MEDIANS IN THE CITY

A Report to the Olympia City Council

Olympia Advance Planning & Olympia Public Works

November 2003

Olympia Advance Planning

Steven W. Morrison Senior Planner, Lead Project Staff

Scott Carte GIS Analyst

Rosalie Bostwick Office Manager

Louise Bobier Administrative Assistant

Sarah Phillips Graphics Technician I

Lon D. Wyrick Executive Director

Susan Andrews Assistant Director

Olympia Public Works

David C. Riker Transportation Division Manager

Randy Wesselman Transportation Engineering Supervisor

Dave Smith Transportation Project Engineer II

Sophie Stimson Transportation Demand Management Planner

Greg Walker Engineering Design II

Michael Mucha Director of Public Works

Olympia Planning Commission Subcommittee

Chris Hawkins Planning Commission Chair

Karen Messmer Planning Commission

Tom Carver Planning Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Background ...... 1 Project Scope of Work ...... 1 Types of Medians...... 2 Olympia Comprehensive Plan ...... 8 Guidance #1: Attractive Streets ...... 9 Guidance #2: Safe Streets ...... 11 Guidance #3: Accessible Commercial Access...... 15 Guidance #4: Effective Streets...... 18 Median Design Standards ...... 20 Installation & Maintenance Costs ...... 23 Median Cover Types...... 25 Medians & Roundabouts...... 28 Public Art in Medians ...... 30 Median Suitability Checklist...... 31 Selected Roadways ...... 33 Table Used in Suitability Scoring ...... 33 Conclusions...... 36 Bibliography...... 38 Median Suitability - Summary Sheet ...... 39 Median Suitability Sheet #1 – Locational and Pedestrian Value Factors ...... 40 Median Suitability Sheet #2 – Locational and Pedestrian Value Factors ...... 41

List of Tables

1. Recently Constructed Medians ...... 23 2. Recently Constructed Pedestrian Crossing Islands...... 23 3. Cost of Various Median Projects ...... 23 4. Comparison of Maintenance Costs ...... 24 5. Cover Types of Recently Constructed Medians...... 25 6. Relative Maintenance Cost of Recently Constructed Medians...... 25 7. Roadways Selected for Median Suitability Review...... 33 8. Median Suitability Scores ...... 36 9. Median Opportunity Factors ...... 37

List of Figures

1. Generalized Plan View – Pedestrian Crossing with a Median...... 2 2. Generalized Street View – Pedestrian Crossing with a Median ...... 3 3. Plum Street near City Hall ...... 4 4. East Bay Drive at Berry Street...... 4 5. East Bay Drive south of Priest Point Park ...... 4 6. Capitol Way South of 12th Avenue ...... 5 7. Maple Park Drive at Franklin Street ...... 5 8. Jefferson Street at 14th Avenue ...... 5 9. Harrison Avenue near Black Lake Boulevard ...... 6 i List of Figures (continued)

10. Harrison Avenue near Limited Lane...... 6 11. Mud Bay Road west of Cooper Point Road...... 6 12. Cooper Point Road near 12th Avenue...... 7 13. Cooper Point Road north of Capital Mall Drive ...... 7 14. Cooper Point Road near Yauger Park ...... 7 15. Mid-Block Crossing on Harrison Avenue ...... 12 16. Proposed East Bay Drive Improvements ...... 14 17. 4th Avenue—"As It Could Become" ...... 16 18. Bridgeport Way in University Place, WA...... 16 19. Mowing Strip and Inside Lane Striping on Cooper Point Road Median ...... 20 20. Olympia 2-Lane Roadways...... 22 21. Olympia 4-Lane Roadways...... 22 22. Median Cover Type – Colored Concrete (State Avenue & Wilson Street) ...... 26 23. Median Cover Type – Grass with Trees (Cooper Point Road) ...... 26 24. Median Cover Type – Dense Shrubs (Harrison Avenue) ...... 27 25. Median Cover Type – Sparse Shrubs (Harrison Avenue & Mud Bay Road) ...... 27 26. Footprint of a Roundabout and 4-Leg Intersection...... 28 27. Plan View – Wide Node and Narrow Road ...... 29 28. Kite Girl in Lacey on Pacific Avenue...... 30 29. Public Art in the Roundabout at Market Street & Capitol Way ...... 30

COVER: Cooper Point Road – adjacent to Yauger Park and the Skate Park

ii BACKGROUND

Within the last few years, medians have been discussed with almost every street improvement brought before the City Council. Current city policy is to review a project for medians at the design phase. This is fairly late in the approval process and decisions are made on a case by case basis. The city, in particular the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, was already becoming interested in some sort of city-wide median policy when community groups such as the Olympia Safe Streets Campaign and the East Bay Drive Neighborhood Association, approached the city regarding adding medians on a variety of arterials and major collectors.

The City of Olympia Planning Commission has become aware of some of these community desires. In their recommendation letter to the City Council on the 2001 – 2006 Capital Facilities Plan, the Planning Commission suggested that the city "consider medians on East Bay Drive in the context of a citywide median plan. As an entry corridor into downtown with identified traffic safety issues we believe that East Bay Drive may indeed be an appropriate site for medianization". [OPC Letter of September 27, 2000]

Medians can address a number of community concerns. These may include traffic speed, pedestrian safety, and enhanced bicycle movement. Another aspect of the report will be to explore the community goals and priorities found in the Olympia Comprehensive Plan, along with the cost and maintenance of these desired facilities. These are the background conditions which led to this analysis of medians and enhancement of bicycle mobility.

PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK

In 2001 Olympia Advance Planning began working on a median report, which was originally to be completed by mid-2002. The report was designed to identify where medians would be required as the future road standard, would be desirable when upgrades to arterials and major collectors are planned, or where they could address a vital community issues, such as pedestrian safety.

The report's scope was to include a brief overview of the purposes of medians, a discussion of pedestrian islands vs. continuous median (a.k.a. boulevard), an inventory of existing medians, identification of construction and maintenance costs, and some case studies from other local

1 jurisdictions. The project was funded by the Olympia Public Works Department, Transportation Division.

Copies of the DRAFT median report issued in May 2002 were reviewed by the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission. Neighborhood Associations and other interested parties were invited to the briefing with the Olympia Planning Commission. This revised text addresses a number of the comments regarding the format and readability of the original however the report does not include a discussion regarding the "median criteria". The project scope was to include median criteria which could be applied citywide, and tested on ten corridors in the city.

The original scope of work for this project included preparing criteria for locating future medians. Staff surveyed a number of other cities in the region to determine if any used special policies or criteria to identify when medians were warranted, at an earlier date. A "Median Scoring Methodology" was included in the May 2002 Draft, but the response to that was such that it was deferred until a future phase, which was funded by the City Council for 2003.

TYPES OF MEDIANS

A. PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS

The term "refuge island" refers to a safe haven for pedestrians half way across a busy roadway. Pedestrian crossings located mid-way between two intersections, are called "mid-block crossings". When medians are planted with grass, shrubs, and/or trees, they are referred to as "landscape islands". Most of the medians in the city are landscape islands.

Figure 1 (below) is an example of a pedestrian crossing within a refuge island, which includes some landscaping. This is similar to the recent medians installed on Cooper Point Road adjacent to the skateboard park, on Harrison Avenue north of the Target store and on Harrison Avenue adjacent to Hollywood Video.

Figure 1 Generalized Plan View - Pedestrian Crossing with a Median

2

Figure 2 Generalized Street View - Pedestrian Crossing with a Median

Source: WSDOT. Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook (1997) Figure 83; & Olympia Public Works Department. Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards (1999)

Figure 2 (above) is an example of a refuge island at street level. It uses City of Olympia standards for a single lane of traffic in each direction. This design is similar to the city's most recently installed pedestrian crossing, but the city opted to install in-pavement flashing lights instead using of the overhead crossing signs.

B. CONTINUOUS MEDIAN (a.k.a. "Boulevard")

The other major category of medians is referred to as a continuous median or boulevard. The best Olympia example of a boulevard roadway is East Bay Drive through Priest Point Park. The City of Tumwater has added medians to Airdustrial Road and has renamed it “Tumwater Boulevard”. The City of Lacey has several boulevard roadways including Willamette Boulevard, Britton Parkway, and that portion of rebuilt Marvin Road from I-5 to the Britton Parkway roundabout. Lacey and other communities such as University Place, WA have chosen to link their medians with roundabouts which addresses the need to make u-turns when left turns are needed but restricted by the median.

C. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING MEDIANS

The figures on the following four pages attempt to capture the variety of existing medians which already exist within the City of Olympia. They are generally arranged along the same corridor. The figures on page 4 show the medians on Plum Street and East Bay Drive. On page 5 are the medians around the State Capitol Campus. The medians on page 6 are along Harrison Avenue and Mud Bay Road. The images from page 7 can be found along Cooper Point Road.

3

Figure 3 Plum Street near City Hall

Figure 4 East Bay Drive at Berry Street

Figure 5 East Bay Drive south of Priest Point Park

4 Figure 6 Capitol Way South of 12th Avenue

Figure 7 Maple Park Drive at Franklin Street

Figure 8 Jefferson Street at 14th Avenue

5

Figure 9 Harrison Avenue near Black Lake Boulevard

Figure 10 Harrison Avenue near Limited Lane

Figure 11 Mud Bay Road west of Cooper Point Road

6 Figure 12 Cooper Point Road near 12th Avenue

Figure 13 Cooper Point Road north of Capital Mall Drive

Figure 14 Cooper Point Road near Yauger Park

7 OLYMPIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Olympia Comprehensive Plan (1994) is to guide development within the city. It was adopted in conformance with the Washington State Growth Management Act. It contains twelve chapters. Each chapter contains background material regarding that issue, and then Goals and Policies. These are the tools by which the Comprehensive Plan is implemented.

The Transportation and Land Use chapters focus on building a street network that is aesthetically pleasing to encourage walking and transit use and that works for both cars and people. Many goals and policies refer to the need to facilitate pedestrian movement. Illustrations of street standards including some options for boulevards were included as one template for achieving the city's goals for streets.

So while the Comprehensive Plan did not focus on medians, it has come to be considered along side the other streetscape features (e.g. sidewalks, street trees, planter strips, and traffic calming devices) that were the focus in the 1994 plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan goals which would help guide the placement of medians are summarized below. Related Comprehensive Plan policies have been added to create a policy summary for the following four sections. These sections include commentary about current conditions within the city.

OLYMPIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – MEDIAN RELATED GOALS

1. To create a cohesive, beautiful, and efficient city. [Land Use Chapter, Goal LU 2]

2. Ensure the safe and efficient movement of goods and people. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 3]

3. To make commercial areas easily accessible and inviting for transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motorists. [Land Use Chapter, Goal LU 14]

4. Reduce dependence on auto use, especially drive-alone vehicle use during morning and evening commute hours. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 1]

5. Achieve efficient use of energy in transportation. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 5]

8 GUIDANCE #1: ATTRACTIVE STREETS

GOALS To create a cohesive, beautiful, and efficient city. [Land Use Chapter, Goal LU 2]

POLICIES Provide attractive streetscapes with street trees and sidewalks, planting strips, shelters, benches, and pedestrian scale street lights in appropriate locations (from LU 8.5). [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.9]

Work with the neighborhoods and the business community to develop and conduct a city-wide beautification program.

This program could include activities such as tree planting, clean-up projects, and installation of landscaping along major arterials and in commercial districts. [Land Use Chapter, Policy LU 2.4]

Establish street designs that will contribute to reaching the transportation and land use goals of the area, provide safe and efficient mobility for all people, and contribute to the quality of life and civic identity in the area. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.7]

Establish gateways to Olympia with significant, special landscaping.

Establish design standards for the landscaping and buildings along Olympia's entrance and exit corridors that reinforce the streets' role as the gateways to the Capital. [Land Use Chapter, Policy LU 2.7]

A. BEAUTIFICATION - "GREEN STREETS"

Streetscapes have been identified as public spaces with great potential for expanding travel options between various modes. Having an attractive place to walk, bike or hop on a bus expands the usefulness of corridors to move people rather than just cars. Medians may be a part of "Green Street" improvements which may include other desired street facilities such as frequent convenient pedestrian crossings, street trees, attractive overhead lighting, street furniture, and bus shelters.

In 1995 Olympia revised its street standards. This major initiative was a result of the Urban Design and Vision Strategy for Olympia (1990). The recommendations in the strategy noted "If Olympia could do only one thing to improve livability it would be to change its street standards." During the street standard adoption process some candidates for boulevards were identified, however the Olympia City Council chose not to adopt boulevard locations at that time.

9 B. COMMUNITY IDENTITY

Medians provide a separation between different intensity lands uses. Medians can help to delineate the boundaries of the large public ownerships, such as the State Capitol Campus. Continuous landscaping medians (boulevards) can be found around the perimeter of West Campus along Jefferson Street, 11th Avenue, and Maple Park. Refer to the medians on page 9.

C. GATEWAYS

The Olympia Comprehensive Plan indicates that special landscaping should be used at the "gateways" to the city. Medians are often used to establish a different community identity. Medians which have been used near the entrance of the community are located on Plum Street, East Bay Drive and Harrison Avenue (Mud Bay Drive). Refer to the medians on pages 8 and 10.

The Olympia Comprehensive Plan does not have a list or map of these gateway streets. So for the purposes of this report, these will be assumed to be 1) the historical entrances into the community (e.g. Old Highway 99 – Capitol Way & Martin Way, Old Pacific Highway – Pacific Avenue, Old Highway 101 – Mud Bay Road & Harrison Avenue); 2) be the current freeway entrances for downtown Olympia – Plum Street, 14th Avenue east of Jefferson Street and East Bay Drive; and 3) Boulevard Road as the predominant entrance to the community from the southeast.

10 GUIDANCE #2: SAFE STREETS

GOALS Ensure the safe and efficient movement of goods and people. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 3]

POLICIES Design intersections to safely accommodate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Construct intersections with the minimum dimensions necessary to maintain established levels of service.

Discourage construction of turning lanes where they would deter pedestrians (from LU 8.3e). [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.11]

Establish street designs that will contribute to - reaching the transportation and land use goals of the area, - provide safe and efficient mobility for all people, and - contribute to the quality of life and civic identity in the area. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.7]

The City shall support bicyclists and pedestrians by providing safe, convenient, and inviting routes and walkways between activity centers and in areas where the use of alternatives to driving alone for commuters is encouraged.

In these areas, facilities and services needed to support the use of alternatives shall be identified and a funding strategy put into place.

Bike and pedestrian facilities shall be included in the multi-modal level of service policy. (See T 2.1.) [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 1.11]

A. IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY

There are a number of corridors within the city where there are few designated crosswalks and pedestrian crossings are difficult. These generally are along arterials and major collectors which typically have high speeds, larger volumes, and lack connected streets. These are portions of Martin Way, Pacific Avenue, and Harrison Avenue (within the city) where there are few cross streets, and hence limited opportunities to cross these multi-lane facilities. For example, on Martin Way pedestrian signals are on a half-mile interval between Lilly Road and College Street.

Medians can benefit pedestrian crossings by allowing the pedestrian to cross half the street at a time. By only having to cross half the street at a time, there are fewer cars to monitor, and with fewer lanes to cross at a time, there are greater opportunities for gaps in traffic.

11 Seniors require a longer time than other age groups to safely cross the street. Capitol Way (north of State Street) is a corridor which may require additional attention for its senior population and bulb outs could reduce the curb to curb distance.

Figure 15 Mid-Block Crossing on Harrison Avenue

B. REDUCTION OF LEFT TURN ACCIDENTS.

The two-way left turn lane can be a source of accidents particularly on arterial roadways with numerous driveways. Replacing the two-way left turn lane with a median can eliminate these movements and thereby reduce traffic accidents. Creating a "boulevard" is probably the most common use of continuous medians.

This sort of access management can affect the traffic patterns into and out of commercial establishments. The solution along a roadway with a continuous median (a.k.a. boulevard) roadway cross section, are left turn pockets which are designed with enough turning radius to accommodate u-turns. Roundabouts can also serve to provide u-turns with continuous medians. There are no examples of this sort of boulevard within the city or the county, but a commonly used example is International Boulevard (Old Highway 99) adjacent to the SeaTac International Airport. Refer to Figures 20 and 21 (on page 22, respectively) which depict generalized roadway cross sections with a 2-way left turn lane, and those with a median in that same location.

12 C. REDUCTION OF TRAFFIC SPEEDS.

Medians will slow traffic in many cases due to the presence of the curb on the driver’s side. This visual friction can be enhanced by median separations or breaks and other visual median vegetation. When combined with street trees and other traffic calming techniques, medians can play a role to help reduce traffic speeds along a corridor.

However, the use of continuous medians may have an undesirable effect. When the roadway has a continuous narrow median containing little landscaping and few intersections or cross streets, such a design may actually increase traffic speeds.

13

POTENTIAL MEDIAN:

East Bay Drive - Priest Point Park to Glass Street

The East Bay Drive Neighborhood Association has proposed adding 4 large and 2 small medians (total of approximately 780 feet) along East Bay Drive as a means of reducing the excessive traffic speeds during the morning and evening peak hours, and to eliminate the use of the center turn lane as a passing lane.

A 2002 traffic speed study shows that only about 9% of the vehicles south of Priest Point Park and 6.5% of the vehicles south of the East Bay Drive Condo's driveway were traveling at or below the posted speed of 30 mph. Olympia Public Works believes that the median inside Priest Point Park may actually increase traffic speeds, but the study did not measure this effect.

The 2002 traffic study indicated that the 85th percentile speed (speed at which 85% of the traffic is driving at or below) at both locations has actually been reduced by 4 mph and 2 mph, respectively. In 1998 the 85th percentile speed at the park was 41.3 mph and 43.2 mph at the condos. In 2001/2002 speeds at both locations were 37.7 mph. Finally, the maximum speed at both locations was also reduced by 11 mph at the park and 6 mph near the condos.

The City prepared a preliminary cost estimate for the potential East Bay medians (see page 23) and estimated them to be significantly more expensive than recently constructed facilities. This is largely attributed to the size of the project to retrofit for medians. The East Bay Drive Neighborhood Association disagrees with the City's preliminary project costs, but has expressed an interest at exploring alternative designs which would be less costly.

Olympia Public Works is concerned that as proposed, the medians on East Bay Drive may actually increase speeds and not reduce them.

Figure 16 Proposed East Bay Drive Improvements

14 GUIDANCE #3: ACCESSABLE COMMERCIAL AREAS

GOALS To make commercial areas easily accessible and inviting for transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motorists. [Land Use Chapter, Goal LU 14]

POLICIES Establish street designs that will contribute to - reaching the transportation and land use goals of the area, - provide safe and efficient mobility for all people, and - contribute to the quality of life and civic identity in the area. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.7]

Minimize curb cuts along major commercial streets to reduce vehicle- pedestrian-bicyclist conflicts and disruptions in traffic flow.

Require use of shared accesses or accesses off side streets wherever possible. [Land Use Chapter, Policy LU 14.14]

Work with the neighborhoods and the business community to develop and conduct a city-wide beautification program.

This program could include activities such as tree planting, clean-up projects, and installation of landscaping along major arterials and in commercial districts. [Land Use Chapter, Policy LU 2.4]

A. COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT

Medians can be part of commercial redevelopment along with other streetscape improvements. Some communities find street reconstruction with medians a way to provide the community a focal point, while adding adequate facilities for other modes such as sidewalks, bike lanes and bus pull outs. While there is no local example of this approach, the City of University Place received regional and national awards for its upgrading of Bridgeport Way. Refer to Figure 18 on page 20.

The Olympia design guidelines and Olympia Comprehensive Plan infer that the side of the roadway is the preferred location for landscaping; however this may not be possible on all roadways. An often noted conflict is between street trees and overhead power lines. If underground power is not a feasible long-term option, then medians may be employed to add a limited amount of landscaping along these roadways.

15 Figure 17 4th Avenue – “As It Could Become” Source: Comprehensive Plan for Olympia and the Olympia Growth Area (1994)

Figure 18 Bridgeport Way in University Place, WA

The redevelopment of Bridgeport Way in University Place, Washington helped to revitalize its Towne Center and opened up the roadway to alternative modes of travel.

16

Essential Commercial Area Characteristics

To realize this vision of higher-density, pedestrian- friendly, mixed-use development, each commercial area should have the following characteristics:

• Buildings oriented toward the street, with windows and doors along the street frontage; • "Human-scaled" buildings with architectural details that can be appreciated by pedestrians; • Parking lots located behind buildings or, where that is not possible, along the side of buildings; • Well-connected streets arranged in a typical block pattern (not "super blocks"); • Streets designed for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile use with wide sidewalks, street trees, and planting strips on both sides; • Frequent, well-marked pedestrian crosswalks; • Frequent transit stops with shelters; • Public plazas and open spaces; and • A balanced mix of moderate-to-high density commercial, residential, and recreation uses.

Source: Olympia Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1994) – Land Use and Urban Design, Pg 33

17 GUIDANCE #4: EFFECTIVE STREETS

GOALS Reduce dependence on auto use, especially drive-alone vehicle use during morning and evening commute hours. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 1]

Achieve efficient use of energy in transportation. [Transportation Chapter, Goal T 5]

POLICIES Rebuild or retrofit core Area and High Density Corridor streets to city standards in order to attract the type and density of development needed to reach transportation goals. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 5.6]

In downtown and along High Density Corridors, priority shall be given to building pedestrian-friendly streets. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 1.12]

Give priority to alternative modes of transportation City-wide when transportation projects are proposed, especially in Downtown and along High Density Residential Corridors. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 3.3]

Bike routes and pedestrian improvements on streets that serve high density areas shall be given high priority for improvements that will encourage the use of alternatives to commuters driving alone.

Other criteria to determine the sidewalk network priority improvements include school walking routes, transit routes, missing links, and high pedestrian use areas. [Transportation Chapter, Policy T 1.11]

A. DOWNTOWN AND HIGH DENSITY CORRIDORS

Olympia's downtown and High Density Corridors have been identified as locations where streetscape improvements are to have a high priority. High Density Corridors were divided into four categories (HDC-1, HDC-2, HDC-3, and HDC-4) with High Density Corridors 1 & 2 being closest to the downtown. These would have a higher priority than HDC-3 and HDC-4 areas. HDC-3 & 4 areas, such as along Martin Way and Pacific Avenue, contain a 5-lane roadway cross-section (similar to Figure 21) which would be easier to retrofit with medians than would a 4-lane roadway with no turn lane.

18 B. SMOOTH TRAFFIC FLOW

As noted in the above discussion, continuous medians can be an effective way of promoting smooth (or uninterrupted) traffic flows. Traffic congestion not only wastes time, it consumes mores resources and creates more impacts like air pollution when compared with the same distance traveled on a freely flowing section of roadway. The interstate freeways are a common example where these traffic characteristics supercede other design factors. There are no examples of arterials or major collectors within the city with this sort of design.

The closest local example would be Britton Parkway which is a new road in Lacey built north of I-5 from Marvin to Carpenter Road. The road was designed to minimize access points and has been phased so it can be expanded to add additional lanes when expansion is needed. As part of an important east-west "corridor", it includes a 2-lane roundabout at Marvin Road and connects to Willamette Drive (a boulevard street) within the Meridian Campus Planned Community.

C. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTION

The replacement of a two way left turn lane with a landscaped median is just one example of reducing impervious (paved) surfaces. All such reductions would have a positive benefit to streams, wetlands and the aquatic life that depend upon these ecosystems. Low Impact Development techniques suggest narrow roadways, retention of native landscaping, and pervious pavements where this can be practically employed.

19 MEDIAN DESIGN STANDARDS

With the recent construction of medians throughout the city, Olympia has adopted a design which is similar to other jurisdictions. Phone interviews of a number of cities in the region, indicated that only the City of Kirkland had adopted its own design standard. The other jurisdictions (Bellevue, Redmond, and University Place) indicated that they relied solely upon the standards of AASHTO or ITE designs.

The city's design standard includes a vertical curb with a 1 foot concrete “mowing strip” inside the curb. This provides an additional safety area for maintenance crews and allows for large truck tires to jump the curb without damaging the landscaping or irrigation. The standard also includes a painted 1 foot gutter on the left side of the inside driving lane. This gutter sets back the median an additional foot from the driving lane. A white regulatory and yellow caution sign is located at each end of the median. The mowing strip and lane striping for the gutter can both be seen in Figure 19 below.

The mowing strip and inside lane gutter represent recent design changes to medians. For example, the medians on the State Capitol Campus do not have either and were built in the mid- 1980s. Addition of the 1 foot mowing strip, and the 1 foot shy distance from vehicle travel lane on both sides of the median narrows the area left for landscaping. Table 3 in the next section contains the widths of the recently constructed medians in Olympia. While the Olympia Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department believes that the 1 foot mowing strip is absolutely essential for safety of its employees, the City of Lacey does not use the other shy distance in any of its median designs. If a median is being constructed in part to reduce traffic speeds, then the median width and its cover types should both be design considerations.

Figure 19 Mowing Strip and Inside Lane Striping on Cooper Point Road Median 20 In the City of Olympia Development Standards medians are allowed at the discretion of the developer on neighborhood collectors, major collectors and arterials. Currently, there is no policy or map in the Olympia Comprehensive Plan which mandates a boulevard cross section for any particular arterial or major collector. However, in 2001 the city adopted a median cross-section for the future extension of Log Cabin Road. Interviews with a number of other cities in the Puget Sound region (Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, and University Place) indicated that none have designated "boulevard streets" in their comprehensive plans or official transportation maps, except one.

The City of Lacey is the only jurisdiction that was found to have identified boulevard streets as the standard roadway cross-section. These standards are found in the City of Lacey Public Works Standards, which were adopted in 2002. While a lesser street standard may be possible on a case- by-case basis, it is at the city's and not the developer's option. By having the slightly more expensive boulevard roadway as the standard, the city's impact fees or other system requirements would not be adversely affected by a deviation on a single property. Therefore, where the City of Olympia finds a substantial rationale for a boulevard (continuous median) it may choose to designate these corridors on Olympia’s Transportation Map (Map 6-3) which can be found in the Comprehensive Plan.

Figures 20 and 21 (on the following page) depict the current city of Olympia design standards for various widths of roadways. These compare a 2, and a 4 lane roadway with and without a median.

21

Figure 20 Olympia 2-Lane Roadways

Figure 21 Olympia 4-Lane Roadways

22 INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS

Within the last few years Olympia has added over ½ mile of medians in the city. These include both retrofits, and new construction. Table 1 below indicates the length and location of these medians. See Figure 1 for the locations of these medians.

Table 1 – Recently Constructed Medians

ROADWAY LENGTH ! Cooper Point Road 1,540 ft ! Harrison Avenue 870 ft ! Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Road 305 ft ! Sleater-Kinney Road 775 ft ! East Bay Drive 130 ft TOTAL 3,625 ft

Table 2 – Recently Constructed Pedestrian Crossing Islands

ROADWAY (General Location) ! Capitol Way State Capitol Campus ! 4th Avenue Fairview Street & Sylvester Street ! State Street Wilson Street ! Harrison Avenue West of Black Lake Boulevard & West of Kenyon Street ! Cooper Point Road Olympia Skate Park ! Deschutes Parkway 5th Avenue Bridge

The cost to install a median varies dramatically based upon a number of conditions. Some of the older arterials (such as Martin Way or Harrison Avenue-Mud Bay Road) were built with concrete panels which were later widened with asphalt. When medians are installed in the middle of the old roadway, it costs more to saw cut and remove the concrete as compared to an asphalt street. The relative costs of retrofit some recent median projects are included in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Cost of Various Median Projects

ROADWAY TYPE WIDTH COST/LF YEAR ! Cooper Point Road Retrofit 7.5 ft $110 1999 ! Harrison Avenue Retrofit 8.0 ft $145 1999 ! Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Rebuild 9.0 ft $100 2000 Road ! Sleater-Kinney Road Rebuild 8.5 ft $229 2003 ! East Bay Drive Proposed 8.0 ft $412* Proposal from the Retrofit Neighborhood Assoc.

* = Estimate prepared by Olympia Public Works Department - Engineering Division

23 Table 4 – Comparison of Maintenance Costs

ROADWAY MAINTENANCE COSTS (20 Year Life) Mow Re-stripe Resurface Total Per Year ! Raised Median $25,000 $2,930 --- $27,930 $1,397

! Two Way Left Turn --- $9,400 $44,120 $53,520 $2,676 Lane (TWLTL)

Source: Handbook for Walkable Communities (19??)

In recent years the city has chosen to piggy back median projects on overlay projects or where the roadway is being widened. In these cases some of the mobilization or construction costs are already being covered by proposed project. Therefore, in a median retrofit project these mobilization or construction costs must be included, which makes the per lineal foot cost appear to be out of proportion when compared to other projects. This is why the proposed East Bay Drive project (included at the bottom of Table 3) would cost significantly more than other recently completed projects. (The description is on page 14, while the cost is on page 23.)

All recently constructed medians have been irrigated. Choosing to have an irrigated median necessitates that the median be tied into a city water line. While the use of stamped concrete median (Refer to Figure 22 on page 30) may eliminate much of the installation and maintenance cost related to landscaping, any median will increase the cost for road maintenance, particularly for street sweeping, but may reduce costs of repaving due to a reduced pavement area.

The City of Olympia Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department maintains the medians within city rights of ways which contain vegetation. Recent median installations have utilized an automatic irrigation sensor, to minimize the yearly maintenance cost. With the city utility tax stretched to its limit, the Parks Department has been concerned about the addition of any new medians without identifying a source of revenue to maintain these. The medians on the Capitol Campus see page 9 (e.g. Capitol Way, 11th Avenue, Jefferson Street, and Maple Park) are maintained by the State of Washington.

The direction of the city in its Harrison Avenue and Mud Bay Road projects was to use "xeriscape” plants which require little irrigation. These are native low growing plants that provide excellent ground cover to minimize weed growth. However, some irrigation is required to get the plants established during the first three years. While there are no good cost estimates for the water usage for these medians, there is some cost. Given the investment in the design, plant material, and installation cost, an irrigation system safeguards this investment.

The costs for the irrigation system can vary widely based upon the availability of water and power at the median location. A water service and connection fee can be in the order of $5,000, the power connection another $5,000, and then a controller and some irrigation pipe for $5,000 upward depending upon how big the system is. Running utilities long distances can quickly exceed any generalized or average cost. Since the fixed cost would remain the same for 1 or 10 medians, the cost per foot may vary significantly. Therefore, for this planning level discussion, the Olympia Public Works Department – Engineering Division believes that to it may be appropriate to estimate $30,000 to $50,000 per location for irrigation. Use of a water truck for the first three years, has been suggested as a low-tech alternative to the cost of installing irrigation.

24 MEDIAN COVER TYPES

The annual maintenance costs can be estimated based upon the median cover type. There are four basic median cover types which are shown in Figures 22 to 25 (on the following pages). A grass cover type has been used as a standard unit of maintenance for comparison purposes. The maintenance cost of the other cover types are represented as a percentage of that cost. The medians for Harrison Avenue, and Harrison Avenue – Mud Bay Road were designed for low water use (xeriscaped) with native plants.

The city's recently constructed medians are listed in Table 5 below with the cover type of each median.

Table 5 – Cover Types of Recently Constructed Medians

ROADWAY COVER TYPE ! Cooper Point Road Grass & Trees – 3; Dense Shrubs -1 ! Harrison Avenue Dense Shrubs – 4 ! Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Road Sparse Shrubs – 2 ! State Street @ Wilson Colored Concrete* - 1 ! East Bay Drive Dense Shrubs – 2

* = Low Maintenance – Colored Concrete

The Cooper Point Road and Harrison Avenue projects estimated that the annual maintenance cost using grass would have been $4,900 per year, or about $2.00 per lineal foot of median (in 1999 dollars). It is not currently possible to determine the actual maintenance costs per median; however such a management system is being planned by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.

The cover types and their relative maintenance costs are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 – Relative Maintenance Cost of Recently Constructed Medians

MEDIAN COVER TYPE RELATIVE MULTIPLIER OF $2.00/LINEAL FT* ! Colored Concrete 0.05 ! Grass --- Reference Cost --- ! Sparse Shrubs 0.95 ! Dense Shrubs and Ornamental Trees 1.55 ! Grass and Ornamental Trees 1.50 ! Community-Designed Unknown * = Summary of Estimated Maintenance Cost for Cooper Point Road and Harrison Avenue projects (1999)

25

Figure 22 Median Cover Type - Colored Concrete (State Avenue & Wilson Street)

Figure 23 Median Cover Type - Grass with Trees (Cooper Point Road) 26

Figure 24 Median Cover Type – Dense Shrubs (Harrison Avenue)

Figure 25 Median Cover Type – Sparse Shrubs (Harrison Avenue & Mud Bay Road)

27 MEDIANS & ROUNDABOUTS

The City of University Place was the site of the first modern roundabout in the state of Washington which was located on Grandview Street. Originally designed as a traffic calming device, the community embraced the roundabout and when median improvements to Grandview were made, three more roundabouts were installed.

While slowing down traffic, and eliminating the cost and maintenance of a traffic signal, roundabouts easily accommodate u-turn movements which are essential for boulevard-type roadways. Therefore, the combination of the median and roundabout plans may provide a substantial benefit to traffic flow along a corridor. As shown in Figure 26 (below) the roundabout has a wider footprint than a traditional 4-leg intersection.

Figure 26 Footprint of a Roundabout and 4-Leg Intersection

Source: Roundabouts: An Information Guide. (2000)

28 The integration of median and roundabout designs have been explored as a means of minimizing the width of required right of ways between the intersections. The concept has been coined "Wide Nodes and Narrow Roads" by the USDOT- FHA book, Roundabouts: An Information Guide. Figure 27 (to the right) indicates how this concept might look like between intersections.

The "Wide Nodes" part is that a single lane roundabout has a slightly wider footprint than standard intersection. (See Figure 26). The "Narrow Roads" part is that because roundabouts allow for a more continuous flow through the intersection, that the roadway, hence right of way, between roundabouts can be narrower by eliminating having a second lane in the same direction, or large left turn pockets at signalized intersections.

Using the "Wide Nodes and Narrow Roads" concept, it may be possible to increase traffic flow and not increase the right of way between the single lane roundabouts. Taking additional right of way in an already developed neighborhood is a major concern to the current property owners. Figure 27 Plan View - Wide Node and Narrow Road Source: Roundabouts: An Information Guide. (2000)

The most likely location in the city where such a concept may have benefit is Boulevard Road from 22nd Avenue to Yelm Highway. Future traffic projections for Boulevard Road indicate that the roadway will need to be widened to accommodate future traffic. This combination of a continuous median and single lane roundabout may allow the city to limit the need for additional right of way to support a 3 lane cross-section. While being less costly than a 4 lane design, it may also be more compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Additional traffic modeling and preliminary designs will be needed to more fully explore this concept.

29 PUBLIC ART IN MEDIANS

Public art can be placed in medians to add to the character of the roadway. The most common example of public art is "Kite Girl" on Pacific Avenue in Lacey. In this situation the sculpture was used in combination with a city entry sign to help delineate where the City of Lacey starts along Pacific Avenue. (See image below)

Figure 28 Kite Girl in Lacey on Pacific Avenue

Public art may be appropriate in larger traffic islands or roundabouts, such as adjacent to the Olympia Farmers Market. (See image below) The Olympia Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department believes that medians are too narrow to effectively display the art, and places the art at risk by being too close to the travel lanes. However, the Olympia Planning Commission believes that such decisions should be based on a case-by-case safety evaluation.

Figure 29 Public Art in the Roundabout at Market Street & Capitol Way 30 31 MEDIAN SUITABILITY CHECKLIST

It is the city’s current practice to evaluate street projects for the feasibility of adding medians at the time the project is designed. This evaluation occurs prior to the 30% design stage of the project. The analysis indicates; 1) if medians are feasible, and 2) if there is adequate budget to include medians. The City Council believes this to be too late in the process and was interested in an early screening tool or checklist which would help identify locations for future medians.

A sub-committee of the Olympia Planning Commission worked with the staff of Advance Planning and Public Works to create a MEDIAN SUITABILITY CHECKLIST. This instrument was similar to a checklist contained in the first draft of this document, but required several months of detailed evaluation to become familiar with each factor. The median work group agreed upon a final list of thirteen “Value Factors” which were related to either: a) Pedestrian Safety, or b) Community Location.

All of the 13 Value Factors are based upon policies from the Olympia Comprehensive Plan or accepted transportation safety criteria. Most were scored with a high, medium, or low values based upon thresholds agreed upon by the median work group. These high, medium, and low values are shown on the following tables by the use of bullets - being either solid, half filled, or just a circle. Therefore, this first portion of the Median Suitability Checklist somewhat resembles a Consumer’s Report evaluation.

As the sub-committee and staff worked their way through each of the evaluation criteria, some factors were identified as important, but would be inappropriate for scoring. So, two Opportunity Factors were included in the final suitability summary sheet. A “Comments” column was retained on the summary sheet to provide the reader with a bit more information, as it was needed.

The Median Suitability Checklist can be found on the landscape oriented sheets which follow.

" Median Suitability Summary Sheet contains: the Summary Sheet, the 13 Value Factors, a Median Suitability Score, and the two Opportunity Factors.

" Median Suitability Sheet #1 contains: eight Pedestrian Safety factors which are scored on the Summary Sheet.

" Median Suitability Sheet #2 contains: five Community Location factors which are scored on the Summary Sheet. It also contains the details for one of the Opportunity Factors.

32 The eight Value Factors which predominately relate to Pedestrian Safety on Median Suitability Sheet #1 are as follows:

• Crossing Environment - Will the site require something more than a marked crosswalk? • Crossing Width - What is the curb to curb crossing width for pedestrians? • Crossing Frequency - What is the number of pedestrians which use or could use the site if it was available? • High Density Housing - Is the site nearby an area of high density housing? • Student Population - Is the site nearby a facility used by school aged (K-12) children? • Protected Pedestrian Crossings - How far does a pedestrian have to walk to use a protected crossing? • Unprotected Pedestrian Crossings - How many unprotected pedestrian crossing locations could a median at this site improve? • Transit Service - Is the site on a bus route?

The five Value Factors which predominately relate to Community Location on Median Suitability Sheet #2 are as follows:

• Gateway – Is the site on a Gateway street? • Downtown - Is the site in the Downtown? • High Density Corridor - Is the site on a High Density Corridor? • Driveway Density - Will the median reduce the number of vehicle conflict points along the roadway? • Accident Frequency – What is the number of accidents along this roadway?

An example of the suitability factors bullets are Symbol Legend shown to the right. The unit of measurement and thresholds for each factor was determined by the Low median work group. Both the unit of measurement and threshold values were adjusted after a Medium preliminary round of scoring. While the Summary Sheet contains all the scoring (bullets), refer to High Median Suitability Sheets #1 and #2 for the individual threshold values for each of the value factors.

33 SELECTED ROADWAYS

Olympia has a large number of roadways which could be scored using this methodology. Many roadways are potential locations for medians because they are High Density Corridors. Ten roadways which have broad applicability through the city, were selected for evaluation using the MEDIAN SUITABILITY CHECKLIST. The selected roadways are listed in Table 7 below.

Table 7 – Roadways Selected for Median Suitability Review

# ROADWAY SEGMENT 1. Auto Mall Drive (Cooper Caton Way to Black Lake Boulevard Point Road) 2. Black Lake Blvd. 4th Avenue to 9th Avenue 3. Boulevard Road 22nd Avenue to Yelm Highway 4. Capital Mall Drive Black Lake Blvd to Cooper Point Rd 5. Capitol Way Olympia Avenue to Market Street 6. East Bay Drive Glass Street to Mission Drive 7. Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Rd Kaiser Road to McPhee Road 8. Log Cabin Road Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road 9. Martin Way Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney Road 10. Pacific Avenue Lilly Road to City Limits

TABLE USED IN SUITABILITY SCORING

Table 1 from the US Dept of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study on conditions affecting pedestrian crossings, titled - Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2002) was used as the basis for the Crossing Environment factor on Median Suitability Sheet #1. This report provides a sound basis for making decisions about pedestrian crossings, since it relies on field research, some of which occurred in the Seattle area.

Some of the factors evaluated in FHWA Table 1 are confusing and required further explanation. There are four factors which are described in the following.

1. TRAFFIC SPEED

The speed of the traffic is collected when the traffic volumes are collected. The city maintains a large collection of streets which are monitored on a regular basis. Ideally the counts would be refreshed every two years, but this may be less frequent based on staffing. When using FHWA Table 1, please note that Olympia has few roadways with a signed speed of more than 35 mph.

The term used in FHWA Table 1 is “Speed Limit. For the purposes of reading FHWA Table 1, the term “Speed Limit” is assumed to be the “85th percentile speed of the traffic”. 33 2. TRAFFIC VOLUME

As noted above, the city maintains a large collection of traffic volumes. According to measuring protocol, volumes are only taken on Tuesday through Thursday. This is often represented as “Average Daily Traffic” (ADT), but a more accurate term would be “Average Weekday Daily Traffic” (AWDT).

The term used in FHWA Table 1 is “Vehicle ADT”. For the purposes of reading FHWA Table 1 the term “Vehicle ADT” will be assumed to be the most recent city measurement of traffic volume in ADT, located closest to the site in question.

3. NUMBER OF LANES

FHWA Table 1 uses four sub-categories for the number of traffic lanes. These are the actual driving lanes, regardless of how wide they are.

The terms used in FHWA Table 1 “2 lanes”, “3 Lanes”, “Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes) With Raised Median”, and “Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes) Without Raised Median”. No further explanation of these terms should be needed.

4. VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

As used in this table, the term “vulnerable populations” refers to elderly and/or child pedestrians. On the notes to a “Candidate site for marked crosswalk” or “C”, it refers to the number of pedestrians during the peak hour. Table 1 notes also have a minimum threshold number of vulnerable population pedestrians during that measurement time. “It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.”

Collecting the number of pedestrians during the peak hour will require a staff person to undertake a manual count. By doing a manual count it would also be possible to identify and count the seniors and students. So to use this table completely, such a manual survey would be required.

34

FHWA Table 1 - Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.*

Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT # 9,000 > 9,000 to 12,000 > 12,000 – 15,000 > 15,000 Roadway Type Speed Limit** #30 35 40 #30 35 40 #30 35 40 #30 35 40 mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph mph 2-Lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N

3-Lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N

Multi Lane C C P C P N P P N N N N (4 or More Lanes) With Raised Median*** Multi-Lane C P N P P N N N N N N N (4 or More Lanes) Without Raised Median

C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites.

It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.

P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk.

N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased due to providing marked

***** * These guidelines include intersection and mid-block locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations which could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, substantial volumes of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks.

** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph (64.4 kph) marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.

*** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines.

Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. (FHWA- RD-01-075), USDOT (2002).

35 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the ten roadways which were evaluated using the MEDIAN SUITABILITY CHECKLIST are summarized in Table 8 below. While this does not show the level of detail contained in the Median Suitability Summary Sheet (first fold-out page), indicates that some roadways are more suitable for medians than others. Attempts we made to have the checklist indicate a preference for either a continuous median or pedestrian island, but this was found to be too subjective, and so this was not included.

According to Table 8 of the 10 roadways three were listed as high, five as medium and two as low. These ranges were based upon the 25th percentile of the normal curve of values from these roadways. Roadways with a high suitability for a median were Boulevard Road, Martin Way, and Pacific Avenue. Those roadways in the middle of the pack with moderate suitability were Black Lake Blvd., Capital Mall Drive, Capitol Way, East Bay Drive, and Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Rd. Finally, those roadways with a low suitability for a median were Auto Mall Drive (Cooper Point Road) and Log Cabin Road. (Refer to the attached median suitability sheets for more detail.)

Table 8 – Median Suitability Scores

SUITABILITY # ROADWAY SEGMENT RANGE 1. Auto Mall Drive (Cooper Caton Way to Black Lake Boulevard Low Point Road) 2. Black Lake Blvd. 4th Avenue to 9th Avenue Medium 3. Boulevard Road 22nd Avenue to Yelm Highway High 4. Capital Mall Drive Black Lake Blvd to Cooper Point Rd Medium 5. Capitol Way Olympia Avenue to Market Street Medium 6. East Bay Drive Glass Street to Mission Drive Medium 7. Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Rd Kaiser Road to McPhee Road Medium 8. Log Cabin Road* Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road Low 9. Martin Way Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney Road High 10. Pacific Avenue Lilly Road to City Limits High

*Given that most of the median suitability criteria relates to existing area and roadway activities. Log Cabin Road did not rate well.

The MEDIAN SUITABILITY CHECKLIST also provides other useful information about if the roadway is currently listed in the Capital Facilities Plan (may include improvements other than medians), and if there is adequate existing width for the median (does not require road widening). For example, if a project appears in the CFP for intersection improvements or a sewer project there may be opportunities to incorporate a median into the project. Another cost savings benefit is utilizing the existing roadway width without the expense of new right-of-way costs. The results of these two Opportunity Factors are listed in Table 9 on the following page.

36 Table 9 – Median Opportunity Factors

WIDTH IN FOR # ROADWAY SEGMENT CFP MEDIAN 1. Auto Mall Drive (Cooper Caton Way to Black Lake Boulevard No Yes Point Road) 2. Black Lake Blvd. 4th Avenue to 9th Avenue No Yes 3. Boulevard Road 22nd Avenue to Yelm Highway Yes No 4. Capital Mall Drive Black Lake Blvd to Cooper Point Road No Yes 5. Capitol Way Olympia Avenue to Market Street No Yes 6. East Bay Drive Glass Street to Mission Drive No Yes 7. Harrison Ave – Mud Bay Rd Kaiser Road to McPhee Road Yes No 8. Log Cabin Road Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road Yes Yes 9. Martin Way Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney Road No Yes 10. Pacific Avenue Lilly Road to City Limits No Yes

While there may be no perfect way of establishing criteria for prioritizing medians and pedestrian islands, the methodology contained in this report is superior to that contained from any other single source. It is hoped that this methodology will be adopted by the City of Olympia as it evaluates future capital facility projects for landscape medians and pedestrian islands.

37 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowman, Brian L., and Robert L. Vecellio, Investigations of the Impact of Medians on Road Users, Table 1, (FHWA – RD-93-130) FHWA, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1994.

City of Olympia, 2002 – 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, Administrative Services Department, Olympia, WA, 2002.

City of Olympia, Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards, Olympia Public Works Department, Olympia, WA, 1999.

City of Olympia, Olympia Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Community Planning and Development Department, Olympia, WA, 1994.

City of Olympia, Urban Design and Vision Strategy for Olympia, Olympia Planning Department, Olympia, WA, 1990.

FHWA, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, (FHWA- RD-01-075), FHWA, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2002.

OTAK, Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook – Incorporating Pedestrians into Washington’s Transportation System, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 1997.

Robinson, Bruce, et al., Roundabouts: An Information Guide, (FHWA-RD-00-87) FHWA, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2000.

Snohomish County Transportation Authority, A Guide to Land Use and a Public Transportation in Snohomish County, WA, Everett, WA, 1989.

38 MEDIAN SUITABILITY – SUMMARY SHEET

MEDIAN OPPORTUNITY LOCATIONAL AND PEDESTRIAN VALUE FACTORS SUITABILITY FACTORS RANGE*

LEGEND

≤ 4.5 Low Gateway Gateway

Crossings Crossings 5 - 6.5 Medium Downtown Downtown Rebuilding Unprotected Listed in the for a Median for a Median Transit Service Transit Service for Widening or for Widening Crossing Width Width Crossing Available Width ROADWAY Density Driveway ≥ 7 High Population Student Accident Frequency Frequency Accident Crossing Frequency Frequency Crossing Protected Pedestrian Pedestrian Protected Pedestrian Crossings Capital Facilities Plan High Density Housing High Density Corridor High Density # PROJECT & ROADWAY SEGMENT LENGTH Environment Crossing 1 Auto Mall Drive (Cooper Point Road) 4,000 ft No Yes Caton Way to Black Lake Blvd

2 Black Lake Blvd. th th 2,000 ft No Yes 4 Avenue to 9 Avenue

3 Boulevard Road nd 6,400 ft Yes No 22 Avenue to Yelm Highway

4 Capital Mall Drive 2,000 ft No Yes Black Lake Blvd. to Cooper Point Road

5 Capitol Way 1,600 ft No Yes Olympia Avenue to Market Street

6 East Bay Drive 6,400 ft No Yes Glass Street to Mission Drive

7 Harrison Avenue – Mud Bay Road 1,600 ft Yes No Kaiser Road to McPhee Road

8 Log Cabin Road ~~~ Yes Yes Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road

9 Martin Way 2,600 ft No Yes Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney Road

10 Pacific Avenue 1,400 ft No Yes Lilly Road to City Limits

* = Range values based upon the 25th percentile of the normal curve for these selected roadways.

39

MEDIAN SUITABILITY SHEET #1 LOCATIONAL AND PEDESTRIAN VALUE FACTORS

High Protected Unprotected Crossing Crossing Crossing Density Student Pedestrian Pedestrian Transit Environment Width Frequency Housing Population Crossings Crossings Service Will the site What is the What is the Is the site Is the site How far does a How many Is the site on a require something curb to curb number of nearby an area nearby a facility pedestrian have unprotected bus route? more than a crossing width pedestrians of high density used by school to walk to use a pedestrian marked for pedestrians? which use or housing? aged (K-10) protected crossings crosswalk? could use the children? crossing? locations could a site if it was median at this site available? improve? Source - Report Table 1 - - Report Table - Report Table 1 - See: Comp - See: Comp - See: Comp Plan - See: Comp Plan - See: Comp from 7 from the from Plan Policy LU Plan Policy T Map 1-3 & Comp Policy T 1.11, T Plan Policy LU Safety Effects of Pedestrian Safety Effects of 1.1, LU 1.2, LU 1.11, T 3.7, T Plan Policy T 3.7, T 3.11. 17.1 & Figure 2A Marked vs. Facilities Marked vs. 4.1. 3.11. 1.11, T 3.7, T Unmarked Guidebook. Unmarked - Report Table 3.11. Crosswalks (1997) Crosswalks from A Guide to - Report Table …(2001) …(2001) Land Use and a from A Guide to Public Land Use and a Transportation Public (1989) Transportation (1989) Measure N on Table 1 = Walking Number of Locate the site Walking Walking distance Number of Number of IT bus Yes (Will require distance from pedestrians on Comp Plan distance from from site to a unprotected routes adjacent other pedestrian one curb to the observed using Map 1-3 in a site to school protected pedestrian to the site. facilities opposite curb the site during residential zone grounds crosswalk crossing locations enhancements … measured in the peak hour. with a base measured in measured in feet. at intersections of See “protected feet. density greater feet. a public or private crosswalk”) than 7 units per - A “protected street with the acre. crosswalk” may length of the P on Table 1 = include a traffic potential median Maybe signal, in measured over the pavement distance of one C on Table 1 = No lighting, bulbout, mile (5,280 ft). and/or a refuge island.

C =No ≤ 39 ft ≤ 9 ≥ 1,321 ft ≥ 1,321 ft ≤ 599 ft ≤ up to 4 / mile None

P = Maybe 40–54 ft 10–19 1,320–751 ft 1320–751 ft 600–999 ft = 5 to 10 / mile = 1

N = Yes ≥ 55 ft ≥ 20 ≤ 750 ft ≤ 750 ft ≥ 1,000 ft = 11 / mile ≥ 2

40

MEDIAN SUITABILITY SHEET #2 LOCATIONAL AND PEDESTRIAN VALUE FACTORS

OPPORTUNITY FACTORS High Density Driveway Accident Available Width Gateway Downtown Corridor Density Frequency for a Median Is the site on a Is the site in the Is the site on a Will the median What is the Is the site on an arterial or major Gateway street? Downtown? High Density reduce the number of collector; and does it have a center Corridor? number of accidents along turn lane, or could the lanes be vehicle conflict this roadway? shifted and/or removed to allow a points along the median without adversely affecting roadway? traffic circulation?

Source - Comp Plan - Comp Plan - Comp Plan - FHWA Table 1, - City of Olympia - Comp Plan Map 6-3 Policy LU 2-5 Policy T 1.12 ; T Policy Investigations of Public Works and - Comp Plan does 3.3; & LU 17.1 T 1.12; T 3.3; the Impact on Police Depts - Would eliminate Neighborhood not identify which LU 3.1, LU the Road User, Accident Records Collectors as possible candidates. roadways are 17.1, LU 17.4 & (1994) "Gateway" streets. LU 17.13

Measure Listed as a Locate the site on Locate the site Number of Number of - Locate site on Comp Plan Map 6- “Gateway” street Comp Plan Map on Comp Plan driveways (on reported 3. in this Medians in 1-3. Map 1-3. both sides of the accidents over a the City report, street) measured year measured - Existing 3 or 5 lane roadway page 14. over the over the distance width. distance of one of one mile (5,280 mile (5,280 ft). ft). - Other roadway configurations will require a traffic report.

No No No ≤ 29 / mile ≤ 19 / mile No

Yes Yes Yes 30-59 / mile 20-49 / mile Yes

≥ 60 / mile ≥ 50 / mile

41