From: 	Tom Errico <thomas.errico@tylin.com>
To:	Rick Knowland <RWK@portlandmaine.gov>
CC:	David Margolis-Pineo <DMP@portlandmaine.gov>, Katherine Earley <KAS@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeremiah Bartlett <jbartlett@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeff Tarling <JST@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	Thursday, June 04, 2015
Subject: 	Bayside Bowl - Final Traffic Comments

Hi Rick ‑ I have reviewed the final application materials for the project and offer the following status update of my preliminary comments.

*         The applicant has requested a waiver for providing a construction management plan at this time.  It would be my suggestion that the applicant provide some general guiding principles as it relates to how construction will impact existing parking and traffic with the intent of providing a more detailed construction plan as a condition of approval.

Status: I have reviewed the construction management plan and I generally find it to be acceptable. I would note that the width of Lancaster Street will be significantly narrowed during construction and activities shall be coordinated with the City, given that it is used for DPS vehicle parking and circulation. Given the information provided, it is likely that contractor vehicles will utilize on‑street parking in the area.  The applicant has noted that carpooling and other vehicle reduction strategies will be suggested.  I would recommended that this issue be discussed at the Pre‑Construction meeting and strategies formalized to minimize impacts to on‑street parking conditions. Construction will reduce the existing parking supply for the project.  The applicant should provide a plan for addressing this temporary parking issue.

*         Based upon discussions with DPS staff it is my understanding that a portion of the proposed parking lot could be paved or implemented in its final form without disturbance from the Somerset Street Extension project. Accordingly, the applicant should investigate construction of a portion of the parking lot in final form.

Status: It is my understanding that you are providing a condition that addresses this issue and therefore I have no further comment.

*         I have reviewed the traffic study prepared by Gorrill‑Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc. and do not support the methods used in estimating trip generation.  Approval of the assumptions will require supporting documentation.  Specific concerns include:

o   30% reduction in restaurant trips associated with shared use.

o   Use of ITE Land Use Code439 for a Bowling Alley when only one site was sampled for estimating traffic.

o   I would expect overlap for use of the Squash Court time slots and therefore traffic and parking generation needs to account for this.

o   The study assumed an occupancy of two per vehicle.

o   15% will utilize transit.

o   A 20% reduction in trip levels based upon assumptions that the site will not be fully utilized.

The traffic study concluded that taking into account the above assumptions, the project would generate 99 trips during the peak hour and therefore would not trigger the threshold of 100 trips needed to file a Traffic Movement Permit.  In addition to above concerns, the project should also include the trips associated with the initial Bayside Bowl project.  Based upon these factors it is my opinion that the project requires a Traffic Movement Permit. I would note that based upon the capacity analysis conducted by the applicant I do not expect the project to have significant traffic impacts in the area.

Status: The applicant has submitted requirements for a Traffic Movement Permit.  A Traffic Movement Permit Application has been submitted and a Traffic Study scoping meeting was held on May 15, 2015.  A traffic study supplement has been submitted that complies with discussions at the scoping meeting. The supplement notes that the full‑build project will generate 147 trips during the PM peak hour. A capacity analysis was conducted at the Kennebec Street intersections with Hanover Street and Preble Street.  Both locations are estimated to work at excellent levels of service following project completion.  I find the project complies with MaineDOT Traffic Movement Permit requirements, with the Off‑Site mitigation contributions noted below.

*         Additional information is requested in quantifying the parking demand for the project. I would suggest the applicant survey existing users as part of understanding existing parking demand and use that information to predict future supply needs. If the applicant conducts such a survey, methods should be coordinated with City staff.

Status: The applicant has identified an approximate parking demand estimate of 134 parking spaces for the full‑build project. Given the complexities of estimating parking generation for the project, this estimate seems reasonable (a significant effort was undertaken by the applicant to estimate traffic volumes for the project according to project site use and operations.  The PM peak hour traffic volume generation entering volume was used as the basis for the parking demand estimate).

*         The applicant has requested a waiver from City standards for parking lot aisle width based upon the need for added buffer space. I would prefer that the City standard (24 feet) be met, unless Jeff Tarling determines the added buffer width is critically important.

Status: The applicant has not provided any information in support of a waiver from the City's Technical Standards and therefore the plans should be revised to provide a parking aisle width of 24 feet.

*         A detectible warning panel shall be installed on the Hanover Street sidewalk ramp at Lancaster Street.

Status: The plans have been revised and I have no further comment.

*         It is suggested that on‑street parking be provided on the east side of Hanover Street along the property frontage. This action will require changes to the City's Traffic Schedule and will need to be approved by the TS&E Committee and City Council.  The applicant shall be responsible for provide materials in support of the TS&E and City Council packets.

Status: No added response necessary.

*         Upon determination of the final parking supply number, the corresponding bicycle parking spaces  should be provided on‑site per City Standards.

Status: It is my understanding that you are providing the bicycle parking requirement and therefore I have no further comment.

*         Projects in the Bayside area have been required to make monetary contributions towards implementation of the Marginal Way Master Plan and the Somerset Street Extension Project.  I will assess this requirement, in coordination with DPS and Planning staff, following approval of final trip generation and assignment information.

Status: Based upon the traffic study provided by the applicant and the "new" traffic added to the local street system the following contributions are required in conjunction with the MaineDOT TMP.

*         Pursuant to Chapter 305, of the MDOT Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Traffic Movement Permits, the applicant shall make a $3,400 contribution towards implementation of the Marginal Way Master Plan.  This requirement is to address traffic issues at the Marginal Way intersections with Preble Street and Forest Avenue and general multi‑modal improvements along the corridor.

*         Pursuant to Chapter 305, of the MDOT Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Traffic Movement Permits, the applicant shall make a $9,750 contribution towards the implementation of the Somerset Street extension project. This requirement is to address traffic issues along Marginal Way, particularly at Forest Avenue, Preble Street, and Franklin Street.

New Comments

*         The short sidewalk section between the project driveway and Kennebec Street needs to be ADA compliant and therefore should not be gravel. I have spoken to DPS about this and they concur.  Given the uncertainty of the reconstruction of Kennebec Street, I would suggest that it be bituminous asphalt.

If you have any questions, 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
207.781.4721 (main)
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>
Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube

"One Vision, One Company"

Please consider the environment before printing.