 |
| Salem Alternative over McLane Island, from top blue rule: Bike lane, 3 auto travel lanes, sidewalk; sidewalk, 3 auto travel lanes, bike lane. (It's also possible the lane between the blue and red is a MUP, and there is no separate sidewalk.) |
Clips from very large (12mb) map here. Some additional notes here. Just pictures for now.
 |
| The intersection of Hope and Marine Drive in the Salem Alternative Graphic (with added notes) from Oversight Team meeting Oct 31st, 2013 |
 |
| Widening and Ramp Spaghetti in Highland at Pine and Hickory |
 |
| Marine Drive running N-S through Wallace Park at Glen Creek Note proximity to Courthouse and the yet unbuilt path between the Union St Bridge and Glen Creek |
 |
| Marine Drive/OR-22 ramps over Union St RR Bridge in Wallace Park (They used an old aerial that doesn't show the bike/walk paths!) |
Update, November 15th:
 |
| "2 lane" cross-section that is currently on the table: Apparently the red rules indicate the curb, so I guess that's 42-feet curb-to-curb - plenty of room for 3 lanes! |
5 comments:
Great post SBOB. Are you sure the bridge is now six lanes? I was at part of the Oversight Team meeting and didn't hear that mentioned. That would be a big change from the original Salem Alternative that the City Council approved in June.
No, I am not sure.
But in scrolling back-n-forth over the big map image, black rules are mostly used to separate auto traffic lanes. When I followed the lines back to the bridgeheads, three auto lanes in each direction looked like the best interpretation. (The yellow directional arrows are not always filled in! So I think the map shows more lanes than merely counting the directional arrows would indicate. In at least one place there are also two bike lanes, and one is clearly an auto travel lane, not a duplicate bike lane.)
Drawing firm conclusions from a map like this may not be entirely sound, but the project team has not, at least for me, earned my trust, and so I am not much inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt - and instead am inclined to be very skeptical indeed! I suspect they might undersell the size of the bridge and number of lanes!
As you examine and analyze the map, I will be interested to learn what you conclude is the right count!
The bridge for the Salem Alternative is 2 lanes in each direction for the main span. Where the bridge connects to the local street system, there are added turn lanes. For example, look at the picture of Marine Drive at Hope: it shows 2 vehicle lane lanes eastbound across the river. Westbound over the river is 2 lanes, which becomes 1 thru lane and a double left where the bridge connects to the Hope & Marine intersection
Are you sure you're not just trolling? I hope you know what you're talking about!
So, about the Marine Drive and Hope picture...look at the lanes directly under the "Bridge -->" label:
Here's what I see:
- west-bound bike lane
- unlabeled mystery lane
- 3 west-bound lanes (including the 2 turn lanes)
- median?
- 2 east-bound lanes
- 2 east-bound bike lanes
From this I concluded the mystery lane was an unlabeled west-bound lane and one of the bike lanes was mislabeled and therefore there were 3 total in each direction.
Which of these IDs are wrong?
If you're a member of the project team, a better set of cross-section diagrams would be helpful to post to the website!
I'd love to see a similar anatomy for the top image over McLane Island.
Maybe you could identify each gap between the rules?
- the gap between the heavy white line and the blue line
- the gap between the blue line and the red line
- the gap between the red line and the first black line
- the gap between the first black line and the second black line
- the gap between the second black line and the third black line
- the gap between the third black line and the red line
- the gap between the red line and the other red line
- and any additional information on gaps if they are not symmetrical with the first set
Understanding these markings would help a great deal!
Thank you!
N3B sends in this dispatch from the project team:
"1. The Salem Alternative proposes two travel lanes in each direction on the new bridge.
2. The draft cross section is very similar to the section published in the Draft EIS (Figure 2.3-17), with the removal of one travel lane in each direction. The general assumption is that the bridge would include four 12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot multi-use paths on the outside of each direction, 10-foot shoulders adjacent to the sidewalks, and 8-foot shoulders on the inside. We are working to refine the bridge design and cross-section, which is somewhat dependent on the bridge type selected. Given this cross section, it would be technically possible to restripe the new bridge to provide three travel lanes in each direction.
As currently envisioned (assuming the same bridge type as described in the DEIS), the bridge will consist of two structures. Certain bridge types would require a single bridge structure. Once we have determined the bridge type (in working with the Oversight Team in response to the Salem City Council's stated desire to consider a "signature" bridge type), it will be possible to know how many piers will need to be located in the river, floodway, and floodplain. Since a standard (and conservative) bridge type was assumed in the original design, we believe at this point, there will be no more piers in the river than have been described in the DEIS."
So those gaps that looked to me like travel lanes are officially proposed as extra-wide shoulders.
Though if it's a local bridge and not a super-duper-fast highway bridge, it's unclear why such wide shoulders are necessary. The shoulders suggest high rates of speed!
Post a Comment