The land use alternatives will either revise an existing mixed-use zone or create a new zone that permits

a mix of uses, including residential and commercial uses. Design standards will be incorporated into the

new or revised zone that address building design, parking, landscaping, walking and biking access and

connectivity. The land use regulations will be developed for adoption into the City’s Unified

Development Code (UDC) in a manner that would allow them to be applied to other areas of the City

where similar development is desired.

The street design alternatives are intended to address the pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular

needs of the corridor. However, given the limited right of way, they explore different degrees of

enhancement and trade-offs between the various modes.

2 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES

Two zoning approaches were examined to achieve the goal to create a new mixed-use zone. One

considered modifying existing zones and the other focused on creating a new zone. Based on staff input,

it was determined that a new zone would best effect the kind of change that is envisioned for the State

Street corridor. The two proposed approaches are more fully described in section 2.2 Proposed New

Zones.

2.1 EXISTING ZONES In an earlier memo, “Land Use and Zoning Analysis Memorandum” (published in February 2016), the

team reviewed current zones to identify barriers to the development or redevelopment of pedestrian-

friendly, mixed-use projects. The memo evaluated base zones, overlay zones and variances.

There are primarily five base zones in the State Street study area: Retail Commercial (CR); Commercial

Office (CO); Multiple Family Residential-II (RM-II); and Duplex Residential (RD), Single Family Residential

(RS).



Below is a summary description of the three zones that occur on the blocks immediately abutting State

Street:

CR (Retail Commercial) Zone

• Uses: Allows a wide array of retail sales, office uses, eating and drinking establishments; auto-

oriented uses are also allowed.

• Development standards: Somewhat urban in character (e.g., minimal setbacks and no maximum

lot coverage), but limits building height to 50 feet.

CO (Commercial Office) Zone:

• Uses: Allows a broad range of uses with relatively high intensities; however, eating and drinking

establishments and retail are limited. Auto-oriented uses are prohibited.

• Development standards: Somewhat suburban in character (e.g., deep setbacks and constrained

lot coverage) but allows building heights up to 70 feet for mixed-use development.

RM2 (Multiple Family Residential 2) Zone:

• Uses: Multi-family housing (three or more dwelling units) is allowed. Eating and drinking

establishments, retail and office uses are prohibited; personal services are limited.

• Development standards: Similar to CO. Densities range from 12 to 28 dwelling units per acre.

2.2 PROPOSED NEW ZONES The recommended zoning framework is a “family” of two related, context sensitive, new mixed-use

zones that would apply to portions of the entire corridor. At this time, there are a number of possible

patterns for the two proposed zones, as described in the maps and evaluation criteria in the following

sections. Each pattern or configuration provides a different response to the context and to community

feedback, and performs differently against certain goals, objectives and criteria, according to the

Evaluation (Section 2.5).

The framework family is made up of two proposed new zones, as described in the following summary.

Proposed MU-1

• Description: MU-1 zone is the most urban and allows the highest intensity development. MU-1 is

intended to result in buildings that are primarily multi-story mixed-use, with retail or office on

the ground floor, and residential or office uses in upper floors. Ground floor retail is a priority in

this zone, therefore the zoning may require buildings to have, at the ground floor, minimum

floor-to-ceiling height and fire resistive construction. These standards ensure that retail can be

accommodated in the future if it’s not economically viable upon construction. Buildings in this

zone have no (or minimal) setbacks and the facades have a high level of architectural detail.

• Uses: Multi-story mixed-use buildings are prioritized. Development that is mixed-use but in

which the retail uses and the residential uses are in separate buildings on the same site are

permitted, with limitations. Standalone multi-family housing development is permitted as a

conditional use only.



• Development Standards and Building Envelope: This zone is high density and has development

standards with no setbacks. The highest proposed maximum height is approximately 4 stories

and 55 feet. Buildings in this zone may cover 100 percent of the site area.

• Building Frontage and Façade Standards: The side of buildings which face State Street will be

required to provide weather protection, such as awnings; a high percentage of transparency on

the ground floor, through windows and doors, and a primary entrance. Additional standards to

emphasize vertical and horizontal architectural details of the building façade are required, but

provided in a menu format, so the developer and designer may select which standards to

comply with. Examples of such façade standards include the highlighting of structural bays; or

the base, middle and top of the building, and expression of the bulkhead and cornice

components of a storefront.

Proposed MU-2

• Description: MU-2 zone is a less intense mixed-use zone that is primarily multi-family

housing and mixed-use buildings. Residential uses are permitted at the ground floor, but are

required to incorporate vertical and horizontal separation from the sidewalk zone to ensure

privacy for residents, and provide an adequate transition between the living unit and the

public realm.

• Uses: Horizontal mixed-use buildings are permitted; standalone multi-family housing

developments are permitted. Office and retail uses are permitted.

• Development Standards and Building Envelope: This zone is medium density and has

development standards with low to no setbacks; buildings will be medium height

(approximately three stories and 45 feet).

• Building Frontage and Façade Standards: Building frontage and façade standards are

proposed to be the same as in MU-1.

2.2.1 Addressing Non-Conforming Situations

Nonconforming uses are created when a new zoning designation that has different regulations for land

uses is placed on a property, and the current land uses become illegal, or nonconforming under the new

regulations. Another type of nonconformity is possible when an existing building does not meet the

urban form requirements, or development standards. The proposed new zoning requirements for State

Street will seek to minimize the creation of nonconforming uses and buildings. In the event that the new

zoning places limits on certain uses (such as gas stations), or places limitations on certain site or building

design (such as parking in front of buildings) there are a variety of approaches to encourage gradual

compliance to the new code while at the same time encouraging productive use of existing developed

properties. These approaches are in use in many Oregon cities, including Salem, and elsewhere in North

America. Example approaches are described below:

Development Phasing Plan. Current uses are permitted to occupy the land according to a phased

development plan. This approach is intended to correct nonconforming uses and/or building form over

time while allowing interim redevelopment or expansion. An example would be a development with the

parking in the front and a code requirement to have parking to the rear or side of the building. A request

to expand the nonconforming building would include a phasing plan to show how the property would be

brought into compliance in phases and how the building expansion supports this transition. This plan

would be approved along with the building expansion the owner wants to do today. This approach could



be used to encourage eventual code compliance by allowing interim development and removing the

onerous expectation to achieve full code compliance all at once.

Meet new development standards in exchange for maintaining an existing incompatible or

nonconforming use. Allow (or permit) a nonconforming use to occupy a site, even to make needed

improvements, as long as it meets new development standards. An example would be a gas station,

permitted to remain on a site within a newly-designated pedestrian-priority zone, as long as it meets

new standards such as perimeter site landscaping, and eliminating or narrowing driveways and curb

cuts. The goal is to achieve a more attractive and safe pedestrian environment while allowing a

longstanding business to continue to serve the area.

A Tiered Proportional Compliance Provision. Allow for incremental improvements for existing

developments through a series of thresholds based on percentage of improvement and the underlying

value of development. When the percentage of improvement to development value is low, the project is

exempt from development standards, while higher thresholds require the existing development to meet

a pre-selected but limited set of new development standards. This approach focuses on incremental but

meaningful improvements while providing flexibility for businesses and property owners.

Site-Specific Variances or Adjustments. If site-specific circumstances prevent an applicant from

complying with development use standards, the applicant may gain approval, as long as the proposed

use is a permitted or conditional use, and it meets fire-life-safety regulations, including floodplain

regulations. Sites which may be in need of site-specific variances or adjustments can be identified during

the re-zoning project



2.3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Existing Zoning Pattern

Figure A West End Focus

Figure B West End Focus with

Southern Addition Figure C

West End Nodal Focus w/Eastern Addition

(Figure D)

Entire Corridor Nodal Focus (Figure E)

Primary CR Zone Locations: • 14th intersection west

to 12th • Intersections at 17th,

19th, 21st, and 25th Primary CO Zone Locations:

• Between 14th and 17th • Between 17th and 18th • Between 21st and 23rd

Primary RM2 Zone Locations:

• South of CR/CO between 14th and 17th

• Intermittently north and south of State Street east of 21st

Purpose Statement: This alternative is intended to create a concentrated, intense area of mixed-use development to the west end of State Street. Change is limited for the most part to the lots directly facing the corridor.

Purpose Statement: This alternative is intended to create two concentrated centers of mixed-use development surrounded by a larger swath of less intense development at the west end of State Street.

Purpose Statement: This alternative is intended to create three concentrated centers of mixed-use development at the west end of State Street, and a consistent level of lower intensity development at the east end of State Street. Change is limited for the most part to the lots directly facing the corridor.

Purpose Statement: This alternative is intended to create a concentrated, intense area of mixed-use development to the far west end of State Street, and, to the east end, four concentrated centers of mixed-use development, interspersed with less intense mixed-use development. Change is limited for the most part to the lots directly facing the corridor.

• West end focus • Highest intensity • Single zone

• West end focus • Mixed intensity in nodal

pattern • Two zones • Southern addition

• Entire corridor focus • West of 21st mixed

intensity in nodal pattern

• East of 21st consistent application of MU-2

• Two zones

• Entire corridor focus • High intensity west of

17th • Mixed intensity in a

nodal pattern east of 17th

• Two zones



2.4 MAPS: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Figure A. Existing Zoning



Figure B. Land Use Alternative: West End Focus



Figure C. Land Use Alternative: West End Focus with Southern Addition



Figure D. Land Use Alternative: West End Nodal Focus with Eastern Addition



Figure E. Land Use Alternative: Entire Corridor Nodal Focus



2.5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE ALTERNATIVES The following qualitative screening measures the performance of each of the land use alternatives depicted in Figures 1 through

5 above against the high-level Evaluation Criteria established in Revised Memorandum #1. Evaluated alternatives include the

existing zoning pattern and the four proposed new Land Use Alternatives.

Performance: Each alternative is qualitatively evaluated for how it performs under each criteria. The cells have been color coded

to help identify what alternatives perform well and what alternatives perform less well or poorly. The performance breakdown is

as follows:

Best Good Fair No Improvement Over

Existing Conditions Worse

2.5.1 Goal: Promote Economic Vitality and Livability

Objective: Encourages pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development and redevelopment of underutilized properties

Criteria Existing Zoning (Figure A)

West End Focus (Figure B)

West End Nodal Focus w/Southern Addition (Figure C)


(Figure D)


Allows a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses by right, while minimizing auto-oriented uses

CR (Retail Commercial) permits auto-oriented uses, yet it is located around the intersections that have been identified as clusters for walkable mixed-use development or nodes. In addition, CR limits multi-family housing development.

CO lines the west end of the corridor between major intersections, and occurs intermittently east of the Creek, yet it does not promote many of the uses that would be desirable on the corridor; e.g., it limits eating and drinking establishments. CO permits multi-family housing uses, but requires suburban character; e.g., deep setbacks, limited lot coverage.

On the east end of the corridor, low lot coverage standards in RM2 limit development intensity.

This alternative would encourage more commercial retail versus office, and it would also encourage multi-family above commercial along the western portion of the corridor.

It would provide more regulatory encouragement for multi-family mixed with commercial compared to the existing zoning. This would complement the existing single-family housing stock in the study area.

The proposed standards are intended to fit the circumstances in the corridor, and in many cases would offer minimum-maximum dimensions to provide flexibility. Nonconforming situations would be allowed to expand or remodel with proportional rather than full code compliance to encourage redevelopment.

This alternative would encourage concentration of retail at intersections and office in between along State Street. Multi-family with commercial would be encouraged along the western portion of the corridor.

Similar encouragement of multi-family mixed with commercial to West End Focus.

Same flexible approach as West End Focus for incentivizing development and redevelopment that supports corridor goals and objectives.

This alternative would allow similar pattern of retail and commercial uses (except auto oriented) compared to existing zoning with the encouragement of multi-family residential.


New permitted retail and commercial uses would apply to the entire corridor.


This alternative is similar to West End Nodal Focus with Eastern Addition, but would allow higher intensity overall.


New permitted retail and commercial uses would apply to the entire corridor.








(Figure D)


Requires or encourages pedestrian-oriented site and building design (e.g., building orientation and setback, pedestrian connections, location of parking)

None of the existing zones intentionally require pedestrian-oriented site and building design.

New zoning, where it is applied, would intentionally require pedestrian-oriented site and building design.

This alternative would incorporate regulatory encouragement to bring building facades up to the sidewalk, minimize parking along the street frontage, and to pay more attention to pedestrian connections.

Regulatory encouragement would apply to land west of the Creek and directly facing State Street.

The new MU-1 Zone calls for greater architectural detail and pedestrian orientation, such as minimum ground floor glazing, location of building entrances close to the street, and weather protection.


This alternative would incorporate regulatory encouragement to bring building facades up to the sidewalk, minimize parking along the street frontage, and to pay more attention to pedestrian connections.

Regulatory encouragement would apply to land west of the Creek directly facing State Street and a number of sites in the southwestern corner of the study area.


These alternatives would provide more regulatory encouragement to bring building facades up to the sidewalk, minimize parking along the street frontage, and to pay more attention to pedestrian connections.

Regulatory encouragement would apply to lots directly facing the corridor, along the length of the entire corridor.

The new MU-1 and MU-2 Zones call for greater architectural detail and pedestrian orientation, such as minimum ground floor glazing, location of building entrances close to the street, and weather protection.

Allows a variety of housing types that would accommodate identified populations (e.g., University faculty and students, state workers)

CR (Retail Commercial) limits multi-family housing development, yet is located around the intersections that have been identified as clusters for higher intensity residential development, or nodes.

While CO permits multi-family housing uses, it requires suburban character; e.g., deep setbacks, limited lot coverage.

Low lot coverage standards in RM2 limit residential development intensity and variety.

The new MU-1 Zone would provide greater opportunity for mixed-use commercial/residential, which would increase the opportunity for multi-family units in the area closest to Willamette University and state offices.

Similarly focused on the west end as in West End Focus, this alternative would increase the potential for a variety of housing options by adding MU-2 to the southern portion of land around Ferry Street.

By designating the largest amount of land to MU-1 and MU-2, these alternatives would provide the greatest potential for the greatest variety of housing types.

Removes existing regulatory barriers (e.g., process, setbacks, parking)

Due to the requirements of existing zones and their mapped location, a number of barriers to the desired form of development have been inadvertently created.

Although details are not yet fully developed, concepts would remove regulatory barriers. Because new zoning applies to the entire corridor, more barriers would be removed.

Provides incentives through code amendments, public improvements and/or other means

None of the existing zones intentionally create incentives to the desired pattern of development.

Although details are not yet fully developed, concepts would provide incentives. Because new zoning applies to the entire corridor, more incentives would be provided.

All of the land use alternatives are designed to transform the State Street corridor into a place that promotes pedestrian-friendly

mixed-use development and redevelopment. Both West End Nodal Focus w/Eastern Addition and Entire Corridor Nodal Focus

perform best simply because the new zones are extended to the entire corridor. Together, the zones MU-1 and MU-2 would

permit the greatest residential density, and because each permits vertical or horizontal mixed-use buildings, they permit the

widest variety of residential development forms.



Objective: Creates a safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment



West End Focus w/Southern Addition (Figure C)

West End Nodal Focus w/Eastern Addition (Figure D)


Requires or encourages attractive, pedestrian-friendly design features to complement site and building design as noted above (e.g., landscaping, transparency/ windows)

Taller buildings are permitted by the CO zone (between nodes), while heights at nodes are limited. This is the opposite of the desired height and density pattern.

The tallest buildings and most urban development character would be allowed and/or required between 12th and the Creek through development and design standards (such as reduced front setbacks and façade design and transparency). Current zoning and design requirements to remain east of the creek.

The western half of State Street would become the primary destination in the corridor.

Pedestrian-friendly elements would include site amenities such as pedestrian-scale lighting and landscaping.

This alternative would encourage a similar urban character to West End Focus through development and design standards, but with the tallest buildings only possible between 12th and 14th and 17th and 21st. MU-2 would extend south so that Ferry Street could evolve to be an extension of the pedestrian-friendly character on State Street.

The western half of State Street would be the primary focus, but with less retail emphasis.

The same pedestrian-friendly elements as West End Focus would apply.

These alternatives would encourage an urban character along the entire State Street corridor. The new MU-1 and MU-2 Zones would apply to all land immediately adjacent to the corridor.

The same pedestrian-friendly elements as West End Focus would apply, including site amenities such as pedestrian-scale lighting and landscaping.

Focuses on place and placemaking by emphasizing State Street as a destination

High concentration of larger buildings and intensity of development west of Mill Creek would establish the west end of State Street as a destination.

Development west of Mill Creek would establish the west end of State Street as a destination, but to a lesser extent than West End Focus Alternative because development between roughly between 14th and 17th streets would be less intense.

The new MU-1 and MU-2 zones would apply to all land immediately adjacent to the corridor. By designating the greatest amount of land to MU-1 and MU-2, these alternatives would provide the greatest potential for placemaking.

Improves the attractiveness of the streetscape (e.g., separation from traffic, pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, landscaping)

Pedestrian-friendly design and streetscape elements would include: reduced front setbacks, buildings up to the corner, façade design and transparency, street-oriented entries, minimizing or eliminating parking in front, restricting drive-thru location, and on-site pedestrian connections.

This alternative would include similar pedestrian-friendly design and streetscape elements as West End Focus, but to a lesser extent, due to the placement of MU-2 designation between nodes.

These alternatives would provide the greatest potential for streetscape attractiveness through placement of MU-1 and MU-2 to all lots immediately adjacent to the corridor.

Increases public spaces and amenities (e.g., Mill Creek access/use, green space, public plazas)

Although details are not yet fully developed, concepts would increase public spaces and amenities.

Because new zoning would apply to the entire corridor, more public spaces and amenities would be provided.

All of the land use alternatives are designed to create a safe, attractive and pedestrian-friendly environment on State Street.

Both West End Nodal Focus with Eastern Addition and Entire Corridor Nodal Focus perform best simply because the new zones

are extended to the entire corridor. In addition, they perform best on the attractive streetscape criteria because they place MU-

1 or MU-2 on all lots immediately adjacent to the corridor. MU-1 requires retail opportunity area be created at the ground floor,

even of retail is not immediately viable, and MU-2 requires pedestrian-friendly urban form even for a residential ground floor.



Objective: Supports the business environment






Manages parking supply and pricing to minimize parking while accommodating business and neighborhood needs

Currently there is no parking supply management.

Parking management remains to be addressed. The proposed alternatives may include reduced parking standards for specified uses. The approach to on-site parking will be influenced by the amount of on-street parking that is deemed to be possible by the transportation and traffic analysis.

Minimizes barriers to improving existing buildings that can become more consistent with pedestrian-oriented designs

Various provisions in the existing zoning requires buildings to be set back from the back of the sidewalk, and act as a barrier to creating an attractive pedestrian environment.

Although details are not yet fully developed, barriers that prevent or discourage existing buildings will be reduced through the code amendments and recommended approaches to nonconforming situations.

Although details are not yet fully developed, the proposed concepts will better manage parking. In addition, the proposed

concepts will promote improvement of existing buildings and site design and encourage gradual compliance with requirements

for pedestrian-oriented development.

Objective: Minimizes negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods





Entire Corridor Nodal Focus

(Figure E)

Encourages compatible site and building design with adjacent properties (e.g., design transitions and buffers between uses and development types)

Currently mixed-use buildings in the CO and RM2 zones are permitted to reach building heights of 70 feet. While this may be acceptable where CO and RM2 about each other or abut CR, it may not be acceptable where it abuts the lower density RD and RS zones. The juxtaposition of CO / RM2 with RD at the northern edge of the study area may be particularly problematic since this area is also the Chemeketa Historic District.

Building step-backs and other building design techniques would address potential compatibility issues between different uses/zones.

The same building step-backs and other building design techniques as in the West End Focus alternative would apply. However, this alternative would expand mixed-use commercial use to Ferry Street, potentially making compatibility a more important consideration.

The same building step-backs and other building design techniques as in the West End Focus alternative are proposed.

Minimizes cut-through traffic on residential streets

Current uses in the corridor do not have a significant impact to adjacent neighborhoods.

Development would continue to be focused on State Street, so land use changes should not induce cut-through traffic.

This will be further addressed as the Preferred Land Use and Street Design Alternative are developed.

Mitigates potential displacement of residents (e.g., preservation or creation of affordable housing)

The existing commercial zoning is limited regarding the amount and variety of housing types that could be permitted.

Because this alternative would facilitate mixed-use development in a commercial area, resident displacement should not be an issue.

This alternative would provide potential for increases in new residential units in a wide variety of housing types west of Mill Creek.

Because this alternative would facilitate mixed-use development in a commercial area, resident displacement should not be an issue.

However, the introduction of MU-2 on Ferry Street could cause displacement if residential uses are redeveloped.

This alternative would provide potential for increases in new residential units in a wide variety of housing types west of Mill Creek.

These alternatives would provide potential for an increase in new residential units in a wide variety of housing types, as well as the greatest increase in total number of units, simply because the zones apply to the entire corridor.

Avoids or reduces adverse impacts on identified historical resources

Chapter 230 Historic Preservation of the zoning code provides protection for designated historic resources, but this protection does not include the effect of new development on adjacent properties (unless in an historic district).

Building step-backs and other building design techniques would address potential compatibility issues between new development and nearby historic resources.

This will be further addressed as the Preferred Land Use and Street Design Alternative are developed.








(Figure E)

Does not worsen existing flooding problems (e.g., inclusion of green infrastructure, discourages fill in the floodplain when developing)

The current zoning requirements provide adequate flood plain and flooding protection.

Existing flood plain regulations will remain in place.

In their current general and conceptual form, proposed land use alternatives are all expected to have a positive effect on the

State Street corridor and adjacent neighborhoods. All of the alternatives would provide for additional housing opportunities at

densities and a scale that would be consistent with the existing urban character in the study area. Design concepts are included

with the land use alternatives to begin articulating how compatibility with existing development and historic resources may be

achieved. Subsequent refinement of a preferred alternative will provide greater clarity about how the land use and supporting

zoning will implement this objective.

2.5.2 Goal: Improve Multimodal Access and Safety

Objective: Improves multimodal access and safety

At this point in the process, the land use alternatives provide concepts for future land use and zoning. They do not include any

modifications to the existing transportation facilities within the public right-of-way. As the land use concepts evolve into the

preferred land use and zoning alternative, the integration of the land use and transportation will take place to be sure that both

elements will be mutually supportive.





(Figure D)


(Figure E)

Improves pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, street crossings, buffers, lighting)

The existing zoning does not address the criteria under this objective; therefore, at this time, this criteria is not applicable.

Many of these criteria are not addressed as part of the land use alternatives, but the alternatives do not conflict with the criteria.

The proposed design standards for all alternatives would include pedestrian connections between destinations, such as building entrances and transit stops and crosswalks. Façade transparency will promote safer conditions by providing more “eyes on the street.”

The presence of more pedestrians, buildings closer to the street, and generally creating a more urban (rather than suburban) environment will tend to reduce driving speeds.

Improves bicycle facilities and wayfinding (e.g., bicycle lanes, signage, parking at key locations)

Reduces potential conflicts between transportation modes (e.g., driveways, buffers, separation of facilities)

Improves connections to and between businesses, neighborhoods, nearby destinations and the downtown area

Provides space for improved transit stop amenities (e.g., sidewalk width, sidewalk extension on development site)

Facilitates pedestrian access to transit

Minimizes adverse impacts on traffic flow and intersection operations

Discourages speeding

Mitigates operational impacts on parallel corridors (including Market Street, D Street, Center Street, and Mission Street)



2.5.3 Goal: Encourage Feasible Improvements

Objective: Aligns with projected market






Aligns with findings of Economic Analysis Existing zones are overly specific in terms of land uses and may deter creative mixed-use development approaches.

The economic analysis indicates there is room for additional commercial and residential development the corridor, but that the corridor is not well positioned to attract that development under the existing zoning.

By shifting the emphasis towards greater coherence in density and design across blocks (away from a focus on specifying and regulating for particular land use types), the proposed alternatives would signal an openness to more flexible development approaches, especially for projects involving residential components. These approaches are more likely to spur meaningful land assembly for infill development, potentially across existing zones. The community’s desire for new, neighborhood-compatible development is more likely to be realized under this combination of increased flexibility and cross-corridor design coherence.

Alternatives with a focus on the west end of the corridor are more in line with a realistic path of development momentum, emanating from downtown’s higher value real estate.

The West End Nodal Focus w/ Southern Addition Alternative would take advantage of the proximity to Willamette University by extending the proposed Mixed-Use 2 zone to the south

While zoning updates that preserve or expand flexibility of use make sense for corridor-wide planning, improvements involving significant costs, such as streetscaping should be reserved for the West End, where redevelopment activity is far more likely in the foreseeable future.

By shifting the emphasis towards greater coherence in density and design across blocks (away from a focus on specifying and regulating for particular land use types), the proposed alternatives would signal an openness to more flexible development approaches, especially for projects involving residential components. These approaches are more likely to spur meaningful land assembly for infill development, potentially across existing zones. The community’s desire for new, neighborhood-compatible development is more likely to be realized under this combination of increased flexibility and cross-corridor design coherence. These benefits would apply to the whole corridor.

The economic analysis performed as part of Task 2 of this project indicates the potential for increasing demand across

commercial and residential development sectors in central Salem, including the State Street corridor. Land assembly and infill

redevelopment along the corridor, however, is not warranted by existing market rents. The type of walkable urban street

environment increasingly desired by developers and prospective tenants in today’s market, in fact, may actually be discouraged

by the corridor’s existing zoning. While existing corridor zoning may technically accommodate the anticipated demand square

footage for the foreseeable future, the specificity and segregation of land uses in the current zoning, along with parking

regulations and setback requirements, appear to prescribe an outdated suburban-scale streetscape that is unlikely to help raise

the underlying rent structure. By allowing (or at least signaling) greater flexibility in land uses, while emphasizing the need for

block-by-block coherence in density and design, the above alternatives illustrate four ways in which the market demand for

urban mixed-use development (especially involving residential) could be accommodated while maintaining a compatible

relationship with surrounding neighborhoods.

Objective: Consistent with adopted/accepted City plans



West End Nodal Focus w/Southern Addition (Figure C) West End Nodal Focus w/Eastern Addition (Figure D)


Consistent with plans such as the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan, Housing Needs Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis, Salem Comprehensive Policies Plan, and Salem Transportation Systems Plan Goals and Policies

The existing zoning is not completely consistent with existing plans.

The mixed use and urban design elements of the alternatives would support a more pedestrian-friendly environment and less auto-dependence, which is clearly supported in the City’s plan documents.

The land uses proposed are consistent with what is called for in the City’s adopted plans. The proposed land uses would fundamentally be very similar to the existing, but a mix of uses will be encouraged to a greater degree. The allowable densities in the alternative represent only a moderate increase from what is possible today.

The mixed use and urban design elements of these alternatives would support a more pedestrian-friendly environment and less auto-dependence, which is clearly supported in the City’s plan documents.

The land uses proposed are consistent with what is called for in the City’s adopted plans. The proposed land uses would fundamentally be very similar to the existing, but the mix of uses will be encouraged to a greater degree. The allowable densities in the alternative represent only a moderate increase from what is possible today.

The fact that the new improved zones would apply to the entire corridor make it possible for these alternatives to have the potential to meet the City’s plan goals to a greater degree.



The land use alternatives and zoning concepts illustrate a range of ways that the State Street corridor could be improved

consistent with current City plans. They provide a means to continue the public discussion, in subsequent phases of this project,

about what the City and community would like the future of this corridor to be.

Objective: Maximizes cost effectiveness

As noted above, this objective and related criteria will be more appropriately addressed once a preferred alternative is selected.

Objective: Garners broad public support

Review of the land use alternatives will be a key step in distilling them to the preferred alternative.





(Figure D)


Considers total cost of public infrastructure

Not applicable Since the density/intensity of use would not change significantly, public infrastructure should be able to generally accommodate redevelopment of the corridor according to existing zoning or as described in the alternatives.

Helps attract or justify other potential non-City funding sources

Not applicable A coherent corridor-wide plan, under any of the alternatives shown, is a necessary component for attracting any potential non-City funding source and/or constructing a specific local funding mechanism (e.g. improvement districts, urban renewal area, parking district, etc.). Further evaluation will be conducted once a preferred alternative is selected.

The West End Focus may be more effective at leveraging private investment and attracting non-City funding sources because it is a more concentrated area.

A coherent corridor-wide plan, under any of the alternatives shown, is a necessary component for attracting any potential non-City funding source and/or constructing a specific local funding mechanism (e.g. improvement districts, urban renewal area, parking district, etc.). Further evaluation will be conducted once a preferred alternative is selected.

It may be more difficult to leverage private investment and attract non-City funding sources because the corridor is a very large area with many disparate property owners and businesses.

Provides opportunities to phase projects

Leverages private investment

Aligns with planned City projects To be determined during preferred alternative phase Minimizes need for additional right-of-way






Aligns with public input Not applicable To be determined through upcoming public engagement activities.



3 STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.1 EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS The majority of State Street in the Study Area, from 13th Street to 25th Street, provides for two lanes in

each direction with varying sidewalk conditions and pedestrian amenities. The segment between 12th

Street and 13th Street is an eastbound one-way segment with on-street parking and wide sidewalks. The

conditions on State Street are detailed in the “Transportation Operations and Safety Analysis

Memorandum” (February 2016) and the “Land Use and Transportation Booklet” (February 11, 2016).

Figure F shows cross sections of the corridor at specific locations.

State Street is a designated Major Arterial. As such, if the street were constructed to the City’s standard,

it would be 96 feet of right of way with two 11 foot travel lanes in each direction with a 12 foot median;

6 foot bike lanes, 7.5 foot landscape strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk with 1.5 feet of left over right of way on

each side of the street. This is shown on Figure G.



Figure F. Existing Cross Sections



Figure G. State Street Constructed to Standard



3.2 DESCRIPTION OF STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Three street design alternatives have been developed to reconfigure the roadway cross section on State

Street to support the project goals. All alternatives provide enhanced pedestrian facilities and routes for

cyclists.

Alternative 1 provides four vehicle travel lanes (two eastbound and two westbound) with no median,

while Alternative 2 makes use of a “road diet,” reducing the number of through travel lanes to one in

each direction plus a center median/two-way left turn lane. Alternative 3 is a hybrid of Alternative 1 and

2. Maps of each alternative are provided in Appendix A.

Each alternative is divided into three geographic segments. The termini for these segments were chosen

based on the existing character of the adjacent development as well as the available right of way width.

The roadway cross section varies throughout the length of the project but is relatively consistent within

each segment. The three segments are as follows (these limits apply to all alternatives):

Segment A: 12th Street to 13th Street

Segment B: 13th Street to 17th Street

Segment C: 17th Street to 25th Street

All alternatives consider bicycle routes and the intensity of pedestrian crossing treatments. As described

below, options were considered separately to determine the effects, impacts and benefits of including

or excluding various elements. Due to the constrained nature of the corridor, not all desired

improvements could fit into the existing right of way. The trade-off between on-street bicycle lanes and

alternate bicycle facilities was carefully considered.

3.2.1 Alternative 1 – Four Lane

Alternative 1 generally provides four travel lanes (two in each direction) with no median as shown on

Figure H. This is similar to the existing roadway, although enhancements to the pedestrian realm are

provided in each of the three Segments.

In Segment A, Alternative 1 provides three eastbound vehicle travel lanes. The outer travel lanes are 11

feet in width, while the middle lane is 10 feet wide. The northernmost of the three lanes becomes a

dedicated left turn lane at 13th Street, where the one-way section ends. Angled parking, similar to the

existing condition in this segment, is maintained on both the north and south sides of State Street.

Because of Segment A’s more urban nature with zero lot line setbacks, the pedestrian realm was

enhanced with landscape buffer strips (6 feet wide on the north side, and 5 feet wide on the south) and

wide 10 foot sidewalks on each side of the street.

In Segment B, a four-lane section is provided with 11 foot outside lanes and 10 foot inside lanes. An 8

foot-wide row of parallel parking is provided on both the north and south sides of State Street in areas

outside of intersections. At the intersections with 14th and 17th Streets, parallel parking is omitted to

allow room for the existing left turn lanes to be maintained. A 6 foot landscape strip and 8 foot sidewalk

are provided on both sides of State Street through this segment. A rapid flashing beacon will be located

at an undetermined location between 14th Street and 17th Street to improve pedestrian crossings.

Segment C continues the 4-lane section described in Segment B for vehicles. Due to constrained right-of-

way, however, there is no room to add parallel parking without significant impacts to the pedestrian



realm. A 3-foot landscape strip, which is not be wide enough for street trees, is provided between the

roadway and a 6 foot sidewalk on both the north and south sides of the road. At 24th Street NE, the

roadway section tapers to match the existing section, which provides two lanes in each direction, a

center median/left turn lane, and bicycle lanes. A median will be constructed at 25th Street, eliminating a

left turn movement into a private driveway. This improvement will enhance pedestrian safety at this

intersection.

In lieu of including bicycle lanes on the entire extent of the State Street corridor, alternate bicycle routes

were laid out on nearby parallel east-west running roadways. On the north, Chemeketa Street NE was

chosen for an alternate bicycle route because of its continuity through the corridor from 12th Street NE

to 24th Street NE. Cyclists could use 24th Street NE between Chemeketa and State Street.

South of State Street, Mill Street provides a continuous route between the west end of the corridor and

24th Street. While no crossing of Mill Creek exists on 24th Street SE today, the City owns right-of-way that

could allow for construction of a bridge for cyclists and pedestrians. This connection would be

preferable to a route that involves turning movements from Trade Street SE onto 25th Street SE, as that

intersection is not conducive to bicycle travel. A new creek crossing at 24th Street would allow cyclists

traveling on Mill Street SE to use 24th Street SE to access State Street. Bicycle lanes currently exist and

would be provided in all alternatives east of the 24th Street intersection.

Option: An option considered and evaluated separately from Alternative 1 was the roadway segments

as described above with new signals at 19th and 21st streets SE, particularly to provide protected

crossings for pedestrians. However, approval and installation of the signals would only occur as long as

signal warrants are met.1

3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Road Diet

Alternative 2 consists of two through vehicle travel lanes (one in each direction) and a center

median/left turn lane, as shown on Figure I. Removal of vehicle lanes (known as a “road diet”) allows for

enhancements to multimodal facilities. The City of Salem does not use rapid flashing beacons for

roadways with only a single lane in each direction. Thus enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments in

Alternative 2 would focus on striped crosswalks with pedestrian refuges in the median area. At these to

be determined locations, parallel parking would be eliminated. Bike lanes would be accommodated as

described in Alternative 1.

Through Segment A, Alternative 2 provides two 11 foot wide eastbound vehicle travel lanes. The

northern lane becomes a dedicated left turn lane at 13th Street, where the one-way section ends. As in

Alternative 1, an 18 foot-deep row of angled parking is provided on both the north and south sides of

State Street. The reduced lane count allows for improvements in the pedestrian realm, where landscape

buffer strips (6 feet wide on the north side, and 5 feet wide on the south) separate the wide sidewalk

from the roadway. Sidewalk on the north side is 13 feet wide, while sidewalk on the south side is 17 feet

wide.

1 Signal warrants are provided within the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control devices (MUTCD), Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4c.htm. Accessed June 27, 2016.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4c.htm



In Segment B, one 11 foot wide vehicle travel lane is provided in each direction, with an 11 foot wide

center median/two-way left turn lane. An 8 foot-wide row of parallel parking is provided on both the

north and south sides of State Street. At the intersections with 14th and 17th Streets, curb extensions are

provided to reduce the crossing length for pedestrians. As in Segment A, the reduction of curb-to-curb

roadway width allows for enhancements in the pedestrian realm. On the north side, a 5 foot landscape

strip and 13 foot sidewalk are provided. On the south side, where a few buildings with no setbacks abut

the sidewalk, a 19 foot pedestrian realm is provided, which would allow for wide sidewalk, landscaping

and street furniture.

In Segment C the vehicle travel lanes continue as described in Segment B, with one 11 foot lane in each

direction. The center median would remain 11 feet in width. For the portion of this Segment between

17th Street and 24th Street, a 6 foot landscape buffer strip would be provided between the roadway and

the sidewalk. The reduction in curb-to-curb width allows for both the landscape strip and 8 foot-wide

sidewalk on both the north and south sides of the road. For the portion of Segment C between 24th

Street and 25th Street, bicycles would be accommodated on State Street using 6 foot bicycle lanes on

both sides. Inclusion of the bicycle lanes would eliminate the landscape buffer strip within the section,

but the 8 foot sidewalk would continue.

Option: An option considered and evaluated separately from Alternative 2 was the introduction of

bicycle lanes in Segment B between 13th and 17th Streets through removing parallel parking on one side

of the road. This reduction in width of 8 feet would provide most of the space necessary to

accommodate bicycle lanes, while the remaining 2 feet of width (to allow 5 foot bicycle lanes in each

direction) would be taken from the pedestrian realm leaving room for an 11 foot sidewalk on the north

and a 17 foot sidewalk on the south. In Segment C, bicycles could be accommodated through the section

between 17th and 24th Streets by eliminating the 6 foot landscape buffer strip in favor of a 6 foot bicycle

lane.

3.2.3 Alternative 3 – Hybrid Street Design

This alternative is a hybrid of Alternative 1 and 2, as shown on Figure J. State Street would include the

Road Diet elements from 14th to 17th Street, without the bicycle lanes option, as described in Alternative

2. From 17th to 25th Street, this alternative includes the Alternative 1 Four Lane elements, including the

option elements of new signals at 19th and 21st Streets SE.



Figure H. Alternative 1 – Improved Four-Lane



Figure I. Alternative 2 – Road Diet



Figure J. Alternative 3 - Hybrid Street Design



3.3 EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Below is the evaluation of the street design alternatives. Similar to the land use alternatives, each street design alternative is

qualitatively evaluated for how it performs under each criteria. The cells have been color coded to help identify what

alternatives perform well and what alternatives perform less well or poorly. The performance breakdown is as follows:

Best Good Fair No Improvement Over


3.3.1 Goal: Promote Economic Vitality and Livability

Objective: Encourages pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development and redevelopment of underutilized properties

Criteria Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid Street Design Four Lanes Option: Four Lanes

with Signals Road Diet Option: Road Diet with

Bicycle Lanes

Allows a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses by right, while minimizing auto-oriented uses Not applicable. The Street Design alternatives include pedestrian sidewalks and pedestrian facilities to provide connections between destinations.

Improving public infrastructure can incentivize investment in the corridor. The improvements associated with these alternatives may have the ability to spur private investment.

Requires or encourages pedestrian-oriented site and building design (e.g., building orientation and setback, pedestrian connections, location of parking)

Allows a variety of housing types that would accommodate identified populations (e.g., University faculty and students, state workers)

Removes existing regulatory barriers (e.g., process, setbacks, parking)

Provides incentives through code amendments, public improvements and/or other means

The criteria of this objective are not directly addressed by the street design alternatives. However, they do not conflict with

these criteria. All the street design alternatives will support pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development and redevelopment of

underutilized properties along the State Street corridor.



Objective: Creates a safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment

Criteria Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid Street Design Four Lanes Option: Four Lanes with Signals Road Diet Option: Road Diet with Bicycle

Lanes

Requires or encourages attractive, pedestrian-friendly design features to complement site and building design as noted above (e.g., landscaping, transparency/ windows)

The current roadway has disjointed sidewalks, minimal street lighting and limited to no landscape strip adjacent to the vehicular travel lane.

Sidewalks and landscape strips would be improved and/or provided along the entire corridor

Segment A: 10 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street; 6 feet wide landscape strip on the north side, and 5 feet wide on the south side of the street

Segment B: 8 foot sidewalks and 6 foot landscape strips are provided on both sides of the street

Segment C: 6 foot sidewalk and 3 foot landscape strip on both sides of the road.

Alternative 2 would provide for widest sidewalks and consistent landscape strip along the entire corridor.

Segment A: 13 foot wide sidewalk and 6 foot wide landscape strip on the north side and 17 foot sidewalk and 5 foot landscape strip on the south side

Segment B: 13 foot sidewalk and 5 foot landscape strip on the north side and 19 foot pedestrian realm on the south side

Segment C: 8 foot sidewalk and 6 foot landscape strip on both sides of the street to 24th. The existing bike lanes would remain between 24th and 25th which does not allow for the landscape strip in this block.

This option would include generous sidewalks, similar to the base alternative, but it would eliminate 2-feet from the sidewalk throughout segment B and eliminate the landscape strip through segment C.

West of 17th Street, this alternative would perform the same as Alternative 2, the road diet without bicycle lanes.

East of 17th Street, this alternative would perform as Alternative 1.

Focuses on place and placemaking by emphasizing State Street as a destination

Currently, there are a number of transportation conditions that affect the corridor’s potential to enhance the environment for all street users such as minimal sidewalk widths, increased spacing between signalized crossings, no on street parking etc. in some portions of the corridor.

Same as existing

The additional signals in this option would slow and calm traffic while allowing safer pedestrian crossing at 19th Street and 21st Streets SE.

Alternative 2 would develop a safe and efficient transportation system, thereby improving pedestrian mobility. The slower traffic might also encourage people to stop and visit existing and new destinations.

Providing bicycle lanes on State Street would encourage multi-modal travel to and along the corridor to existing and new destinations.

This option would eliminate the provision of on-street parking on one side of State Street between 13th and 17th. However, the 5-foot landscape strip would remain and provide the separation between the sidewalk and vehicular travel.

This alternative would slow and calm traffic to a large extent, thereby improving pedestrian mobility. The slower traffic to the west of 17th street might also encourage people to stop and visit existing and new destinations; however, implementing Alternative 1 east of 17th Street would retain conditions similar to those experienced today.

Improves the attractiveness of the streetscape (e.g., separation from traffic, pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, landscaping)

For most of the corridor, there is no separation between the sidewalk and the travel lanes.

Lighting and street trees are lacking.

All proposed alternatives include streetscape elements, including:

Parking, landscape strip and/or bicycle lane to separate the pedestrian sidewalk from traffic

Pedestrian-scale lighting and street tree planting will be a standard of the cross-section, except for the narrowest portion of the corridor at the Mill Creek Bridge

This alternative, although improving the streetscape attractiveness by providing sidewalks and landscape strips, retains the 4 through travel lanes, two in each direction. Further, the alternative provides the smallest improvement to the sidewalk and landscape width of all the alternatives.

This alternative provides the opportunity to create the most comprehensive streetscape improvements within the pedestrian realm.

The addition of bicycle lanes would reduce the width of the sidewalk between 14th and 17th Street by 2 feet; still, the width would be much wider than provided by Alternative 1.

The landscape strip would not be provided between 17th and 24th Street.


East of 17th Street, this alternative would perform as Alternative 1.



Increases public spaces and amenities (e.g., Mill Creek access/use, green space, public plazas)

A landscape strip is present between 12th and 17th Street, east of 17th Street there is no landscape strip along State Street.

Provides for 3 to 6-foot wide landscape strip along the entire length of the corridor.

Provides for 5 to 6-foot wide landscape strip along the entire length of the corridor, allowing for the most opportunity for the creation of a public plaza.

Eliminating the landscape strip to provide for bicycle lanes in Segment C would reduce the green space along the corridor.


East of 17th Street, this alternative provides for a 3-foot landscape strip to 25th Street.

Alternative 2, the Road Diet without the bicycle lane option, performs the best under the objective to create a safe, attractive,

pedestrian-friendly environment along State Street. Although Alternative 1 would also provide improved sidewalks and a

landscape strip, the Road Diet Alternative reduces the number of through lanes and enhances the space protecting and

dedicated to pedestrians. Further, the restricted right of way along portions of the corridor would limit the ability of the

Improved Four-Lane Alternative to provide consistent improvements along the entire corridor. Therefore, this alternative would

have limited ability to contribute to the sense of place on State Street. The Road Diet with the bicycle-lanes requires the

elimination of a landscape strip in Segment C. The landscape strip is seen and experienced as a prominent feature of a walkable

streetscape because it would provide an opportunity for street trees and shrubbery to separate the pedestrian realm from the

vehicular realm. Although a bicycle lane provides a buffer between the realms, there would be no physical barrier between the

two.

Objective: Supports the business environment

Criteria Existing Conditions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid Street Design Four

Lanes Option: Four Lanes

with Signals Road Diet Option: Road Diet with Bicycle Lanes

Manages parking supply and pricing to minimize parking while accommodating business and neighborhood needs

On-street parking is provided between 12th and 17th Street; the remainder of the corridor does not provide for on-street parking.

This alternative would retain the angled parking as is today in Segment A.

In Segment B, parallel parking would be provided on both sides of the street.



Between 13th and 17th Streets, parallel parking would be eliminated from one side of the street to accommodate the bicycle lane.



Minimizes barriers to improving existing buildings that can become more consistent with pedestrian-oriented designs

Not applicable. Not addressed as part of the Street Design Alternatives, but they do not conflict with this criterion.

On-street parking provides easy access for vehicular travelers along State Street to easily park in front of their destination. The

removal of existing on-street parking will likely be viewed as a disadvantage of a design alternative. However, the provision of

bicycle lanes may increase drop-in patrons to businesses similar or more so than vehicular parking.

Objective: Minimizes negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods

Criteria Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid of Street Design

Four Lanes Option: Four Lanes with Signals Road Diet Option: Road Diet with Bicycle Lanes

Encourages compatible site and building design with adjacent properties (e.g., design transitions and buffers between uses and development types)

Not applicable. Not addressed as part of the Street Design Alternative, but they do not conflict with this criterion.



Criteria Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid of Street Design


Minimizes cut-through traffic on residential streets

Not a significant impact to adjacent neighborhoods.

Same as existing.

With no major changes to the existing capacity and travel speeds, impact to the adjacent neighborhoods are minimal.

The reduction in capacity and implementation of traffic calming measures would result in traffic diversion to adjacent major streets. While the model doesn’t show this level of detail, it is possible that this alternative would result in some additional cut-through traffic on residential streets.

The reduction in capacity and implementation of traffic calming measures would result in traffic diversion to adjacent major streets. While the model doesn’t show this level of detail, it is possible that this alternative option would result in some additional cut-through traffic on residential streets.

This Alternative would likely have less cut through traffic on residential streets when compared to the Road Diet Alternative. However, in comparison to Alternative 1, the impacts to adjacent streets are higher, so the risk of cut-through traffic is greater.

Mitigates potential displacement of residents (e.g., preservation or creation of affordable housing)

Not applicable. No right-of-way would be acquired to accomplish any of the design alternatives. Therefore, the design alternatives do not conflict with this criterion.

Avoids or reduces adverse impacts on identified historical resources

Does not worsen existing flooding problems (e.g., inclusion of green infrastructure, discourages fill in the floodplain when developing)

Mill Creek is known to flood during the rainy season.

The flood issue was not addressed by the street design alternatives. There may be opportunities to incorporate green stormwater infrastructure into the landscape strips, such as bioswales. This will be explored at time of project design. This alternative has less landscaping, so less opportunity to do so.

The flood issue was not addressed by the street design alternatives. There may be opportunities to incorporate green stormwater infrastructure into the landscape strips, such as bioswales. This will be explored at time of project design.



Alternative 1 would perform the best under this objective because it would not impact the volume of vehicular traffic along the

corridor. Today, the corridor accommodates vehicular traffic levels fairly well. The Road Diet alternative may divert through-

traffic to the major north-south roadways and might possibly impact neighborhood streets.



3.3.2 Goal: Improve Multimodal Access and Safety

Objective: Improves multimodal access and safety

Criteria Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Hybrid Street Design


Improves pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, street crossings, buffers, lighting)

No improvement. This design alternative would include improved pedestrian facilities, including:

Parking and/or landscape strip to separate the pedestrian sidewalk from traffic

Pedestrian-scale lighting and street tree planting will be a standard of the cross-section, except for the narrowest portion of the corridor at the Mill Creek Bridge.

Pedestrians may have challenges crossing four travel lanes at unsignalized locations, similar to today.

Crossing distance would be slightly reduced in much of the corridor.

A rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and raised median would be provided for crossings between 14th St. and 17th St.

In addition, this option would provide two new opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossing on the corridor.

This alternative would include improved pedestrian facilities, including:

Parking, landscape strip and/or bicycle lane to separate the pedestrian sidewalk from traffic

Pedestrian-scale lighting and street tree planting will be a standard of the cross-section, except for the narrowest portion of the corridor at the Mill Creek Bridge.

Pedestrians would have an easier time crossing two travel lanes (i.e., one lane and one direction at a time) with a median/pedestrian refuge at designated crossings, and a reduced crossing distance throughout the corridor.

Sidewalks between 12th and 17th Street would be at least 13 feet wide, with some sections up to 17 feet wide. East of 17th Street, the sidewalk would be 8 feet wide, with a landscape buffer.

The addition of bicycle lanes would:

Eliminate the landscape strip to provide for bicycle lanes in Segment C.

Eliminate parking, which performs as a buffer from the vehicle travel lane, from one side of the street between 13th and 17th Street.

Reduce the width of the sidewalk between 14th and 17th Street by 2 feet.


East of 17th Street, this alternative would perform the same as Alternative 1 with the signal option.

Improves bicycle facilities and wayfinding (e.g., bicycle lanes, signage, parking at key locations)

No improvement. Bicycle routes would remain on the parallel routes of Chemeketa Street and Mill Street. A new bicycle and pedestrian bridge would be constructed to cross Mill Creek.

Wayfinding signage would be improved on State Street and on perpendicular routes guiding bicyclists to the bicycle routes.

Bicycle parking would be provided at key locations in collaboration with property owners along the corridor, such as locations within the widened sidewalk.

Bicycle lanes would be provided on State Street.

Bicycle parking would be provided at key locations in collaboration with property owners along the corridor, such as locations within the widened sidewalk.

Wayfinding signage would be improved on State Street and on perpendicular routes guiding bicyclists to the bicycle routes.



Bicyclists would be routed north or south on 17th, which currently has bicycle lanes and connects to both Chemeketa Street and Mill Street.





Reduces potential conflicts between transportation modes (e.g., driveways, buffers, separation of facilities)

No improvement. The landscape buffer along the entire corridor would provide an enhanced buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular realms.

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and raised medians would be included for crossings between 14th St. and 17th St.

Pedestrians may have challenges crossing four travel lanes at unsignalized locations, similar to today.

In addition, this option would provide two new opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossing on the corridor.

Landscape buffer along the entire corridor would provide an enhanced buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular realms.

Pedestrians would have an easier time crossing two travel lanes with a median/pedestrian refuge at designated crossings (i.e., one lane and one direction at a time).

Sidewalks between 12th and 17th Street would be at least 13 feet wide, with some sections up to 17 feet wide. East of 17th Street, the side walk would be 8 feet wide, with a landscape buffer.

Maintains separation of pedestrian and vehicular realms with the addition of a bicycle lane at the expense of the landscape strip in Segment C.

Provision of bicycle lanes has the potential to reduce conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists by providing dedicated space for bicyclists; however, depending on the final design, there is potential for the bike lane to be parallel to on on-street parking on one side of the street within Segment B. A standard width bicycle lane adjacent to on-street parking introduces the potential for “dooring” conflicts, particularly if on-street parking turnover is frequent. This design alternative will be explored further in the future.



Improves connections to and between businesses, neighborhoods, nearby destinations and the downtown area

No improvement. Consistent, wider and improved sidewalks along State Street would improve connections and accessibility. The addition of bicycle parking along the corridor at key locations would also improve access for bicyclists.

Pedestrians could have challenges crossing four travel lanes, similar to today, which could hinder ability to access destinations.

Maintaining the current level of motor vehicle capacity could perpetuate State Street’s current use as a through route for east-west travel.

Consistent, wider and improved sidewalks along State Street would improve connections and accessibility. The addition of bicycle parking along the corridor at key locations would also improve access for bicyclists.

This option would provide two new opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossings on the corridor, which may facilitate easier access to destinations.

The addition of signalized intersections would also facilitate opportunities for motorists and bicyclists to travel across State Street between neighborhoods or make turning movements to or from State Street. Additionally, motorists queued at the new signals would have a greater opportunity to notice the businesses around them on State Street.


The improved sidewalk realm would encourage pedestrians travel to and between businesses.

Pedestrians and bicyclists would have an easier time crossing two travel lanes with a median/pedestrian refuge at designated crossings (i.e., one lane and one direction at a time), facilitating access between businesses and other destinations along State Street.

Motor vehicle capacity would be somewhat reduced, which could result in regional trips shifting to parallel routes; however, this reduction has the potential to result in a shift towards a higher portion of local trips on State Street because of the “complete street” environment.

On-street parking opportunities would be increased, improving access for motor vehicles to parking on the corridor.


Bicycle lanes would provide continuous bicycle access on State Street between 13th Street and 24th Street where bicyclists could access the bicycle/ pedestrian path to Hawthorne Avenue, east of the study area.

This alternative would reduce motor vehicle on-street parking, which could impact perceived access for vehicles, and/or increase the need to provide off-street parking at (behind) businesses along State Street.








Provides space for improved transit stop amenities (e.g., sidewalk width, sidewalk extension on development site)

No improvement. Consistent sidewalks of at least 8 feet along State Street would provide room within the right-of-way for improved, accessible transit stops and some amenities.

This option would provide two new opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossing on the corridor, which will facilitate easier access to transit stops, particularly at 21st Street.

Wider sidewalks along State Street would provide room within the right-of-way for improved, accessible transit stops and amenities, such as shelters, benches, garbage cans, and/or bicycle parking.

Wider sidewalks along State Street west of 17th Street would provide room within the right-of-way for improved, accessible transit stops and amenities, such as shelters, benches, garbage cans, and/or bicycle parking. East of 17th Street, this alternative is the same as Alternative 1.

Facilitates pedestrian access to transit

No improvement. Consistent, wider and improved sidewalks along State Street would facilitate access to transit stops.

In addition, this option would provide two new opportunities for signalized pedestrian crossings on the corridor, which would facilitate easier access to transit stops, particularly at 21st Street.

Consistent, wider and improved sidewalks along State Street would facilitate access to transit stops.

Pedestrians would have an easier time crossing two travel lanes to reach transit facilities with a median/ pedestrian refuge at designated crossings (i.e., one lane and one direction at a time).

This alternative would perform similar to Alternative 1 with the signal option.

East of 17th Street, this option would perform the same as Alternative 2.

Minimizes adverse impacts on traffic flow and intersection operations

Today, despite high volumes of traffic throughout the State Street corridor, all study area intersections meet the City of Salem intersection operational standards.

Compared to the existing conditions, this alternative would not have any additional adverse impacts on traffic flow and intersection operations.

The two new signals may potentially improve the intersection operations at 19th Street and 21st Street by reducing the side street delays. In addition, these signals provide traffic calming measures east of 17th Street.

None of the segments along State Street are over capacity in 2035 except near 25th Street, which is over capacity under all alternatives. However, most segments between 13th Street and 25th Street will be approaching capacity with this alternative.

Vehicles could also get stuck behind stopped transit vehicles, thereby adversely impacting the traffic flow.

However, separating the left turns have shown to reduce intersection delays.

East of 17th Street, this alternative would perform similar to Alternative 1 with the signal option.

West of 17th Street this option would perform the same as Alternative 2.

Discourages speeding No improvement. This option would be very similar to existing conditions, being that it does little to nothing to encourage slower speeds on the corridor.

The additional signals in this option would slow and calm traffic, thereby discouraging speeding to a certain extent east of 17th street.

Road Diets have been known to decrease the vehicle speed differential. As there is only a single travel lane in each direction, vehicles do not have an opportunity for speeding or overtaking vehicles in the adjacent lanes.

East of 17th Street, this alternative would perform similar to Alternative 1 with the signal option.

West of 17th Street this alternative would perform the same as Alternative 2.

Mitigates operational impacts on parallel corridors (including Market Street, D Street, Center Street, and Mission Street)

Today there is minimal traffic diversion to parallel corridors

With no major changes to the existing capacity, operational impacts to the parallel corridors would be minimal.

Due to reduction in capacity along State Street, traffic would divert to other routes in the area. However, the shift in volumes would be spread to a large number of routes and does not appear to overly burden a single route.

A few corridors are expected to experience a slightly higher increase in volumes than the others, including Mission St., Hawthorne St., Mill St., D Street, southbound on 25th Street, southbound on 17th Street and Lancaster Dr. However, none of the segments on these routes are over capacity as a result of this alternative, and just a few segments on D St., Mission St. and 25th Street are approaching capacity as a result of this alternative.

This alternative would have fewer operational impacts on parallel corridors than the Road Diet alternative. However in comparison to Alternative 1, the operational impacts to parallel corridors would be higher.

All of the alternatives improve multi-modal access and safety over the existing condition on State Street. Alternative 1 makes

minor improvements over the existing condition, while Alternative 2 provides the most significant improvements for multimodal

access and safety. Alternative 3, the hybrid approach provides more benefits west of 17th Street, where much of the corridor’s

business activity is clustered currently, with minor improvements to the east of 17th Street.



3.3.3 Goal: Encourage Feasible Improvements

Objective: Aligns with projected market


Four Lanes Option: Four Lanes with Signals

Road Diet Option: Road Diet with Bicycle Lanes

Aligns with findings of Economic Analysis Not applicable. Not addressed as part of the Street Design alternatives, but they do not conflict with this criterion.

All the street design options will support and encourage investment in the corridor.

Objective: Consistent with adopted/accepted City plans

None of the alternatives are consistent with the City’s TSP Street System Element, which identifies State Street as a Major

Arterial. Still, all of the alternatives improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities in some capacity, which are identified as goals and

policies within the TSP. The differentiator is when considering the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan. Alternative 2 is the most

consistent street design option as many of the elements of the Road Diet (Alternative 2), which are specifically identified within

the Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood Plan also identifies bicycle lanes as a desired component of the State Street Corridor,

which makes Alternative 2 with the option the best performing alternative.



Consistent with plans such as the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan, Housing Needs Analysis, Economic Opportunities Analysis, Salem Comprehensive Policies Plan, and Salem Transportation Systems Plan Goals and Policies

The existing right-of-way is not consistent with the Salem Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) or the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan.

The TSP Street System Element identifies State Street as a Major Arterial. Major Arterials are to be 5 lanes, two in each direction with a median turning lane, and bike lanes; therefore, none of the alternatives are consistent with the TSP Street System Element.

The Bicycle System Element of the TSP calls for elimination of barriers to bicycle travel. All alternatives include the provision for a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing of Mill Creek at 24th Street just south of the project corridor.

All alternatives include the provision for wayfinding signage for bicycles, a policy of the TSP Bicycle System Element.

All alternatives will improve the sidewalk conditions along State Street, a policy of the TSP pedestrian System Element.

This street design alternative is most consistent with the City’s TSP, which identifies a 5 lane alternative. Although this Alternative doesn’t provide bike lanes or a median turn lane, it does provide for two lanes of traffic in each direction.

It does not provide all the anticipated multimodal benefits expressed in the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan, which specifically identifies a Road Diet type treatment with wider sidewalks, landscape strip, and bike lanes on State Street.

A Road Diet is specifically identified within the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan as a recommended action.

Safety policies would be implemented more so with the road diet alternative because it would slow traffic down and provide for easier pedestrian crossing at major intersections.

In addition to the elements described for the basic Road Diet, the addition of bicycle lanes on State Street would help the city to better achieve its multi-modal goals and policies.

West of 17th Street, this alternative is in alignment with many of the multimodal benefits expressed in the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan.



Objective: Maximizes cost effectiveness



Considers total cost of public infrastructure

No infrastructure costs are associated with existing conditions.

No cost estimates have been prepared for the proposed Street Design Alternatives. The evaluation is purely qualitative.

From an infrastructure standpoint, the cost of this alternative is unlikely to vary significantly from existing conditions because it would consist mostly of restriping the corridor as specified.

There would be some additional cost to reconstruct, improve and/or provide for wider sidewalks and landscaping.

Signals would increase both the capital and maintenance cost of this option.

The signals would be the most costly element of the infrastructure investment.


There would be some additional cost to reconstruct, improve and/or provide for wider sidewalks and landscaping.


With the bicycle lanes, this option would provide for less conversion of paved right-of-way to landscaping, similar to the four lane alternative.

Signals would increase both the capital and maintenance cost of this alternative.

The signals would be the most costly element of the infrastructure investment.

Helps attract or justify other potential non-City funding sources

The current level of corridor investment would remain the same.

This design alternative is more traditional in that it does not address the full spectrum of multimodal improvements and virtually maintains the corridor street design as it is today. It may not garner as much support from funding partners as other alternatives.

Road diets have the ability to garner more public support and non-City funding sources because they have a greater ability to provide multi-modal improvements. With state and federal funding sources broadening their focus toward projects that can demonstrate that they provide multi-modal benefits, the City would have more ability to demonstrate that the Road Diet Alternative meets funding requirements easier than a vehicle-centric design option.

The sidewalk realm would be slightly less desirable than the road diet without the bicycle lanes. However, it is possible that the inclusion of bicycle lanes, by furthering the multi-modal nature of this option, would help attract funding sources.

This alternative would perform similar to Alternative 1 east of 17th Street but similar to Alternative 2 west of 17th Street.



Provides opportunities to phase projects

Not applicable. This alternative is similar to the existing roadway configuration and would likely be somewhat simpler to implement using a piecemeal approach than a road diet.

Projects could be phased to allow construction of selected segments first. Consideration would need to be made for differing roadway cross sections (e.g. 2 lanes in each direction prior to the road diet vs. a single lane after implementation of the road diet) at the termini of any phased project.

Because Alternative 3 is a hybrid approach, it could allow for a “test case” of the road diet alternative on a portion of the corridor.

Although Alternative 3 was studied as a standalone alternative, if the section west of 17th Street performed well under the road diet, a similar approach could be implemented at a later time for the section east of 17th; thus, Alternative 2 could potentially be phased.

Leverages private investment Not applicable. City infrastructure investments can have the effect of attracting private investment.

Aligns with planned City projects Retaining the existing conditions of State Street does not align with the City’s planned project for the corridor.

As proposed, all alternatives and the options incorporate the planned project for a median at 25th Street.

Minimizes need for additional right-of-way

Because there would be no improvements, there would be no need for additional right-of-way.

State Street is a designated Major Arterial. If the city proceeded to build out the infrastructure to Major Arterial standards, additional right-of-way would need to be acquired.

None of the alternatives studied require property acquisition for additional right-of-way.

This alternative would provide minimal opportunity to adjust widths to provide for wider lanes or pedestrian enhancements in the area between 17th and 23rd streets. The use of the existing right of way through this segment would be maximized.

A wide pedestrian realm in this alternative would allow for flexibility to adjust widths of elements such as sidewalk and landscape areas in locations where right-of-way is particularly constrained.

This alternative would perform similar to Alternative 1 east of 17th Street and similar to Alternative 2 west of 17th Street.

Construction of new sidewalks and landscape strips have an upfront infrastructure cost, but maintenance of these public

facilities would likely cost similar to maintenance costs of the existing right-of-way. Further, there would be minimal differences

in costs between the four-lane (without the signals option) and road diet (with the bicycle lanes option) alternatives because re-

striping of the street would accomplish most of the improvements. Although minimal, the road diet alternative (without the

bicycle lanes option) would likely be the more expensive than the four lane alternative (without the signals option) because

more of the existing pavement width would be reconstructed into sidewalk and landscaping. However the provision of two new

signalized intersections would add maintenance costs to Alternative 1. Of the alternatives, Alternative 2 performs the best

because it does not require the addition of any new right-of-way. Further, the road diet street design would complement all the

land use options more than Alternative 1 because it would likely attract more investment in the corridor.



Objective: Garners broad public support



Aligns with public input

Planning efforts have consistently found that there is little desire to maintain the existing condition of State Street.

Although this alternative would provide wider sidewalks and landscape strips along the corridor, it would be very similar to existing conditions, would not broadly address vehicular speeding in the corridor, and would not provide for vastly improved pedestrian and bicycle conditions. These are all areas that the public has expressed it desires as an effect of the street improvements to State Street.

The public has consistently identified a Road Diet as a solution to the issues experienced on State Street. The Road Diet would provide wider sidewalks and a median or pedestrian refuge in the center of the street, and it would slow traffic through the corridor.

Consistently, public input has identified the addition of bicycle lanes to State Street. This option would provide a bicycle lane, but at the expense of other desired elements, such as a safer pedestrian environment that is provided by a landscape strip between vehicle travel lanes and the sidewalk. There are opportunities for bicycle routes on the nearby and parallel streets of Chemeketa Street and Mill Street. The public has discussed the option to put bicycle lanes on parallel streets, and further discussion is expected.

The majority of the corridor, from 17th to 25th Street, would retain conditions similar to today as described in Alternative 1.

The public has expressed a desire for wider sidewalks, a median or pedestrian refuge in the center of the street, and slowed traffic between 12th and 17th Street.

Alternative 2, the Road Diet, aligns the best with the public input received during the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan

development and has continued throughout this project’s planning process. The public wants to see the pedestrian environment

enhanced and vehicular traffic slowed on the State Street corridor. Although bicycle lanes are desired, public input has placed a

higher emphasis on creating a safe and supportive pedestrian realm that encourages walking and patrons to visit the street.



4 OVERALL SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE

The previous sections provided a detailed description of how each land use and street design alternative

performs against all the project’s criteria and measures. Taking a step back and identifying which of the

alternatives perform the best is important. With all the criteria considered equal or unweighted, the

table below lists the top land use and street design alternatives based on this Tier 1 screening.

Best Performing Alternatives

Ranking Land Use Street Design

#1 Entire Corridor Nodal Focus Alternative 2: Road Diet

#2 West End Nodal Focus w/Eastern Addition Alternative 2: Road Diet with Bicycle Lanes Option

In general, the most transformative options and alternatives performed the best against the criteria. The

Entire Corridor Nodal Focus would be the most influential land use option to reach the City’s and

community’s desires as expressed through the goals and objectives. The Road Diet (Alternative 2) would

best enhance the pedestrian realm and draw people to stroll along the corridor and visit the shops and

community gathering places that would be allowed with the land use alternative.

Bicycle lanes have been identified as a desirable element of the State Street corridor for years. As

detailed, bicycle lanes were studied as an option of Street design Alternative 2. As discussed, there were

trade-offs with other desirable streetscape elements. Including bicycle lanes on State Street would mean

the loss of a vehicle travel lane, reduction of the space available for the pedestrian realm, loss of on-

street parking or acquisition of right-of-way. While bicycle facilities are an important part of the plan,

they are an element that can be provided on an alternate route, whereas the enhancement of the

pedestrian experience is essential to the ability to realize the land use transformation envisioned.

Likewise, the ability to maintain sufficient vehicular flow on State Street itself is required to meet the

City’s transportation needs.

Next, it is important to consider if one of the Street Design Alternatives would be a better fit with one of

the Land Use Alternatives. Street Design Alternative 1, Improved Four-Lane, supports all the Land Use

Alternatives the least, as shown by its performance. In general, Alternative 2, the Road Diet supports the

Land Use Alternatives the best because it goes the furthest to enhance the public pedestrian realm. If

one of the west-end focused land use alternatives is selected as the preferred option, the Hybrid Street

Design, Alternative 3, could compliment the alternative nearly as well.

A summary of performance for all the options and alternatives by criteria is provided on the following

page. The summary is detailed in a table that assigns a point system to each color as shown below. This

allows the points to be tallied and the best performing alternative to be easily identified.

Performance and Point System Breakdown

Performance Best Good Fair No Improvement Over


Point System 3 2 1 0 -1



Alternative 3

Improved Four

Lane

Option: Adding

Two SignalsRoad Diet

Option: Road Diet

with Bicycle Lanes

Hybrid Street

Design

Allows a mix of pedestrian-oriented uses by right, while minimizing auto-oriented uses 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Requires or encourages pedestrian-oriented site and building design (e.g., building orientation and

setback, pedestrian connections, location of parking) 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Allows a variety of housing types that would accommodate identified populations (e.g., University

faculty and students, state workers)1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

Removes existing regulatory barriers (e.g., process, setbacks, parking) 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

Provides incentives through code amendments, public improvements and/or other means 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

Requires or encourages attractive, pedestrian-friendly design features to complement site and

building design as noted above (e.g., landscaping, transparency/ windows)1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 2

Focuses on place and placemaking by emphasizing State Street as a destination 2 1 3 3 0 1 2 3 1

Improves the attractiveness of the streetscape (e.g., separation from traffic, pedestrian-scale lighting,

street trees, landscaping)2 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 2

Increases public spaces and amenities (e.g., Mill Creek access/use, green space, public plazas) 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 -1 2

Manages parking supply and pricing to minimize parking while accommodating business and

neighborhood needs2 2 2 2 0 0 0 -1 0

Minimizes barriers to improving existing buildings that can become more consistent with pedestrian-

oriented designs2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Encourages compatible site and building design with adjacent properties (e.g., design transitions and

buffers between uses and development types)2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimizes cut-through traffic on residential streets 1 1 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1

Mitigates potential displacement of residents (e.g., preservation or creation of affordable housing) 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Avoids or reduces adverse impacts on identified historical resources 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Does not worsen existing flooding problems (e.g., inclusion of green infrastructure, discourages fill in

the floodplain when developing)0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2

Improves pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, street crossings, buffers, lighting) 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2

Improves bicycle facilities and wayfinding (e.g., bicycle lanes, signage, parking at key locations) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2

Reduces potential conflicts between transportation modes (e.g., driveways, buffers, separation of

facilities)2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2

Improves connections to and between businesses, neighborhoods, nearby destinations and the

downtown area2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2

Provides space for improved transit stop amenities (e.g., sidewalk width, sidewalk extension on

development site)2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 2

Facilitates pedestrian access to transit 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2

Minimizes adverse impacts on traffic flow and intersection operations 2 2 2 2 0 1 -1 -1 1

Discourages speeding 2 2 2 2 0 1 3 3 2

Mitigates operational impacts on parallel corridors (including Market Street, D Street, Center Street,

and Mission Street)2 2 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1

Aligns with Projected

marketAligns with findings of Economic Analysis 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Consistent with adopted/

accepted City plans

Consistent with plans such as the NEN-SESNA Neighborhood Plan, Housing Needs Analysis, Economic

Opportunities Analysis, Salem Comprehensive Policies Plan, and Salem Transportation Systems Plan

Goals and Policies

2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2

Considers total cost of public infrastructure 2 2 2 2 0 -1 0 0 -1

Helps attract or justify other potential non-City funding sources 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2

Provides opportunities to phase projects 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1

Leverages private investment 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Aligns with planned City projects 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Minimizes need for additional right-of-way 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

Garners broad public

supportAligns with public input 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 2

58 56 65 66 40 44 63 55 51Totals

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

West End Focus

West End Nodal

Focus w/Southern

Addition

West End Focus

w/Eastern

Addition

Entire Corridor

Nodal Focus

Pro

mo

te E

con

om

ic V

ital

ity

and

Liv

abil

ity

Encourages pedestrian-

oriented, mixed-use

development and

redevelopment of

underutilized properties

Enco

ura

ge F

eas

ible

Imp

rove

me

nts

Minimizes negative

impacts on adjacent

neighborhoods

Supports the business

environment

Imp

rove

Mu

ltim

od

al A

cce

ss A

nd

Saf

ety

Improves multimodal

access and safety

Maximizes cost

effectiveness

Creates a safe, attractive,

pedestrian-friendly

environment

LAND USE ALTERNATIVE STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Goal Objective Criteria


August 2, 2016 Appendix A

APPENDIX A: STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DRAWINGS

12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

25th

ST.

SE

STATE STREET CORRIDOR PLANALTERNATIVE 1 - IMPROVED 4-LANE

VICINITY MAP

Segment A12th St.

to 13th St.

LEGENDPavement MarkingCurbSidewalkBike Lane SCALE:

0 800400200400

1"-400' June 2016

Segment B - 13th St. to 17th St. Segment C - 17th St. to 25th St.

STATE ST.

17th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE

16th

ST.

SE

STRA

ND

AVE.

SE

TRADE ST. SE

18th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

20th

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

SE

22nd

ST.

SE 23rd

ST. SE

MILL ST. SE

BELLEVUE ST. SE

RICHMOND

AVE. SE

24thST. SE

25th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

NE

23rd

ST.

NE

21st

ST.

NE

20th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

NE

CHEMEKETA ST. NE

CENTER ST. NE BREYMAN ST. NE

CAPI

TOL

ST. N

E

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTEBIKE ROUTE

BIKE

ROU

TE

On-Street Bike Lanes

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE

ROUTE

New Bike/Ped Crossing of Mill Creek

12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE


(Sheet 1 of 4)

Segment A - 12th St. to 13th St. Segment B - 13th St. to 17th St.10' ± Sidewalk

5' Landscape18' Angled Parking

10' Eastbound Lane11' Eastbound Lane


10' Sidewalk, StreetFurniture


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

8' Sidewalk6' Landscape

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane


10' Westbound Lane10' Eastbound Lane

8' Parallel Parking

8' Parallel Parking



11' Eastbound Lane 11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane10' Westbound Lane

10' Eastbound Lane11' Turn Lane

NOTE: In order to improve pedestrian safety, a markedcrosswalk and rapid flashing beacons may beadded on State St. between 14th St. and 17th St.The location of this crossing is to be determined.

COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

NE

17th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE



(Sheet 2 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016


11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane

8' Sidewalk

8' Parallel Parking


3' Landscape6' Sidewalk6' Landscape

10' Westbound Lane10' Eastbound Lane

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane10' Westbound Lane10' Eastbound Lane

8' Parallel Parking

NOTE: As an option to this Alternative,Traffic Signals may be added at thefollowing State St. intersections:19th St. SE and 21st St. SE.

NOTE: In order to improve pedestrian safety, a markedcrosswalk and rapid flashing beacons may beadded on State St. between 14th St. and 17th St.The location of this crossing is to be determined.

COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

21st

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

NE

23rdST. SE

23rd

ST.

NE

Segment C - 17th St. to 25th St.

MILL CREEK


(Sheet 3 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane


3' Landscape6' Sidewalk

10' Eastbound Lane10' Westbound Lane

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane




NOTE: As an option to this Alternative,Traffic Signals may be added at thefollowing State St. intersections:19th St. SE and 21st St. SE.

24th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

SE

25th

ST.

NE

25th

ST.

SE



(Sheet 4 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane


6' Sidewalk

NOTE: Tie-in with existing roadway to be laid outduring later design phases.

STATE ST.

10' Eastbound Lane

10' Westbound Lane

Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m C

hem

eket

a St

. NE

New Bike/Pedestrian crossing of Mill Creek.

Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m M

ill S

t. SE

12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

25th

ST.

SE

STATE STREET CORRIDOR PLANALTERNATIVE 2 - ROAD DIET

VICINITY MAP

Segment A12th St.

to 13th St.

BIKE ROUTE


0 800400200400

1"-400' June 2016


STATE ST.

17th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE

16th

ST.

SE

STRA

ND

AVE.

SE

TRADE ST. SE

18th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

20th

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

SE

22nd

ST.

SE 23rd

ST. SE

MILL ST. SE

BELLEVUE ST. SE

RICHMOND

AVE. SE

24thST. SE

25th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

NE

23rd

ST.

NE

21st

ST.

NE

20th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

NE

CHEMEKETA ST. NE


CAPI

TOL

ST. N

E BIKE ROUTEBIKE ROUTE

BIKE

ROUTE

BIKE

ROU

TE



BIKE ROUTE

12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE


(Sheet 1 of 4)




11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane11' Median/Turn Lane

8' Parallel Parking

19' Sidewalk with Landscaping,Street Furniture



5' Landscpe13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture 13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture

5' Landscpe

11' Median/Turn Lane11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane


8' Parallel Parking


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

NOTE: As an option to this Alternative, bike lanes couldbe implemented on each side of State St. east of13th St. This would require removal of parallelparking on one side of State St. in Segment B.

NOTE: In order to help improve pedestrian safety,marked crosswalks could be added across State St.between intersections, with a raised median islandto provide pedestrian refuge. This would requireremoval of parking where implemented.

COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

NE

17th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE



(Sheet 2 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture5' Landscape


11' Westbound Lane


8' Parallel Parking


11' Westbound Lane

8' Sidewalk5.5' Landscape

5.5' Landscape8' Sidewalk

NOTE: As an option to this Alternative, bike lanes couldbe implemented on each side of State St. Thiswould require removal of the landscape strips inSegment C and removal of parallel parking on oneside of State St. in Segment B.


COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

21st

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

NE

23rdST. SE

23rd

ST.

NE


MILL CREEK


(Sheet 3 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016


11' Westbound Lane




11' Westbound Lane



NOTE: As an option to this Alternative, bike lanes couldbe implemented on each side of State St. Thiswould require removal of the landscape strips.

24th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

SE

25th

ST.

NE

25th

ST.

SE



(Sheet 4 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016


11' Westbound Lane


8' Sidewalk


STATE ST.

Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m C

hem

eket

a St

. NE


Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m M

ill S

t. SE

NOTE: As an option to this Alternative, bike lanes couldbe implemented on each side of State St. Thiswould require removal of the landscape strips.

12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

25th

ST.

SE

STATE STREET CORRIDOR PLANALTERNATIVE 3 - HYBRID

VICINITY MAP

Segment A12th St.

to 13th St.


0 800400200400

1"-400' June 2016


STATE ST.

17th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE

16th

ST.

SE

STRA

ND

AVE.

SE

TRADE ST. SE

18th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

20th

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

SE

22nd

ST.

SE 23rd

ST. SE

MILL ST. SE

BELLEVUE ST. SE

RICHMOND

AVE. SE

24thST. SE

25th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

NE

23rd

ST.

NE

21st

ST.

NE

20th

ST.

NE

15th

ST.

NE

CHEMEKETA ST. NE


CAPI

TOL

ST. N

E

BIKE ROUTE

BIKE ROUTEBIKE ROUTE

BIKE

ROU

TE


BIKE ROUTE

BIKE

ROUTE


12th

ST.

NE

12th

ST.

SE

13th

ST.

SE

14th

ST.

SE

COURT ST. NE

STATE ST.

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE


(Sheet 1 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

13th

ST.

NE

14th

ST.

NE




11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane11' Median/Turn Lane

8' Parallel Parking




5' Landscpe13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture 13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture

5' Landscpe


11' Westbound Lane


8' Parallel Parking


COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

15th

ST.

SE

17th

ST.

NE

17th

ST.

SE

19th

ST.

SE

18th

ST.

NE



(Sheet 2 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016



11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane10' Westbound Lane10' Eastbound Lane

Segment B - 13th St. to 17th St.

13' Sidewalk, Street Furniture5' Landscape


11' Westbound Lane


8' Parallel Parking Potential Traffic SignalControlled Intersection


COURT ST. NE

FERRY ST. SE

21st

ST.

SE

21st

ST.

NE

23rdST. SE

23rd

ST.

NE


MILL CREEK


(Sheet 3 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane




11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane




Potential Traffic SignalControlled Intersection

24th

ST.

NE

24th

ST.

SE

25th

ST.

NE

25th

ST.

SE



(Sheet 4 of 4)


0 20010050100

1"-100' June 2016

11' Eastbound Lane

11' Westbound Lane


6' Sidewalk


STATE ST.

10' Eastbound Lane

10' Westbound Lane

Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m C

hem

eket

a St

. NE


Bicy

cle

Rout

e to

/fro

m M

ill S

t. SE

State Street Corridor Plan Land Use and Street Design ... · Appendix A: Street Design Alternatives...

Documents

Transcript of State Street Corridor Plan Land Use and Street Design ... · Appendix A: Street Design Alternatives...