From: 	"Barry Sheff" <bsheff@woodardcurran.com>
To:	"Tom Errico (TY Lin)" <Thomas.errico@tylin.com>
CC:	"Helen Donaldson" <HCD@portlandmaine.gov>, "Greg Shinberg (gls@gwi.net)" <gls@shinbergconsulting.com>, <thart@canal5studio.com>, "Patrick Costin (Canal5Studio)" <pcostin@canal5studio.com>, <tsoley@eastbrowncow.com>, <dleeman@eastbrowncow.com>, "Denise Cameron" <dcameron@woodardcurran.com>
Date: 	11/6/2012 9:17 PM
Subject: 	Condition 7-Signal Improvements
Attachments:	Intersection Plans.pdf.pdf

Tom,

Just wanted to follow up on the Public Hearing last night and our
discussion about a potential solution that we've identified to resolve
the concerns you've shared regarding signal modifications at the
Fore/Union Intersection. Attached is the graphic depicting the existing
conditions at the intersection, and our approach to resolve those
concerns. Specific to the comments that need to be addressed in
Condition 7, what follows are response to those comments (in italics)
and the comments themselves for reference purpose.

CONDITION 7 COMMENTS:

The City continues to request that the following signal modifications be
implemented in conjunction with the project:

The City no longer requests that the controller cabinet be located to
the opposite corner of the intersection. The applicant shall coordinate
with DPS Traffic staff in coordinating the relocation of the existing
cabinet on the same corner.

Project Site Plans have been updated to reflect the Applicant relocating
the Controller Cabinet. We have depicted on the attached Plan a proposed
location for the Controller Cabinet, and would appreciate feedback on
that location. All of this said, given installation expertise and need
for coordination with DPS Traffic staff, the Applicant would like to
discuss a financial contribution that would allow the City to relocate
its Controller Cabinet, in lieu of the Applicant relocating the Cabinet.

 

The existing mast arm location must be relocated for the following
reasons.

1.       The current mast arm is located near the middle of the sidewalk
and while it does meet minimum ADA clearance requirements, it will
present difficulties for sidewalk snow plows. 

As depicted on the attached Plan, the improvements/reconstruction of the
sidewalk that will be made by the Applicant, will increase the sidewalk
clearance (albeit by a small amount) over the existing condition without
the need to relocate the mast arm. The need for the relocation of the
mast arm is not a result of the Applicant's proposed development as
sidewalk clearances will be improved as a result of the project.

2.       The mast arm pole is used to mount both pedestrian signal heads
and push buttons for crossing two crosswalks, the northerly Union Street
crosswalk and the easterly Fore Street. Placement of the push buttons on
the existing mast arm will not meet accessibility requirements of the
MUTCD, FHWA. While installation of pedestal post (in addition to having
the mast arm) is an option, we believe given that the existing mast arm
should be relocated, minimizing sidewalk clutter is preferred.

We have completed an analysis of the intersection using the MUTCD
standards and depicted those standards on the attached Plan. We propose
to maintain the location of the Union Street push button and pedestrian
signal head on the existing mast arm, and relocate the pedestrian signal
head and push button for the Fore Street crossing on to the proposed
light pole on Fore Street. By placing the Fore Street equipment on the
new light pole, we also avoid placement of additional sidewalk
impediments/clutter. As you will see on the attached Plan, these
locations are compliant with MUTCD standards for recommended push
buttons.

3.       While not related to location of the mast arm, the mast arm
structure is old. It is not practical to remove, install a new
foundation, and re‑install an aging structural support.

We understand the concern relative to aging infrastructure however we
have identified a solution that does not require relocation of the mast
arm, and the Applicant does not propose to upgrade aging infrastructure
that is not impacted by the project. As stated in response to item 1
above, the need for the relocation of the mast arm is not a result of
the Applicant's proposed development as the condition (sidewalk
clearance) will be improved as a result of the project and the
reconstruction of the sidewalk is being completed by the Applicant at
the request of DPS.

The existing pedestrian signal heads and push buttons do not meet
current standards. Given both existing pedestrian volumes and the added
activity that the proposed project will have on the intersection,
replacing existing non‑conforming signal equipment is necessary. 

Per the costs provided by your office and included in Addendum to the
Planning Board Report dated November 1, 2012, the Applicant is prepared
to make a financial contribution of $5000 to the City to complete the
upgrades of the non‑compliant pedestrian signal heads to current
standards, and per the proposed Plan attached here.

                

Thank you so much for considering this and discussing with the team at
DPS; looking forward to furthering this discussion with you. Your
feedback on this is greatly appreciated.

Best

Barry

Barry Sheff, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Woodard & Curran

(207) 774‑2112 ext. 3266 (office)
(207) 749‑4171 (cell)

  <http://www.twitter.com/iron_sheff>