From: 	Tom Errico <thomas.errico@tylin.com>
To:	Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov>
CC:	David Margolis-Pineo <DMP@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeremiah Bartlett <JBartlett@portlandmaine.gov>, Katherine Earley <KAS@portlandmaine.gov>, JeffTarling <JST@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	10/25/2012 9:20 AM
Subject: 	Canal Plaza Hotel

Nell ‑ The following summarizes my final comments.

*        I concur with the conclusions of the trip generation analysis that the project will generate less than 100 passenger‑equivalent trips and therefore a Traffic Movement Permit is not required.

October 2, 2012: No comment necessary.

*        I concur with the conclusions of the traffic study that the Union Street/Fore Street intersection can accommodate the added traffic from the development.

October 2, 2012: No comment necessary.

*        It is my suggestion that left‑turn movements entering the hotel on Fore Street be prohibited due to long vehicle queues on Fore Street (from the Union Street traffic signal).  In my professional opinion signage alone will not be sufficient treatment for enforcing this prohibition.  The applicant should investigate geometric alignment changes for the driveway and possible treatments on Fore Street for restricting left‑turn entry movements.

October 2, 2012: The applicant has revised the geometry of the driveway entrance to discouraged left‑turn entry movements.  Given area conditions, this change seems reasonable. I would also suggest that regulatory signs noting the left‑turn prohibition be installed.

Final Comment: The plans include installing a sign and I have no further comment.  There was a comment about installing a "Do Not Enter" sign at the egress drive location on Union Street.   The applicant should install the noted sign.

*        The applicant should conduct an analysis as to whether the radius on the corner of the Union Street/Fore Street intersection abutting the project site can be reduced in size.  The City in interested in reducing the radius such that improved pedestrian accommodations can be incorporated including provision of preferred sidewalk ramp alignment.  I would note that the City would be open to minor vehicle encroachment, if necessary.

October 2, 2012: The applicant has revised the corner radius and I find the conditions to be acceptable.

*        The applicant should provide a detailed summary of truck deliveries, including what type of vehicles are expected, and how they will access the rear loading dock.  An "auto‑turn" analysis should be provided.

October 2, 2012: The applicant has provided an auto‑turn graphic that illustrates a single‑unit truck can access the loading dock.  The applicant should provide information on how the truck will begin the "backing" maneuver (will the truck begin backing from Union Street) and provide information if any deliveries will be from a tractor‑trailer truck.

Final Comment: The applicant has provided a graphic that illustrates a Single‑Unit truck maneuvering into the loading dock without having to back from Union Street.  I find this condition to be acceptable. The applicant has not provided information on how large truck deliveries will be accommodated.  This issue is outstanding.

*        I continue to review the parking analysis.  It is my understanding from the City's Parking Manager, contractually the subject parking garage is to set aside 100 parking spaces for general users at all times. This requirement should be included in the analysis.  Additionally, the City's Parking Manager indicated that there is information on monthly parking usage.  The applicant should review that information as part of assessing parking supply adequacy.  Lastly, it was suggested to the applicant that local parking data was collected by the Hampton Inn that would provide another data source in estimating parking demand.  I believe this local data would be a good indicator of parking needs.  The applicant should contact the Planning Department for acquiring this information.

October 2, 2012: The applicant has provided revised information on the anticipated parking demand for the project.  I concur with this estimate.  The applicant has not provided information requested above as it relates to parking garage supply adequacy.  This information should be provided.

Final Comment: The applicant has provided a summary of current parking garage contracts that indicates there is adequate parking supply to accommodate the parking needs for the proposed hotel. The general conclusion is that the current hotel project combined with existing parking agreements will result in a full garage facility.  The applicant has indicated that some month‑to‑month parking garage customers may need to be displaced.  The applicant should note how many existing month‑to‑month customers will be displaced.

*        I have reviewed the TDM Plan and find the program to be acceptable.

October 2, 2012: No comment necessary.

*        The applicant should provide a Construction Management Plan for review and approval.

October 2, 2012:  This is outstanding.

Final Comment: The applicant has provided a Construction Management Plan.  In general the plan is acceptable (from a site plan review perspective), although specific details will need to be finalized before construction begins.  I would note that the removal of parking spaces on Fore Street for long periods of time is not acceptable. Additional coordination on how pedestrians will be routed through the area will need to take place.

*        The applicant should consider pavement treatment methods for differentiating the sidewalk pedestrian path crossing each driveway. This will help to ensure that vehicles queuing in the drop‑off area will not block the sidewalk during busy time periods.

October 2, 2012: This is outstanding.

Final Comment: The applicant has revised the plan to include granite pavers for the driveway apron areas.  The City finds this condition to be acceptable with the following conditions: 1) the applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of the granite paver aprons; and 2) the applicant shall provide documentation on existing examples of the proposed slip‑resistant details for review and approval prior to construction.

*        Given the location of the entry to the Hotel, I am concerned that there will be the tendency for guests to park directly next to the door, thus contributing to back‑ups onto Fore Street.  The applicant should provide information on how drop‑offs will be managed.

October 2, 2012: This is outstanding.

Final Comment: The applicant has provided some general information on managing the drop‑off area and the conclusion that it will not be problematic.  I do not find the information to be sufficient for documenting specific details for avoiding potential back‑up problems.  I would suggest that a condition of approval be included that requires the applicant to provide specific details of the valet program and examples of existing hotel programs that address how they manage vehicle queuing problems.

*        The angle of the pavement markings for the at‑grade passenger loading zone should be reversed.

October 2, 2012:  The plans have been revised and I have no further comment.

*        The applicant will be responsible for design and implementation of signal equipment modifications on the corner of the Union Street/Fore Street intersection (in conjunction with changes on the corner).  In addition, other signal improvements will be required to ensure the signal meets current standards and is upgraded such that it is functioning as efficiently as possible.  I will define the recommendations in the future.

October 2, 2012: The City requests the following signal modifications.

o   The controller cabinet should be relocated to the northwest corner of the intersection.

o   A new mast arm shall be installed on the corner of the project and shall include all new equipment.

o   All pedestrian heads and push buttons at the intersection shall be upgraded.

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

o   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.

o   The existing mast arm location must be relocated for 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.

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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration. While installation of a pedestal post (in addition the having the mast arm) is an option, we believe given that the existing mast arm should be relocated, minimizing sidewalk clutter is preferred.

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.

o   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.

*        On‑street metered parking spaces will be lost on Union Street.  This change will require council action and the applicant will be responsible for providing all supporting information for the inclusion in the council submission.

October 2, 2012: No comment necessary.

New Comments

o   The project does not meet City driveway corner clearance standards.  Given the proposal for turn prohibitions and geometric design features, I support a waiver from the City's Technical standard.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.

Best regards,

Thomas A. Errico, PE
Senior Associate
Traffic Engineering Director
[T.Y. Lin International]T.Y. Lin International
12 Northbrook Drive
Falmouth, ME 04105
207.347.4354 direct
207.400.0719 mobile
207.781.4753 fax
thomas.errico@tylin.com<mailto:thomas.errico@tylin.com>
Visit us online at www.tylin.com<http://www.tylin.com>

"One Vision, One Company"
Please consider the environment before printing.