Oxford Transportation Plans 2020 - Abridged Version

TRANSPORTATION PLANS

2020

ABRIDGED VERSION

OXFORD

TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

ADOPTED BY OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

MAY 19, 2020

BY RESOLUTION NO. 7188

PREPARED BY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 15 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE OXFORD, OH 45056 PHONE: 513-524-5204

Zachary Moore, AICP

Andrew Wilson

Sam Perry, AICP

Dexter Wright

Planner

Community Development Director

Technical Assistant Intern

Cover Page Photo Credit: Miami University Photography Services

PREFACE

The purpose of this publication by the City of Oxford is to compile all transportationrelated plans into a single document, for ease of reference by elected officials, staff, and the general public. The document consists of four components: (1) an abridged version of the Oxford Transportation Thoroughfare Plan, adopted in 2007 (a full version of this Plan is available in electronic format); (2) the Oxford Bike and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Plan, adopted in 2014; (3) the Oxford Complete Streets Policy, adopted in 2019; and (4) the Oxford Area Trail System (OATS) Plans, which continue to be refined by additional studies and public input as new phases are implemented.

This document serves not to repeal the original versions of the above mentioned items, but instead shall serve as a supplement to the original approvals. Any departures from originally recommended policies or plans are specifically identified.

2 Photo Credit: Zachary Moore

CONTENTS Oxford Transportation Thoroughfare Plan

4

5.0 Alternatives Functional Classification Map Series Thoroughfare Cross-Section Series

5 23 36

Oxford Bike and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Plan

42

Oxford Complete Streets Policy

48

Oxford Area Trail System (OATS) Plans

52

Vision Purpose Goals Benefits of Complete Streets Policies Sample of Performance Management Best Practice Design

49 49 49 50 50 51 51

3

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN

ADOPTED BY OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

OCTOBER 16, 2007

BY ORDINANCE NO. 2977

PREPARED BY

TETRA TECH 1328 DUBLIN ROAD, SUITE 201A COLUMBUS, OH 43215 PHONE: 614-827-7437 FAX: 614-827-0742

4 Photo Credit: Enjoy Oxford

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

5.0 ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives for the Oxford Transportation Thoroughfare Plan will help the City of Oxford manage the expected growth in traffic volumes by providing alternate routes to spread the traffic volumes proportionately over the entire roadway network. This will also assist the City in its goal to maintain 2-lane facilities and the rural small city character that Oxford possesses.

The Northwest Butler Transportation Study (NBTS) utilized OKI’s transportation demand model to project average daily traffic volumes for routes in and around Oxford for the year 2030. This projection showed increases in some routes up to 150 percent and others 100 percent by the year 2030, see Appendix A, Figure 17. The volumes in Oxford are projected to approach 45,000 ADT for all routes combined including local streets in Oxford. While all the routes leading into Oxford are expected to at least double their existing traffic volumes the projected volumes can still be handled by two-lane roadways with the exception of US 27 on the south side of Oxford, which has already been recommended by the NBTS for widening to three lanes to accommodate the projected volumes.

The proposed alternatives will help in achieving the goals that have been set forth by previous tasks forces, studies, the City of Oxford, stakeholders, and public comment. They will range from low cost to high cost improvements and have varied means of implementation and funding. The alternatives include construction projects, as well as, policy and study recommendations.

5.1

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

A list of the proposed alternatives for the Oxford Transportation Thoroughfare Plan, outlining the pros and cons of each, follows. Each of the proposed alternatives has an associated figure (Appendix A, Figures 18-44) which illustrates the alternative as well as its proposed functional classifications. The proposed functional classifications can be referenced to the appropriate design typical section found in Appendix, Figures 12-16.

5.1.1 ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES 1.

Kelly Drive to Campus Avenue Connection

Pros: Completes connection between Campus Avenue and SR 732 (Morning Sun Road); provides direction for future access on SR 732 from undeveloped land; and connection to Kelly Drive also provides access to Brown Road and vice versa to Campus Avenue.

Cons: Land currently outside of the City.

See Appendix A, Figure 18.

2.

Patterson Avenue to Talawanda/Bonham Roads Connection

Pros: Provides connection between Sycamore Street and Patterson Avenue; provides alternate route to High Street when coupled with alternative 3; alternate route to SR 732, Millet Hall, Stadiums and other athletic

5

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION facilities; right-of-way available for roadway and safer to have separated pedestrian crossing here than atgrade crossing with more traffic on High Street.

Cons: Miami University land, Dining hall and dorms in area, would require overpass/underpass for pedestrians, Miami has future development plans along Patterson Avenue and in the area of this connection and would require careful engineering and traffic calming measures.

See Appendix A, Figure 19.

3A.

Sycamore Street to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) Extension

Pros: Provides connection between Sycamore Street and US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road); provides alternate route to High Street when coupled with alternative 2; alternate route from west to SR 732, Millet Hall, Stadiums and other athletic facilities; better access to elementary school; possibility exists to have a portion of the right-of-way donated or developed as part of the elementary school site redevelopment and will provide alternate route for traffic traveling from US 27 to routes north.

Cons: Will require strip acquisitions of right-of-way, could increase traffic volumes on Sycamore Street, and would require construction of alternative 3B to assure proper intersection spacing on US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road).

See Appendix A, Figure 20.

3B.

Westgate Drive Realignment with US 27 (90 Degree Intersection)

Pros: Provides a safer intersection with US 27; can be realigned through area already used for access to US 27; could possibly be constructed with redevelopment of existing corner site; and meets goal of 90 degree intersections along US 27 as recommended by several previous studies referenced at the beginning of this plan.

Cons: Will require strip acquisition of right-of-way and redesigned access for one business.

See Appendix A, Figure 21.

4.

Westgate Drive to Dufour Lane Connection

Pros: Provides an alternate access route to US 27 from neighborhoods; creates opportunity for installation of traffic calming devices; provides two points of egress from Westgate Drive neighborhood; and provides better emergency access.

Cons: Will require strip acquisition of right-of-way; will have to be paid for by the City and the possibility exists for a slight increase in traffic on Westgate Drive, which is to be expected as newly connected neighbors utilize the new access.

See Appendix A, Figure 22.

6

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007) 5A.

Forest Ridge Drive to Dufour Lane Connection

Pros: Provides alternate route from neighborhoods north-south to US 27 and Brown Road; creates minor collector to properly collect future neighborhood traffic traveling north-south; could be paid for by development; will carry local traffic to alternative 5B for east-west travel; and allows Brown road to remain rural in nature and lower volume roadway.

Cons: Possibility of increased traffic volumes on Westgate Drive if alternative 4B is constructed; possibility of increased traffic on Jacob Drive if alternate 5B is not constructed; and may have to be engineered over steep grades.

See Appendix A, Figure 23.

5B.

Jeffery Circle to Ringwood Road Connection and US 27 & Todd Road Intersection Closure

Pros: Provides alternate route from neighborhoods east-west to US 27 and Brown Road; creates major collector to properly collect future neighborhood traffic traveling east-west; could be paid for by development; allows Brown Road to remain rural in nature by reducing future access points and a lower volume roadway by collecting the traffic at a point close to the City limits; realigns Todd Road with Ringwood Road (90 degree intersection) as part of the new collector; and abandons the current skewed intersection of Todd Road and US 27.

Cons: Majority of the land is currently outside the City limits, west end would require right-of-way purchase and coordination with Butler County Engineer’s Office and township trustees; and east end intersection is not in the ideal location (Kelly Drive alignment is more ideal but would impact business parking lot).

See Appendix A, Figure 24.

6.

Locust Street Railroad Grade Separation

Overview: The Locust Street railroad crossing from an engineering perspective was determined to be the location within Oxford with the most potential for a grade separated crossing. The reason being that the elevation of Locust Street on the south side of the crossing is low enough that if an under pass of the railroad were constructed there would be little work needed on Locust Street south of the railroad thus reducing impacts. On the north side, however, the vertical profile of Locust Street would need to be lowered and possibly that of the intersection at High Street and Locust Street. Other issues include utility lines that currently run underneath Locust Street, coordination with the railroad and access to one of the Locust Street properties north of the crossing.

The railroads in the past have typically required closure of existing at-grade intersections before they agree to allow the construction of a grade separation. In some cases that has included up to three crossings if they exist in close proximity to the location of the grade separated crossing. Shown in Appendix A, Figure 25 are three crossings identified for possible closure study ranked 1 to 3 with number 1 having the least impact to the mobility in Oxford and therefore easiest to close. The railroads have also been known to pay a certain amount of money per crossing closed toward the cost of the grade separation project.

Other Pros: Provides connection to US 27 (College Corner Road) via Locust Street from Chestnut Street;

7

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION improves emergency access to west side of Oxford; is on the main route from the west side to hospital, post office, elementary school, Millet Hall and College Corner Road businesses; and could be utilized as part of a new US 27 “truck route� through Oxford.

Other Cons: Could increase traffic on South Locust Street and Chestnut Street.

7A.

Winding Brook Drive and Hidden Creek Drive Connection (Including Traffic Calming Measures)

Pros: Provides two points of egress from the neighborhoods; creates a connection that allows for easy travel between Brookville Road and Fairfield Road (e.g., Someone on Winding Brook Drive would have to travel Brookville Road to McGuffey Avenue and back up Fairfield Road to visit a neighbor on Hidden Creek Drive they may be able to see from their house.); and allows for easier emergency access.

Cons: Would require one property acquisition and realignment of two current side streets and possibility exists for a slight increase in through traffic, which could be expected as newly connected neighbors utilize the new access.

See Appendix A, Figure 26.

7B. Hidden Creek Drive to Olde Farm Road Connection (Including Traffic Calming Measures) Pros: Provides direction for two points of egress from land expected to be developed in the future, creates a connection that allows for easy travel between Contreras and Fairfield Roads; provides for proper intersection alignment with existing streets on Contreras and Fairfield Roads; and allows for easier emergency access and could be paid for by development.

Cons: Area is currently outside of the City limits. See Appendix A, Figure 27.

8.

Continuation of Dana Drive to Melissa Drive and Connection from Dana Drive to Brookville Road

Pros: Provides two points of egress from the neighborhood; creates connections that allow for easy access to and from the neighborhood as well as proper dispersement of traffic volumes to adjacent collectors and arterials; is undeveloped land, and allows for easier emergency access.

Cons: Plat may already be approved.

See Appendix A, Figure 28.

The following realignment options (#9A-9C) show possible alternative alignments for Kehr Road to address the increasing traffic volumes, poor geometrics, narrow roadway and connectivity to the broader roadway network that will ultimately lead to safety issues, see Appendix A, Figures 29-31.

8

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007) 9A.

Connect Locust Street through to Kehr Road

Pros: Was originally allowed for in the design of the Locust Street extension south of Chestnut Street; requires short section of new roadway construction; aligns Kehr Road with Locust Street to create a longer northsouth alternative route; and intersects Chestnut Street at a traffic signal and requires minimal right-of-way acquisition.

Cons: Places more traffic on Locust Street, requires crossing a deep ravine with a new structure, and would require environmental permits and field investigations.

See Appendix A, Figure 29.

9B.

Realign Kehr Road with College Avenue

Pros: Aligns Kehr Road with College Avenue to create a continuous north-south alternative route through Oxford; improves safety by replacing the narrow and winding section of Kehr Road with a straighter, properly sized new section of roadway.

Cons: Requires engineering over steep grades and would have impacts to current residents and school property.

See Appendix A, Figure 30.

9C.

Realign Kehr Road with Main Street

Pros: Aligns Kehr Road with Main Street to create a continuous north-south alternative route through Oxford; would provide a new safer route for a developing area of Oxford that could be sized to accommodate the expected traffic volumes and possibly paid for through development.

Cons: Impacts school property; would cross the landfill area and retention pond; would require environmental permits; and could have serious geotechnical engineering issues with the instability of the landfill below the roadway base.

See Appendix A, Figure 31.

The following alternatives (#10-15B) when constructed would form a major collector roadway that would ultimately provide a northwest-southwest alternative for traffic outside the City of Oxford to travel east-west and north-south without traveling into the Mile Square area and back out, see Appendix A, Figures 32-38.

The connection would generally run between US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford. These roadway connections could be paid for and developed by developers as part of their subdivision or development plans, however, the general alignment and begin and end points of each section should be as close as possible to the points illustrated in this plan. When determining the beginning and ending points of each section, the beginning point of the following section should be considered so that an engineering situation is not created which results in the inability of the roadway to link to next section and thus braking the desired continuous nature of the entire route. All sections will be limited access as defined by the City or County and when possible include landscaping, fences, bike paths or other desirable elements to enhance the character of the roadway.

9

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION 10.

University Park Boulevard Connection to Booth Road

Pros: Provides a east-west alternative between Chestnut Street and Stillwell- Beckett Road that connects US 27 and Kehr Road; provides a safer and easier route from Kehr Road to US 27 than the current Booth Road option; utilizes right- of-way already set aside for this purpose; would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford; and could be built as development occurs.

Cons: Requires a new railroad crossing; lies outside the current city limits; would not align with planned US 27/SR 73 connector; and impacts farm land.

See Appendix A, Figure 32.

11.

Kehr Road to SR 732 Connection

Pros: Creates a connection utilizing planned street improvements associated with the Cobblestone Community Church plan; would create an east-west connection for traffic from this development to use other than Chestnut Street; and provides another access route to the school on SR 732, would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford; and could be built as development occurs (such as with the Cobblestone Community Church plan).

Cons: Impacts farm property by bisecting one farm; opens more land up to development; and would require an edge portion of the middle school property.

See Appendix A, Figure 33.

12.

SR 732 to Brookville Road Connection

Pros: Would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford; and could be built as development occurs and would provide a collector class route for a large undeveloped area of Oxford township that could collect and distribute local traffic without burdening current City streets.

Cons: Impacts multiple farm properties; possible multiple stream crossings; opens more land up to development; and would require extensive environmental field studies, investigations, and careful engineering of the alignment.

See Appendix A, Figure 34.

13.

Brookville Road to Fairfield Road Connection

Pros: Would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford and could be built as development occurs; would provide access to the Oxford Community Park without routing traffic into Oxford then down Fairfield Road; would provide a local connection between Brookville and Fairfield Roads other than McGuffey Avenue or Locust Street; and would provide a physical barrier between the park and the airport and utilizes some existing right-of-way.

10

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007) Cons: Impacts to the Oxford Community Park, airport property and possible Federal Aviation Administration issues concerning proximity to the runway.

See Appendix A, Figure 35.

14.

Fairfield Road to Contreras Road Connection

Pros: Would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford, and could be built as development occurs; would provide access to the Oxford Community Park without routing traffic into Oxford then down Fairfield Road; would provide a local connection between Fairfield and Contreras Roads other than neighborhood streets Fieldcrest and Ridge Avenues; and would provide north and south mobility without forcing traffic to enter Oxford.

Cons: Impacts farm property and opens more land up to development. See Appendix A, Figure 36.

15A.

Contreras Road to Ringwood Road Connection

Pros: Would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford, and could be built as development occurs; would provide a local connection between Contreras and Ringwood Roads closer to Oxford than Riggs Road and would reduce travel distance; and utilizes existing railroad crossing and time to US 27 if railroad crossings were blocked in Oxford.

Cons: Impacts farm properties, opens more land up to development, and passes close to existing residences.

See Appendix A, Figure 37.

15B.

Contreras Road to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) Connection

Pros: Would be a link in a major collector system of roadways that would ultimately connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford, and could be built as development occurs; would provide a local connection between Contreras Road and US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) closer to Oxford than Riggs Road; would reduce travel distance and time to US 27 if railroad crossings were blocked in Oxford; and could be partially built on existing right-of-way designation.

Cons: Impacts farm properties; opens more land up to development; passes close to existing residences; requires special access provision for Ringwood Road (would require closing existing railroad crossing); and construction of a new railroad crossing.

See Appendix A, Figure 38.

The following alternatives (#16A-19) when put together form a larger continuous local route that would connect US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford by utilizing existing routes supplemented by upgrades and short new sections of roadway to create safer connections. The primary routes utilized include: Booth Road, Stillwell-Beckett Road, Riggs Road, and Taylor Road. See Appendix A, Figures 39-43.

11

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION 16A.

Riggs Road to Taylor Road Realignment (North)

Pros: Aligns offset intersections of Riggs Road and Taylor Road at Contreras Road to form a cross intersection; vehicles no longer have to make multiple turns to execute a through movement on Riggs/Taylor Roads; and connects Stillwell- Beckett/Riggs Roads and Taylor Road to form a continuous route to US 27 north of Oxford from US 27 south of Oxford.

Cons: Creates a skewed intersection with Contreras Road; impacts farm properties and stream crossing; opens more land up to development; and completes a local “bypass” of Oxford.

See Appendix A, Figure 39.

16B.

Riggs Road to Taylor Road Realignment (South)

Pros: Aligns offset intersections of Riggs Road and Taylor Road at Contreras Road to form a cross intersection; creates a safer intersection; vehicles no longer have to make multiple turns to execute a through movement on Riggs/Taylor Roads; and connects Stillwell-Beckett/Riggs Roads and Taylor Road to form a continuous route to US 27 north of Oxford from US 27 south of Oxford.

Cons: Impacts farm properties; possible stream crossing; opens more land up to development; and completes a local “bypass” of Oxford.

See Appendix A, Figure 40.

17.

Riggs Road Realignment at Intersection of Fairfield Road

Pros: Aligns offset intersections of Riggs Road with Fairfield Road to form a cross intersection; creates a safer intersection; vehicles no longer have to make multiple turns to execute a through movement on Riggs Road; and possibility exists that the right-of-way could be donated by Miami University.

Cons: Impacts farm/airport property; passes close to a possible environmental concern; and may require coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

See Appendix A, Figure 41.

18.

Connection from Booth Road at Railroad Crossing to Stillwell-Beckett Road near SR 732 Intersection

Pros: Aligns Stillwell-Beckett/Riggs/Taylor Road alternative with Booth Road straight to US 27; would provide a continuous local route from US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford that is closer to Oxford than the intersection of Stillwell-Beckett Road and US 27; and would have little impact to existing residences.

Cons: Impacts farm properties; passes close to a few existing residences; would require short realignment of Stillwell-Beckett Road prior to tie-in point; opens more land up to development; and completes a local “bypass” of Oxford.

See Appendix A, Figure 42.

12

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007) 19.

Connection from Booth Road near Railroad Crossing to Align with US 27/SR 73 Connector

Pros: Aligns section 18 of Stillwell-Beckett/Riggs/Taylor Road alternative with new US 27/SR 73 connector; provides a continuous local route from US 27 south of Oxford to US 27 north of Oxford; and provides an arterial roadway for future development to link too instead of creating more access points along US 27.

Cons: Impacts farm properties, opens more land up to development, and completes a local “bypass” of Oxford.

See Appendix A, Figure 43.

The following alternative (#20) involves the study and construction of intersection improvements to the offset intersections of US 27 at SR 73, Spring Street. One alternative to consider would be a roundabout to link the two intersections together, see Appendix A, Figure 44.

20.

US 27 at SR 73, Spring Street – Intersection Improvements

Pros: Reduces crashes, increases capacity, and allows free flow of traffic while controlling speeds; provides gateway feature to University and City; can safely accommodate high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles; could potentially have minimal impact outside the current right-of-way; and has a lower life cycle cost than signalized intersection.

Cons: Relatively new traffic control device to Ohio and would require education and adjustment period for drivers and pedestrians; would require maintenance of landscaped center island feature; higher upfront construction cost; and if designed wrong can increase crashes.

See Appendix A, Figure 44.

Appendix A, Figure 45 illustrates all of the above roadway alternatives in context with the proposed functional classification system to illustrate how the overall network might look and function if all of the alternatives were to be constructed.

5.1.2 POLICY 21.

Access Management Policy and Design Manual

The Oxford city council should pursue the development of a citywide access management policy and associated design manual similar to the ODOT Access management manual and others completed by similar jurisdictions around the state.

This manual will guide decision making for such things as access permits, curb cut locations and new street development.

Quality access management can increase the capacity of existing roadways and extend there usefulness as well as reduce crashes, improve economic vitality and reduce congestion.

13

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION This policy if developed properly and adopted would greatly enhance the City’s ability to manage growth and the number and locations of new streets, access to those streets and the redevelopment of existing access points.

22.

Developer Resolution

With adoption of this Transportation Thoroughfare Plan the Oxford City Council should discuss adopting a resolution stating that developers wishing to develop around Oxford and later be annexed into the City should incorporate the suggested roadway alignments and connection points outlined in this plan as part of their development plans and plats.

5.1.3 ITEMS FOR FURTHER STUDY While all of the alternatives presented in this plan will require independent study and further documentation; the following are locations, alternatives or corridors that require further detailed study to develop engineering solutions due to the broad range of inter- related issues involved in each. See Appendix A, Figure 46.

Safety 23.

Safety/Corridor Study of the SR 732/Main Street Corridor through City of Oxford 24.

Safety/Corridor Study of the US 27/High Street Corridor through the City of Oxford Including the College Avenue and Church Street Portions of US 27

25.

Intersection Safety Study*: Main (SR 732) and Vine Streets

26.

Intersection Safety Study*: Main (SR 732) and Spring Streets

27.

Intersection Safety Study: Spring Street and Campus Avenue

*Note: These two intersections would be part of the larger SR 732/Main Street safety/corridor study but could be studied independently due to their higher than average crash history.

Traffic 28.

Analyze Alternative US 27 Truck Route via Chestnut Street & Main, College Avenue or Locust Street; if Railroad Grade Separation is to be Constructed on Locust Street

Overview: This would require signal warrant studies at current three and four way stop control intersections as well as traffic analysis of existing signalized intersections along the routes for effect due to traffic pattern change and the possible need for left turn lanes, protected left turn signal phasing and adjusted timings.

Pavement widths and conditions would also need to be analyzed to determine there adequacy for handling heavy truck traffic without upgrade or reconstruction.

14

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007) Pros: Removal of truck traffic from downtown; removal of truck traffic from majority of pedestrian crossings; relatively inexpensive to implement assuming only minor alterations to current traffic control are required; and places large vehicles onto routes with less overall peak hour traffic therefore creating shorter queues downtown in the peak hour (i.e., can queue 2.5 cars to every semi truck).

Cons: Requires truck traffic to cross railroad tracks twice; truck traffic would pass by high school for immediate future; some alternatives could require costly upgrades; and could require loss of parking in some alternatives.

5.1.4 ALTERNATIVE MODES ALTERNATIVES The Oxford Thoroughfare Plan, due to ongoing independent studies in the areas of transit and bicycle facilities did not investigate these topics other than to be aware of the ongoing efforts of these studies. The beginning of this plan summarizes a few of these completed studies and their recommendations. For more information please consult the appropriate study and its adopted recommendations.

Bicycle Facilities 29.

Oxford Area Trails Feasibility Study (OATS) Recommendations

30.

Institute of Environmental Studies Report(s) Alternatives and Recommendations Train Service 31.

Amtrak Station

The cost to construct a basic stop similar to a bus stop is estimated to cost less than $300,000. A deal could be negotiated with a developer to possibly build the stop at a new development that is on the line in Oxford. The City would need to take the following steps to determine if Amtrak service would be appropriate for the City and to identify funding: •

Educate the public on the benefits of the Amtrak service – ticket cost, possible destinations, time savings, gas savings, etc.;

•

Determine the public demand via mailed survey, online polls, or phone surveys;

•

Seek creative financing solution for station construction;

•

Provide connections to facilitate bicycle riding to the station;

•

Provide bicycle storage at the station;

•

Parking for cars; and

•

Look for opportunity to locate next to larger development with large parking lot and seek an agreement with owner/operator to allow riders to park in the outlying areas of the parking lot.

15

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION Expansion of bus service 32.

Public Route/loop – Operation

At the time of this study there are discussions happening concerning the provision of bus service to portions of the City of Oxford. There have been discussions to date about opening this service up to all citizens with the possibility of providing an additional route. This route would be in the form of a loop with direct destination service to the Tollgate shopping plaza to Uptown and then to the Wal-Mart shopping area on US 27 (College Corner Road). There could also be a connection to the recreation facilities on the far west side of town. Cost has been estimated to be around $200,000 annually to operate the service. Options for funding would be for the City to investigate the possibility of funding this service or discussing the funding with businesses along these routes that would benefit from the additional customers.

16

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

5.2

COST ESTIMATES

The roadway alternative planning level cost estimates in Table 10 reflect current (2006) construction cost estimate pricing as well as a 40 percent contingency for miscellaneous items such as signs, drainage, removals, etc. The conceptual cost was developed using a per lineal foot cost for the appropriate typical section and applying it to the project length for each alternative. The resulting estimates were then rounded for easier understanding and discussion. More detailed cost estimates will need to be developed as alternatives advance in their development and design. The cost for urban typical sections was used in all estimates to provide an extra level of contingency. If the alternative is ultimately classified as “rural” then the cost estimate will be lower. The derived at per lineal foot cost for each urban typical section is as follows: •

Urban Minor Arterial – $687.71/linear foot (LF)

•

Urban Major Collector – $664.38/LF

•

Urban Minor Collector – $400.45/LF

Traffic and safety studies were estimated by comparison of expected effort to similar studies performed around the state of Ohio.

The cost estimates for the bus service expansion and Amtrak station alternatives were provided by sources involved in those studies.

17

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION TABLE 10: COST ESTIMATES Alternatives

Cost Estimate

Roadway

18

1

Kelly Drive to Campus Avenue Connection

$375,000

2

Patterson Avenue to Talawanda/Bonham Roads Connection

$720,000

3A

Sycamore Street to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) Extension

$1,240,000

3B

Westgate Drive Realignment with US 27 (90 Degree Intersection)

$215,000

4

Westgate Drive to Dufour Lane Connection

$160,000

5A

Forest Ridge Drive to Dufour Lane Connection

$1,070,000

5B

Jeffery Circle to Ringwood Road Connection and US 27 & Todd Road Intersection Closure

$7,300,000

6

Locust Street Railroad Grade Separation

$9,000,000

7A

Winding Brook Drive and Hidden Creek Drive Connection (Including Traffic Calming Measures)

$1,084,000

7B

Hidden Creek Drive to Olde Farm Road Connection (Including Traffic Calming Measures)

$735,000

8

Continuation of Dana Drive to Melissa Drive and Connection from Dana Drive to Brookville Road

$950,000

9A

Connect Locust Street through to Kehr Road

$1,540,000

9B

Realign Kehr Road with College Avenue

$1,120,000

9C

Realign Kehr Road with Main Street

$2,780,000

10

University Park Boulevard Connection to Booth Road

$3,430,000

11

Kehr Road to SR 732 Connection

$2,430,000

12

SR 732 to Brookville Road Connection

$4,400,000

13

Brookville Road to Fairfield Road Connection

$2,340,000

14

Fairfield Road to Contreras Road Connection

$1,800,000

15A

Contreras Road to Ringwood Road Connection

$3,500,000

15B

Contreras Road to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) Connection

$4,900,000

16A

Riggs Road to Taylor Road Realignment (North)

$2,820,000

16B

Riggs Road to Taylor Road Realignment (South)

$2,250,000

17

Riggs Road Realignment at Intersection of Fairfield Road

$507,000

18

Connection from Booth Road at Railroad Crossing to Stillwell-Beckett Road near SR 732 Intersection

$4,300,000

19

Connection from Booth Road near Railroad Crossing to Align with US 27/SR 73 Connector

$4,200,000

20

US 27 at SR 73, Spring Street - Intersection Improvements

$200,000

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

Policies 21

Access Management Policy and Design Manual

$65,000

22

Developer Resolution

$0

Studies 23

Safety/Corridor Study of the SR 732/Main Street Corridor through City of Oxford

$150,000-$200,000

24

Safety/Corridor Study of the US 27/High Street Corridor through the City of Oxford Including the College Avenue and Church Street Portions of US 27

$200,000

25

Intersection Safety Study: Main (SR 732) & Vine Streets

$20,000

26

Intersection Safety Study: Main (SR 732) & Spring Streets

$20,000

27

Intersection Safety Study: Spring Street & Campus Avenue

$20,000

28

Analyze alternative US 27 Truck Route via Chestnut & Main Streets, College Avenue or Locust Street; if railroad grade separation is to be constructed on Locust Street

$65,000

Bicycle Facilities 29

Oxford Area Trails Feasibility Study (OATS) Recommendations

Not applicable

30

Institute of Environmental Report(s) Alternatives and Recommendations

Not applicable

Train Service 31

Amtrak Station

$300,000

Expansion of Bus Service 32

5.3

Public Route/loop - Operation

$200,000/yr

ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS

Table 11 through Table 13 represent a prioritized list of alternatives that could be implemented in short (one to five [1 to 5] years), medium (six to ten [6 to 10] years), and long term (greater than ten [>10] year) time periods. The tables include the alternatives in a prioritized list. Although this list is prioritized in the manner that the city should proceed based on discussions, impacts, and benefits, this may change as opportunities to work with developers arise. Each alternative includes an estimated cost and potential funding sources for the alternative. Alternatives are then scored qualitatively high, medium, or low according to right-of-way impacts, environmental impacts, accommodating future growth, addressing traffic and safety issues, and whether it provides a connection for better mobility. A score of “High” for minimal right of way impacts and minimal environmental impacts means that the alternative has minimal impacts. A score of “Low” means that the alternative has many potential adverse impacts. A score of “High” for accommodating future growth, addressing traffic and safety issues, and provides connections means that it is one of the best options for improving the transportation system of Oxford in those areas of concern.

19

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

Provides Connections

n/a

H

H

H

2

Access management policy and design manual

$65

City

M

n/a

H

H

H

3

Analyze alternative US 27 Truck Route via Chestnut & Main, College or Locust

$65

City/OKI

H

H

M

M

H

4

Safety/Corridor Study of the SR 732/Main Street corridor through City of Oxford

$150$200

City/OKI

H

H

M

M

L

5

Safety/Corridor Study of the US 27/High Street corridor through the City of Oxford including the College Avenue and Church Street portions of US 27

$200

City/OKI/ ODOT

H

H

M

H

L

6

Intersection Safety Study: Spring Street & Campus Avenue

$20

City/OKI

H

H

M

H

L

$1,070

Private/ City

5B. Jeffery Circle to Ringwood Road connection and US 27 & Todd Road intersection closure

L

M

H

M

H

$7,030

Private/ City

8

3B. Westgate Drive realignment with US 27

$215

Private/ City/ ODOT

M

H

M

H

L

9

4. Westgate Drive to Dufour Lane connection

$160

Private/ City

H

L

M

M

M

10

US 27 at SR 73, Spring Street - Intersection improvements

$200

City/OKI/ ODOT

H

L

M

H

L

11

1. Kelly Drive to Campus Avenue connection

$375

Private/ City

M

M

M

L

H

12

Analyze alternative US 27 Truck Route via Chestnut & Main, College or Locust

$60

City/OKI

L

L

M

M

H

13

IES Bike Recommendations

n/a

City/ ODOT

M

M

M

L

M

14

Expanding the Miami Metro Service

$200/yr.

Private/ City

H

H

M

L

M

15

Amtrak Station

$300

Private/ City

H

M

M

L

L

7

20

($1,000s)

Priority

5A. Forest Ridge Drive to Dufour Lane connection

Accommodates Future Growth

L

Minimal Environmental Impacts

n/a

Minimal Right of Way Impacts

n/a

Funding Source

Developer Resolution

Estimated Cost

1

Alternatives

Traffic and Safety Issues

TABLE 11: SHORT TERM (1 TO 5 YEAR) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

(H=High, M=Medium, L=Low)

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

Provides Connections

M

H

H

H

2

2. Patterson Avenue to Talawanda/Bonham Roads

$720

City

L

M

H

H

H

3

3A. Sycamore Street to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) extension

$1,240

Private/ City

L

M

H

H

H

4

10. University Park Boulevard connection to Booth Road

$3,430

Private/ City/ County

M

M

H

M

H

5

7A Winding Brook Drive and Hidden Creek Drive connection (including traffic calming measures)

$1,084

Private/ City

L

M

M

M

M

6

7B. Hidden Creek Drive to Olde Farm Road connection (including traffic calming measures)

$735

Private/ City

L

M

M

M

M

7

18. Connection from Booth Road at railroad crossing to Stillwell-Beckett Road near SR 732 intersection

$4,300

Private/ City/ County

L

M

H

M

H

8

11. Kehr Road to SR 732 connection

$2,430

Private/ City

L

M

H

M

H

9

19. Connection from Booth Road near railroad crossing to align with US 27/SR 73 Connector

$4,200

Private/ City/ County

L

M

H

M

H

10

17. Riggs Road realignment at intersection of Fairfield Road

$507

Private/ City/ County

M

M

M

M

M

16A. Riggs Road to Taylor Road realignment (north)

$2,820

16B. Riggs Road to Taylor Road realignment (south)

M

M

M

M

M

$2,250

Private/ City/ County

$950

Private/ City

M

M

M

M

M

n/a

Private/ City

M

M

M

L

M

12

8. Continuation of Dana Drive to Melissa Drive and connection from Dana Drive to Brookville Road

13

OATS

($1,000s)

Priority 11

Accommodates Future Growth

H

Minimal Environmental Impacts

City/ ORDC

Minimal Right of Way Impacts

9,000

Funding Source

6. Locust Street railroad grade separation

Estimated Cost

1

Alternatives

Traffic and Safety Issues

TABLE 12: MEDIUM TERM (6 TO 10 YEAR) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

(H=High, M=Medium, L=Low)

21

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

3

4

5

22

15A. Contreras Road to Ringwood Road connection

$3,500

15B. Contreras Road to US 27 (Oxford College Corner Road) connection

$4,900

14. Fairfield Road to Contreras Road connection

$1,800

9A. Connect Locust Street through to Kehr Road

$1,540

9B. Realign Kehr Road with College Avenue

$1,120

9C. Realign Kehr Road with Main Street

$2,780

12. SR 732 to Brookville Road connection

$4,400

M

M

H

Private/ City/ County

L

M

H

M

H

Private/ City/ County

L

M

H

M

H

Private/ City

L

L

H

H

H

Private/ City/ County

L

M

H

M

M

Accommodates Future Growth

M

Minimal Environmental Impacts

M

Minimal Right of Way Impacts

Private/ City/ County

Funding Source

($1,000s)

Estimated Cost

$2,340

Provides Connections

2

13. Brookville Road to Fairfield Road connection

Traffic and Safety Issues

1

Alternatives

Priority

TABLE 13: LONG TERM (>10 YEARS) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

(H=High, M=Medium, L=Low)

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP SERIES DESCRIPTION The following maps represent reproductions of the “Roadway Alternatives and Roadway Classifications Map” adopted by Oxford City Council on October 16, 2007. The City is divided into 12 areas so that each individual map is at a more detailed scale. The roadway functional classifications displayed in this section are exactly as were adopted in 2007, which removed 15 alternatives and modified 4 alternatives originally recommended by Tetra Tech. Bike paths as were shown on the original 2007 map are not displayed, however, as the Oxford Area Trail System (OATS) Plans included in this publication serve as an update to these routes.

The following notations are used in the map legends: •

RURAL | Denotes existing thoroughfares that should utilize a rural cross-section

•

URBAN | Denotes existing thoroughfares that should utilize an urban cross-section

•

RA | Denotes “Roadway Alternatives,” which are potential future thoroughfare segments

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS SUB-AREAS INSET MAP

AREA 1

AREA 2

AREA 3

AREA 4

AREA 5

AREA 6

AREA 7

AREA 8

AREA 9

AREA 10

AREA 11

AREA 12

23

Todd Rd

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 1

C 15

Ringwood Rd

5B 5B

5B

15 B

R e ag

h' sW

ay

27

Dr

Cou ntry Club D r

Mi am Ba iD Dr ker r

Da y

Savannah Dr as R d

14

trer

Olde Farm Rd

Co n

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

Hickory Wood Ct

Brown Rd

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 2

Forest Ridge Dr

5B

Jef fr

ey

LEGEND URBAN

RA

Applewood Cir

Lincoln St

Westgate Dr

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

y Dr

Miami Trl

r

K el l

3A

¸

0

1,000

N Beech St

Hester Rd

De b

Mi am

Brown Rd

eD

idg hR

Dr

27

RURAL

rt No

r

il Ga

r eD ell ch Mi Dr dy Ju

il D Ga

Honor Ln

ry

r

r Ln

r Me

yD Da

Dr

Melanee Ln

Jacob Dr

u Dufo

Ba iD ke r rD r bi Do eD ug r las Dr

Miche lle Dr

Feet 2,000

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 3

Dr

er

vil le

Rd

732 U

Tallawanda Ln

Rd

Dr

ffr e

y

So m

ge Fo re st R i d

Je

Co

Chris

y Dr

o

er

h Bon

Dr

Kel l

toph

rs

Rd

y

ow

Weeb E w

ad y

Ln

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

ls D r

N Patterson Ave

Hi l

Homestead Ave

University Bouden Ave

e

Sh

N Beech St

Key stone C l o s

b an

k

Wa

am

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

Hillc rest Dr

Coulter Ln

Tallawanda Ln

Bo n

ha

m

Rd

Oxford Milford Rd

So m

er v i lle

Rd

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 4

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

Country Club Dr

15B

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 5

de

ras Rd

Ol

Fa

rm

Rd

Kn

k D r

on

e

ee

St

e

ol

Re

u db

rc dT

Cr

14

Sq

Iv y

Scarlet Oak Cir

wo

od

Contre

Prevalent Dr

Savannah Dr

a i t et dD r

oo

Wh

lw

i l Run

Fairfield Rd

Cr

Hi d de n

ee

k D r

Fox Run Ci r

ite Wh Dan a

8

12 Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector RURAL

URBAN

RA

w

Dr

d Brookville R

LEGEND

Ln

W in di ng Broo k Dr

ead o H ig h M

Quail Ridge Dr

8

Autum n Dr

Kay Rench Dr

r

t t C

Carrie Cir er at h H e e Ct dg Ri

H a rv e s

kD Oa

13

Hun ter Woods Dr

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

d oo

Rid ge Dr

w ple Ap Cir

3A

Mar ti C t

t nS

r sD

Day Cir

S College Ave

W Rose Ave W Central Ave

Brookview Ct Edgehill Dr

732 U Pamela Dr

9C

Kehr Rd

Marilyn Dr

Clover Cir

Melinda Dr

RA

Foxfire Dr

S M ai n St

Dr

S Locust St

Erin Dr

od Ch est nu t Hill

Dan a

McGuffey Ave

French Dr

Wo

Dr

8

URBAN

Heather Ln

Anderson Dr

Erickson Dr

al d

Brill Dr

r

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector RURAL

Trl

Wells Mill Dr

Oxford Commons

Melissa D

LEGEND

l an P

i ll

G

l o s Dr

Reag

ch

Albert Cir

ur

Robin Ct

Ch

ir ne r Sto e Ci gid C i g r d B He

Qu ai l Rid ge

8

W Collins St

S Beech St

io Un

Tollgate Dr

ir e C White Oa k Dr

le Rd n Brookvil S pr uc e L

W Walnut St

W Spring St

er

Dr

i Carr

W Park

6" S Elm St

Joseph Dr

Vereker Dr

Em

un B ul l R

W B u ll R u n

Pl

W High St Lynn Ave

James Rd

Panda Ln

e Dr

W Church St

t Vickie A n d a C

Fairfield Rd

Dr

W Withrow St

lin

Ridg e A v e

ue

Timothy Ln

cq

Devonshire Dr

N Locust St

r Meadow C i

Ja

Pin Oak Dr

Rd

Contreras Rd

W Vine St N Elm St

H il lt o p

27

N College Ave

W Sycamore St

N Beech St

rth

Brown Rd

r

Westgate Dr

Miami Trl

i l le D G a el ch Mi r

D dy Ju

Dr

No

Lincoln St

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 6

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

W Church St

Rd

am nh Bo

Weeb Tallawanda Rd

E Vine St

N Patterson Av e

2

Bishop St

W Withrow St

Bouden Ln

University Ave

N Campus Ave

N Poplar St

W Vine St

ls D r

Willow Ln

Hi l

E Sycamore St

y

W Sycamore St

ow

Homestead Ave

ad

732 U

Sh

N Beech St

Key ston e C l o s e

E wb ank Way

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 7

E Withrow St N F is h e rD

E Church St

r

Pa

E

rk

S Fisher Dr

Irvin Dr

op

E Collins St

W Collins St

B i sh

E Walnut St

Cir

M

W Walnut St S Beech St

Pl

E High St

cG

73 U

uf fe

S Campus Ave

S Popla r S t

Linnwood Ln

Bern St

E Rose Ave

Center Dr

27 Wes tern Dr

Oak St

Linden Dr

W Rose Ave

E Spring St

Maple Ave

Heather Ln

Woo ster P l

y Dr

W Spring St

E Central Ave Plum St o

Garrod Ln r Ln

nu

Ln

h ea

S il

t

voo

est

ow

ai n S t

Cedar Dr

E Chestnut St

A rr

SM

9C

m

Ch

d Ar

Harris Dr

r e Dr

r d D

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

Oxford Milford Rd

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 8

r S pri ngw ood D

73 U

n Retreat L

Dr

Redwing Dr

Be

ec

hp

oi

nt

Oak hill D r

Iv es W oo d Dr

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

d Brookville R

H a rv e st Ct

ow e ad M h ig H Ln

8

Autu m n D r

13

Kay Rench Dr

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 9

8 D an a

Jo

si

e

Dr

Ln

Ry an

Dr

P am a je ra

Dr

12

Stil lw

el l B ec k

et t

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

Rd

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

Sp ru c

e Ln

8

8

Dr all

t tS

Dr

Maxine Dr

Dav id D r

S and ra Dr Dr

d Ran

r

us

M e li n d a

oc SL

Melissa D

Pamela Dr

9C

Rd

Ch est nu t Hill

le Brookvil

Marilyn Dr

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 10

Daniel Dr

Dr

Dana Dr

Ma rcia

Glenview Dr

Silverleaf Dr K-Bell St

R y an

Gardenia Dr

ber

ts Dr Kehr Rd

Ro

9C Booth Rd

11

732 U

12

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

nu

Ln

S il

t

v oo

est

ai n S t

r Ln

E Chestnut St

Ch

SM

Cedar Dr

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 11

o Arr wh

27

dD ea

Ac

or

n

r

Ci r

9C

Ct

Tenney C t

Tho m

son

P ea

Gardenia Dr

S

ve M cK ee A

Dr p ar t a n

bo d

te

i am D r

es

Mi

W

y Dr

rn

Red C l o

10A

vd u d Ct Bl k r Pa Un iv er si ty

Booth Rd

10B Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS | AREA 12

n Retreat L

McKe

b od

y

i am Mi rn ste We Dr

o od D r

Dr

Pkwy

int

e

Iro nw

Pea

e Av e

M a gn o lia

r

Dr

Woodruff Rd

So

uth

po

Sassafras D

10B

27

W a ll a ce

Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector

LEGEND RURAL

URBAN

RA

Rd

¸

0

1,000

Feet 2,000

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

THOROUGHFARE CROSS-SECTION SERIES DESCRIPTION The following cross-section exhibits are reproductions of Exhibits 12-16 as were included in the Oxford Transportation Thoroughfare Plan adopted in 2007. The dimensions of features presented in each crosssection are intended to be construed as the typical recommended conditions for each roadway functional classification.

The details shown in this series are meant to be reviewed in conjunction with the Functional Classification Maps as seen in the previous section.

36

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL SECTIONS RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL

URBAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL

37

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

MINOR ARTERIAL SECTIONS RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL

URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL

38

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

MAJOR COLLECTOR SECTIONS RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR

URBAN MAJOR COLLECTOR

39

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

MINOR COLLECTOR SECTIONS RURAL MINOR COLLECTOR

URBAN MINOR COLLECTOR

40

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION THOROUGHFARE PLAN (2007)

LOCAL STREET SECTION

41

OXFORD BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

ADOPTED BY OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

MARCH 4, 2014

BY RESOLUTION NO. 4815

PREPARED BY

CITY OF OXFORD STAFF BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

SHIFTING GEARS:

A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN FOR OXFORD, OHIO

BY ANNA L. DRAGOVICH | 2012

42 Photo Credit: Enjoy Oxford

OXFORD BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2014)

Ped/ Bike

Near Term (0-2 years)

Med Term (3-5 years)

Long Term (6-10+ years)

B

Dedicated bike lane and/or transition on Spring St. to connect to McGuffey Ave

B

Dedicated bike lanes on McGuffey

B

Dedicated bike lanes on Wells Mill

B

SRTS route-Sycamore from SR 732 to N. Locust, Locust from Sycamore to US 27

B

Sign and/or Sharrow Bike Sign and Sharrow bike corridor to Brookville Road, from SR 732 to Corridors (Fairfield and Contreras) Brookville Rd to Winding Brook Dr. City Limit, to be a complete street

B

Bike Parking Uptown (+/-25 bikes) (use N/S ROW)

B

Year-Round Bike Parking at city garage

B

On-shoulder bike lanes on 27 South [B]

B

Sharrow on S. Locust, Foxfire. Central Ave. Crossing improvement at Central/Campus

B

Shared-Use path on west side of Patterson [versus on-street bike lanes] [C]

B

STRS connection from Kramer to Miami Trail

B

STRS route- SR 732 from Middle School to Chestnut St.

B

Bonham Bridge replacement with multi-path

B

Multi-path (OATS) on SR 732 from Sycamore to the City limit

Sycamore St., from SR 732 to Talawanda, reconfigured to a complete street

Fairfield and Contreras reconfigured to be complete streets

Main St, from Chestnut to Sycamore, reconfigured to be complete street

B

Sharrow on Church St

B

Sharrow on Walnut St

B

Sharrow on Elm St.

B

Dedicated bike lane on Chestnut from SR 732 to Main St.

B

Sharrow on Lynn Ave.

B B/P

Chestnut Street reconfigured to be a complete street

Dedicated bike lane on Fieldcrest Streetscape/access management analysis on Locust St

Implementation of access management analysis on Locust St

Implementation of access management analysis on Locust St.

43

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

B/P

Upgrade Ramps at intersections north and south of High Street [D]

B/P

Education and Enforcement of existing laws

B/P

Convert CCP multi-use path signage to positive tone [E]

general

Education and enforcement of existing laws

Education and enforcement of existing laws

Increased length of yellow zone areas

general

All-way stop at Main/Walnut [F]

P

Paint approx seven Walnut St crosswalks

P

2 New crosswalks at McGuffey/ Wells Mill (already done 2013)

P

New crosswalk on S. Locust connecting Foxfire to Oxford West Apt.

P

Multi-path signage to OCP, Westgate and Northridge

P P

Connecting Locust Street to Kehr Road

Mid-block crossing on US27 North Signal modification at Locust/ Church/CCP to eliminate conflicting signal

P

Crosswalk improvement at Vine/ Elm and Vine/College

P

Crossing improvement at Main/ Chestnut and Patterson/Chestnut

P

Crossing imporvement at Campus/Walnut

Bike/Pedestrian crossing at Church/Talawanda

P

Crossing improvement at Locust/ Spring

Crosswalk improvement, signalization at Sycamore/Brown

general POLICY ISSUES Pavement width Right of way width Right of way users’ rights

THIS STATUS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT ANY FUNDING LIMITATION A B

C

44

From Campus Ave. to Elm St. After the DOT widening project is completed, the city will allow the paved shoulders to be painted for bike use After the Shifting Gears plan was completed Miami decided to convert the existing sidewalk on the west side of Patterson to a 14’ multi-use path. Additionally, Miami is planning to guide all pedestrian crossings from Western Campus to the Spring Street intersection

OXFORD BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2014) D

E

F

The City is planning to use CDBG funds for this. Walnut and Church streets will be done the first year and then Withrow and Collins streets the second year.

Currently the signage reads “NO MOTOR VEHICLES.” The signs could be modified slightly to encourage bike use, such as “Bikes allowed” North/southbound stop signs have been studied in recent years at this intersection and found not to be warranted

45

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

27

Merry Day Park

HESTER

CUMULATIVE (0-10+ YEARS) L CO LE C GE N OR ER

LEGEND

CONTRERAS

Spokes (transition to OATS)

# *

# *

Generalized OATS trail location

FAIRFIELD

Multi Use Path

TRI

Dedicated Bike Lane Sharrow

Community Park

Zone Improvements Access Management

IL BROOKV

OXFORD REILY

Complete Street

LE

New Connection Safe Routes to School

° 46

1/2 mile

Talawanda MS

OXFORD BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2014) - COMPLETE STREET

U

732 BR O

SO

M

E

IL RV

LE

WN

Black Covered Bridge Leonard G. Howell Park SU

N

BO N

LOCUST

SYCAMORE

HA

M

M

G N IN OR

Dewitt Log Cabin

HIGH

73 U PATTERSON

CAMPUS

COLLEGE

MAIN

SPRING

CHESTNUT KE HR

South Locust Park

Peffer Park

47 Talawanda HS

OXFORD COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

ADOPTED BY OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

AUGUST 20, 2019

BY RESOLUTION NO. 7098

PREPARED BY

OXFORD PLANNING COMMISSION CHAMPIONED BY

COUNCILOR DAVID PRYTHERCH

48 Photo Credit: Enjoy Oxford

OXFORD COMPLETE STREETS POLICY (2019)

VISION The surface transportation network will become better connected, safer, more attractive, and accessible for all users of the public right-of-way, regardless of their mode of transportation, age or abilities, as transportation projects throughout the City are designed, constructed, reconstructed by using complete street principals.

All users will experience a visually attractive and functional environment while traveling safely and conveniently on and across all surface roadways within the City of Oxford. This vision is to make the network more complete when necessary roadway resurfacing, reconstruction, and/or expansion is planned.

Complete Streets are defined as streets that are designed for all users of the public right-of-way who can safely and conveniently reach their designations along and across a street or road, regardless of their chosen mode of transportation, age or physical condition.

All users include: pedestrians, cyclists, transit and school bus riders, people with disabilities, motorists, freight haulers, service personnel, and emergency responders.

PURPOSE Streets are an integral component of the City. They play a vital role in the social and economic health of the community by providing the primary physical link between citizens, businesses, and institutions of the City.

The purposes of this policy are as follows: 1. To recognize that alternative modes of surface transportation play a pivotal role in moving people and goods.

2. To further articulate the Oxford Comprehensive Plan in creating a quality, accessible transportation with alternative forms of transportation for a diverse population.

3. To encourage improvement to the surface transportation networks to balance the needs of all users; and 4. To incorporate the community values and quality of environmental stewardship, safety, security, mobility and individual freedom.

The implementation of this policy shall also follow the recommendations articulated in the Bike and Pedestrian Safety Plan, as adopted by City Council, to provide optimal network connections for all users of the Oxford Community.

GOALS A. Ensure that the needs of all users are balanced throughout the surface transportation network to the greatest reasonable measure.

B. Incorporate the vision, purpose, and goals of this policy into all aspects of the project development process for surface transportation projects.

C. Create a balanced, comprehensive, integrated, fully interconnected, functional and visually attractive surface transportation network.

49

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION D. Promote the use of the latest and best “complete streets� design standards, principals, policies, and guidelines within the context of the community.

BENEFITS OF COMPLETE STREETS By providing, when appropriate, features such as accessible sidewalks, designated bike facilities and accessible transit stops, livable streets encourage walking, transit uses and biking, all of which have important health benefits. By shifting a share of automobile traffic to walking, biking and transit, livable streets (complete streets) help reduce the demand for fossil fuels ease automobile congestion, reduce wear on roadways, improve air quality and make streets more attractive for businesses and customers, and increases economic activity at the neighborhood level.

POLICIES The City of Oxford surface transportation network shall balance the need for all current and future users.

Project identification, planning, scoping, and design for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, rehabilitation within the public right-of-way shall adhere, where applicable, to the following: 1. There is no one design standard that achieves the complete streets outcome. Design of particular projects will be context-sensitive, consideration of adjacent land uses and local needs and incorporating the most up-to-date, widely–accepted design standards for the particular setting, traffic volume and speed, and current and projected demand. Each project must be considered both separately and as part of a connected network to determine the level and type of treatment necessary for the street to be complete.

Additional principals, policies and guidelines may be found under the Best Practice Design. a. Where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway, or b. Where the cost of providing such accommodations would be disproportionate given the need or probability of use, or c. Where severe topographic or natural resource constraints prohibit such accommodations, or d. Where conditions or restrictions outside the purview of the City of Oxford prohibit such actions. e. Where the project consists primarily of the installation of traffic control or safety devices. f.

Where roadway safety standards or bicycle and pedestrian safety standards cannot be met.

2. Exemptions to the Resolution may be made under one (1) or more of the following conditions as determined by City Council in consultation with the City Manager, upon recommendation of the Oxford Parking and Transportation Advisory Board.

3. Where accommodations for all users cannot be made, reasonable efforts shall be made to identify adjacent alternative routes and/or methods of travel to provide a safe, reliable, integrated, and interconnected surface transportation network.

4. Roadways, sidewalks, shared-use paths, street crossings, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so that all users of the surface transportation network can travel safely, reliably, and independently.

50

OXFORD COMPLETE STREETS POLICY (2019) 5. The implementation of this policy shall reflect the context and character of the surrounding built and natural environment, and enhance the appearance of such.

6. The design and development of surface transportation infrastructure shall be in accordance with all City of Oxford ordinances, codes, plans, policies, and guidelines where appropriate.

7. A system of performance measurements shall be established to gauge the success of this Policy with regards to the stated Goals above.

SAMPLE OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT The success of this policy will be measured in the following quantitative ways: 1. Lane-mile of on-street bike routes.

2. Percentage of resurfacing, reconstruction and expansion projects that are exempted from adhering to this policy.

3. Conformance to the Bike and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Plan.

4. Percentage of roadways that do not have sidewalks, crossings.

BEST PRACTICE DESIGN Projects will incorporate the most up-to-date, widely-accepted multi-modal design and performance measurement standards for the particular setting, traffic volume and speed, and current and projected demand, including: 1. AASHTO Design Publications, including A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and guides for the development of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities 2. National Association of City Transportation Officials guides 3. Federal Highway Administration publications, including the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and guidance for multi-modal performance measurement and design 4. Transportation Research Board publications, including Highway Capacity Manual 5. United States Access Board publications and guidance 6. Allow for local engineering judgement in the review process.

51

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM (OATS) PLANS

A trail system decades in the making The Oxford and Miami University community has a documented history of advocating for the planning and implementation of multiple modes of transportation; particularly bicycles. The town was originally platted in a traditional grid pattern that, by nature of design, allowed for a wide variety of travel modes: horse and buggy, walking, bicycling and eventually automobiles. However, as the town and university grew after World War II, the need to plan for non-motorized transportation became evident as new neighborhoods developed beyond the original Mile Square grid.

52 Photo Credit: Enjoy Oxford

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM (OATS) PLANS (2020)

TIMELINE 1973

The Oxford City Council appoints a Bicycle Coordinating Committee, which recommends a separated path from the Black Covered Bridge to Hueston Woods State Park.

1988-1989 The Oxford Chamber of Commerce, through a 32-member Future of Oxford Committee, recommends green belts around Oxford as well as a bikeway/walking path encircling Oxford.

1999-2000 A Miami University Public Service Report entitled Multi-Use Perimeter Path Feasibility Study for the City of Oxford is released. The City of Oxford constructs the Community Park, which includes the first sections of the trail.

2004

The Oxford Area Trails Committee (OATS) commissions a feasibility study by Groundworks Design Collaborative and Greenway Connections, naming it the “O” trail.

2007

OATS commissions a “Trail Alternatives” study by KZF Design, which is used for a grant application. Although the grant is successful, the project stalls due to lack of key property owner support.

2013-2014 Enjoy Oxford adds OATS trail development to its organizational goals for community attraction and retention, and collaborates with the City of Oxford in securing the first dedicated trail funding from Clean Ohio as well as many local donations.

2017

Phase I - the “Black Bridge Connector” section - of the trail opens for users.

2018

Oxford residents pass a 10-year property tax levy for OATS trail funding for the purpose of completing an entire 12-mile loop by 2028.

2019

Construction of Phase II, located between S.R. 73 and U.S. 27 and linking Black Bridge to Peffer Park, begins.

2020

Planning and design for the remainder of the loop is underway.

53

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

EXISTING

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM

27

Merry Day Park

HESTER

LEGEND

CO

Existing Bikeways Paved Trails

FAIRFIELD

Marked Bike Lanes Sharrows

Community Park

Coal Ash Trail

° 1/2 mile 54

OXFORD REILY

E BROOKVILL

U

732

Tal

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM (OATS) PLANS (2020)

Black Covered Bridge

L CO

BROWN

MO

RN

G IN

SU

Leonard G. Howell Park

N

LE

NH BO

C GE N OR

SYCAMORE

AM

lawanda MS

73 U

PATTERSON

CAMPUS

MAIN

SPRING

COLLEGE

TRI

Dewitt Log Cabin

HIGH

CHESTNUT

South Locust Park

Peffer Park

KEHR

D

LOCUST

ER

ONTRERAS

Talawanda HS

55

OXFORD TRANSPORTATION PLANS ABRIDGED VERSION

FUTURE

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM

27

Merry Day Park

HESTER

LEGEND OATS Phases

1

Completed

2

Est. Completion

3

Est. Completion

4

Est. Completion

PLANNED FUTURE

Est. Completion

2017 2020

CO

2022-2023

FAIRFIELD

2022-2023

PHASE

Community Park

TBD

UNPLANNED FUTURE Route Planning

2020

*Route shown is from preliminary study by KZF Design drawn in 2007. More precise route planning to occur in 2020.

E BROOKVILL

Existing Bikeways Paved Trails Marked Bike Lanes Sharrows

° 1/2 mile

56

4 OXFORD REILY

PHASE*

U

732

Tal

OXFORD AREA TRAILS SYSTEM (OATS) PLANS (2020)

Black Covered Bridge

1

L CO

BROWN

MO

RN

G IN

SU

N

LE

NH BO

C GE N OR

SYCAMORE

Leonard G. Howell Park

AM

ER

lawanda MS

73 U

PATTERSON

CAMPUS

MAIN

SPRING

COLLEGE

TRI

Dewitt Log Cabin

HIGH

CHESTNUT

Peffer Park South Locust Park

2

3

KEHR

D

LOCUST

ONTRERAS

3

Talawanda HS

57