EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, … · 2015. 3. 21. · Euclid Avenue Parking Study City of Syracuse, NY during a typical weekend day. In general, less parking activity

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

CITY OF SYRACUSE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1200 CANAL STREET EXTENSION SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13210 DRAFT REPORT DATE: November 13, 2014 224 Harrison Street // Suite 210 // Syracuse, NY 13202

i

E u c l i d A v e n u e P a r k i n g S t u d y C i t y o f S y r a c u s e , N Y

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ........................................................... 1

II. Existing Conditions ............................................... 2

A. Parking Regulations and Corridor Attributes ................................... 2

B. Concerns ............................................................................................. 2

C. Bicycles ............................................................................................... 2

D. Existing Parking Utilization ................................................................ 3

III. Analysis of Alternatives ...................................... 10

IV. Recommendations ............................................... 17

ii


List of Tables Table 1 …..…………………………………………………………... Existing Bicycle Volumes Table 2 …..…………... Existing Parking Utilization Saturday July 26th over Entire Corridor Table 3 .....….………... Existing Parking Utilization Tuesday July 29th over Entire Corridor Table 4 ……… Existing Parking Utilization Thursday September 18th over Entire Corridor List of Figures Figure 1 ...…………………………………..…………………………….Corridor Location Map Figure 2 ...………………………….Existing Parking Saturday July 26th over Entire Corridor Figure 3 …………………………….Existing Parking Tuesday July 29th over Entire Corridor Figure 4 ..………………….Existing Parking Thursday September 18th over Entire Corridor List of Appendices Appendix A ..……………….……………….…………...Concept Plans for Alternatives 1 and 2

PAGE 1


I. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to analyze parking conditions along the Euclid Avenue corridor between Westcott Street and Ostrom Avenue. Figure 1 is a Corridor Location Map. The goal is to study the impacts of adding bike facilities along the corridor since Euclid Avenue is a highly-utilized route for cyclists. The main competing concerns are for heavy vehicle, bike and parking use. This study will analyze the impacts of two alternatives for the cross-section including 1) removing parking on Euclid Avenue to provide exclusive bike lanes with buffer zones for the safety of cyclists and 2) narrowing vehicle lanes to provide one lane of floating parking and a cycle track on the south side of the street.

Figure 1 – Corridor Location Map

PAGE 2


II. Existing Conditions

A. Parking Regulations and Corridor Attributes

The current parking regulations on Euclid Avenue are alternate one-side parking, commonly referred to as even/odd day parking between Westcott Street and Ostrom Avenue. Parking is allowed on the north side from 6pm odd days to 6pm even days and on the south side from 6pm even days to 6pm odd days. Parking is not allowed near intersection corners for the length of the study area on Euclid Avenue. Bus stops are located within these areas where parking is prohibited.

The width of Euclid Avenue varies from 39 to 39 ½ feet. There is one lane in each direction with parking on both sides of the street in accordance with the restriction described above. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.

B. Concerns

Occupation of daytime on-street parking by University employees and commuting students along Euclid Avenue yet off-street parking is available for their needs.

There is a noted demand for dedicated or shared-use bike lanes, however, there are no current striped lanes available.

Not all residences along the corridor have off-street parking. Currently, apparent demand for residential parking is met by on-street spaces on Euclid Avenue and adjacent side streets.

Side street parking appears to be near capacity during the weekday daytime hours and has little additional parking capacity available.

Snow removal activities require parking time-of-day restrictions. Daytime parking restrictions would facilitate snow removal while ensuring overnight parking availability for adjacent residents.

C. Bicycles

Bicyclists were counted along the corridor during the same time periods as the parking counts were taken to determine the current level of bike facility demand. Counts were conducted on Saturday, July 26th at 9AM, 3PM, and 9PM. Weekday counts were conducted at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 3PM, 6PM and 9PM on Tuesday, July 29th and Thursday, September 18th. Fewer time periods were required on Saturday for the parking analysis due to the reduction in demand as compared to parking during weekdays. Therefore, the time periods chosen were spread-out over the day with less frequency, and focused on the later time periods due to expected peaking

PAGE 3


during a typical weekend day. In general, less parking activity occurs during the early morning on a weekday. In general, these parking study time periods also work well for conducting bicycle counts as the volume of bicyclists is distributed throughout the day during the weekend and during the weekday a greater number of time periods is required to obtain a clear indication of the peaking characteristics of bikes as volumes are much higher during the week. A summary of the bike count volumes follows. Table 1 shows a summary of the bicycle volumes counted concurrent with the parking study.

TABLE 1 - Existing Bicycle Volume – Two-Way Bicycle Traffic

Time Period Date of Counts

Column #1 Saturday July 26, 2014

Column #2 Tuesday July 29, 2014

Column #3 Thursday September 18, 2014

5:30 am - 6:30 am No Data Required 6 4 8:30 am - 9:30 am 2 52 23

11:30 am - 12:30 pm No Data Required 28 38 2:30 pm -3:30 pm 14 26 33 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm No Data Required 12 98 8:30 pm - 9:30 pm 8 10 52

The bicycle volumes during the summer months (Note Column #1 and #2) when Syracuse University is in Summer Sessions, shows there are low volumes of bicycle users than during the Fall Session (Column #3); however, sufficient weekday Summer volumes as well as significant Fall bike volumes attest to the demand for dedicated bicycle facilities.

D. Existing Parking Utilization

Parking counts were conducted at regular intervals to capture the number of occupied parking spaces. Parked cars were counted during the summer of 2014 on Saturday, July 26, 2014 at 9AM, 3PM, and 9PM and Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 3PM, 6PM and 9PM. Counts were taken on a weekend day as well as during the standard business week to establish the difference in demand and provide an understanding of type of parking users to determine the seasonal and peak day of week impacts as well. Counts were also completed on Thursday, September 18, 2014 to compare summer and fall parking occupancy and demand. Similar to the July 29 count periods, the September 18 weekday counts were conducted at 6AM, 9AM, 12PM, 3PM, 6PM and 9PM. The graphs in Figures 2, 3 and 4 on the following pages show the parking utilization over the entire corridor.

PAGE 4


PHOTOGRAPH 1 – View Facing West on Euclid Avenue approaching Comstock Avenue

FIGURE 2 - Existing Parking Saturday July 26th over Entire Corridor

PAGE 5


As expected the demand for parking was much greater during the summer weekday as compared to the summer Saturday, shown by comparing Figures 2 and 3. The peak demand was 52 vehicles occurring mid-day at 12PM during the weekday. Parking occupancy ranged from 12 to 17 vehicles during the Saturday and from 20 vehicles to 52 vehicles during the weekday. The “change over time” of 6pm is noted on Figures 2, 3 and 4. This is the generally the time when most parkers move their vehicles, often to the other side of the street. As the figures show, there were some parkers that were not compliant with the parking regulations at 9PM during the two summer days studied. There were 6 vehicles parked on the wrong side of the street at 9PM on the Saturday and 4 vehicles at 9PM on the weekday. In general parking was underutilized during the summer time periods, particularly on Saturday.

FIGURE 3 - Existing Parking Tuesday July 29th over Entire Corridor

During Fall Sessions parking demand was expected to be much greater than during the summer, as shown by comparing Figure 4 with Figures 2 and 3. The peak weekday demand was at capacity during the fall weekday at 64 vehicles (north side at capacity at 9AM and 3PM) as compared to 52 vehicles occurring mid-day at 12PM during the summer weekday. Parking occupancy ranged from 38 to 64 vehicles during the fall weekday and from 20 vehicles to 52 vehicles during the weekday. In general, parking occupancy was at or near capacity starting between 6AM and 9AM and ending between 3PM and 6PM.

Comparing overall peak utilization for the Euclid Avenue study area from Ostrom Avenue to Westcott Street, the peak utilization is 100% during the fall weekday periods and 70%-80% during the summer weekday periods depending on even/odd day of the week (slightly above 80% when parking is allowed on the north side and slightly above 70% when parking is allowed on the south side). Due to high demand on the side streets, the utilization during fall weekdays is expected to be 100% on both odd days and even days as the parking capacity differs by only eight (8) spaces. The difference in capacity is mainly due to the number and width of driveways along this stretch of Euclid Avenue. There are 26 driveways on the north side of the street, compared to 18 on the south side

PAGE 6


There were a greater number of vehicles parked that were not compliant with the parking regulations during the fall weekday period as compared to the summer weekday period. Both during the 3PM and 9PM time periods, as during the fall weekday period, it appears that 4 vehicles were illegally parked at 3PM, possibly to take advantage of the “change over” period which would start at 6PM. There were 4 vehicles parked on the wrong side of the street at 9PM on both the summer weekday and the fall weekday. The greatest number of vehicles parked illegally at one time (6 vehicles) occurred at 9PM during the summer Saturday.

FIGURE 4 - Existing Parking Thursday September 18th over Entire Corridor

Tables 2, 3 and 4 on the following pages show the parking utilization by block.

PHOTOGRAPH 2 – View of Vehicles that are Not Compliant with Parking Regulations

PAGE 7


TABLE 2 - Existing Parking Utilization Saturday July 26th by Block

Time (Saturday) Demand (Parked Vehicles)

Capacity South

Capacity North

Utilization South

Utilization North

Westcott to Maryland south 9:00:00 AM 0 9 9 0% 0%

south 3:00:00 PM 0 9 9 0% 0% north 9:00:00 PM 0 9 9 0% 0% Maryland to Lancaster

south 9:00:00 AM 6 30 22 20% 27% south 3:00:00 PM 5 30 22 17% 23% north 9:00:00 PM 6 30 22 20% 27% Lancaster to Ackerman

south 9:00:00 AM 0 8 8 0% 0% south 3:00:00 PM 0 8 8 0% 0% north 9:00:00 PM 2 8 8 25% 25% Ackerman to Sumner

south 9:00:00 AM 4 8 9 50% 44% south 3:00:00 PM 3 8 9 38% 33% north 9:00:00 PM 4 8 9 50% 44% Sumner to Livingston

south 9:00:00 AM 3 9 9 33% 33% south 3:00:00 PM 4 9 9 44% 44% north 9:00:00 PM 0 9 9 0% 0% Livingston to Ostrom

south 9:00:00 AM 3 8 7 38% 43% south 3:00:00 PM 5 8 7 63% 71% north 9:00:00 PM 0 8 7 0% 0%

*Where parking utilization exceeds capacity it is a result of cars parked on the wrong side of the street.

PAGE 8


TABLE 3 - Existing Parking Utilization Tuesday July 29th by Block

Time (Tuesday) Demand (Parked Vehicles)

Capacity South

Capacity North

Utilization South

Utilization North


south 9:00:00 AM 1 9 9 11% 11% south 12:00:00 PM 1 9 9 11% 11% south 3:00:00 PM 1 9 9 11% 11% both 6:00:00 PM 0 9 9 0% 0% north 9:00:00 PM 4 9 9 44% 44% Maryland to Lancaster

south 6:00:00 AM 8 30 22 27% 36% south 9:00:00 AM 13 30 22 43% 59% south 12:00:00 PM 16 30 22 53% 73% south 3:00:00 PM 13 30 22 43% 59% both 6:00:00 PM 6 30 22 20% 27% north 9:00:00 PM 5 30 22 17% 23% Lancaster to Ackerman

south 6:00:00 AM 2 8 8 25% 25% south 9:00:00 AM 8 8 8 100% 100% south 12:00:00 PM 8 8 8 100% 100% south 3:00:00 PM 6 8 8 75% 75% both 6:00:00 PM 2 8 8 25% 25% north 9:00:00 PM 1 8 8 13% 13% Ackerman to Sumner

south 6:00:00 AM 7 8 9 88% 78% south 9:00:00 AM 9 8 9 113% 100% south 12:00:00 PM 9 8 9 113% 100% south 3:00:00 PM 8 8 9 100% 89% both 6:00:00 PM 5 8 9 63% 56% north 9:00:00 PM 7 8 9 88% 78% Sumner to Livingston

south 6:00:00 AM 4 9 9 44% 44% south 9:00:00 AM 9 9 9 100% 100% south 12:00:00 PM 9 9 9 100% 100% south 3:00:00 PM 9 9 9 100% 100% both 6:00:00 PM 5 9 9 56% 56% north 9:00:00 PM 1 9 9 11% 11% Livingston to Ostrom

south 6:00:00 AM 7 8 7 88% 100% south 9:00:00 AM 8 8 7 100% 114% south 12:00:00 PM 9 8 7 113% 129% south 3:00:00 PM 9 8 7 113% 129% both 6:00:00 PM 6 8 7 75% 86% north 9:00:00 PM 2 8 7 25% 29%


PAGE 9


TABLE 4 - Existing Parking Utilization Thursday September 18th by Block

Time (Thursday) Demand (Parked Vehicles)

Capacity South

Capacity North

Utilization South

Utilization North


south 9:00:00 AM 9 9 9 100% 100% south 12:00:00 PM 5 9 9 56% 56% south 3:00:00 PM 4 9 9 44% 44% both 6:00:00 PM 5 9 9 56% 56% north 9:00:00 PM 1 9 9 11% 11% Maryland to Lancaster

south 6:00:00 AM 16 30 22 53% 73% south 9:00:00 AM 19 30 22 63% 86% south 12:00:00 PM 18 30 22 60% 82% south 3:00:00 PM 19 30 22 63% 86% both 6:00:00 PM 10 30 22 33% 45% north 9:00:00 PM 13 30 22 43% 59% Lancaster to Ackerman

south 6:00:00 AM 4 8 8 50% 50% south 9:00:00 AM 7 8 8 88% 88% south 12:00:00 PM 6 8 8 75% 75% south 3:00:00 PM 7 8 8 88% 88% both 6:00:00 PM 5 8 8 63% 63% north 9:00:00 PM 4 8 8 50% 50% Ackerman to Sumner

south 6:00:00 AM 7 8 9 88% 78% south 9:00:00 AM 11 8 9 138% 122% south 12:00:00 PM 11 8 9 138% 122% south 3:00:00 PM 11 8 9 138% 122% both 6:00:00 PM 3 8 9 38% 33% north 9:00:00 PM 5 8 9 63% 56% Sumner to Livingston south 6:00:00 AM 4 9 9 44% 44% south 9:00:00 AM 9 9 9 100% 100% south 12:00:00 PM 9 9 9 100% 100% south 3:00:00 PM 9 9 9 100% 100% both 6:00:00 PM 11 9 9 122% 122% north 9:00:00 PM 8 9 9 89% 89% Livingston to Ostrom south 6:00:00 AM 7 8 7 88% 100% south 9:00:00 AM 9 8 7 113% 129% south 12:00:00 PM 10 8 7 125% 143% south 3:00:00 PM 14 8 7 175% 200% both 6:00:00 PM 11 8 7 138% 157% north 9:00:00 PM 8 8 7 100% 114%


PAGE 10


As is shown, the peak parking demand occurs during weekdays when utilization is at or near 100% and encompasses the overall time period between 9 AM and 3 PM (starting between 6 and 9 AM and ending between 3 and 6PM). It should be noted the segment from Westcott to Maryland had an early morning peak of 9 parked cars (100% utilization) at 9AM. The reasons for this could be because it is close to restaurants and bars in the Westcott neighborhood, and may not be significantly influenced by operators associated with Syracuse University. Additionally, in the segment between Livingston Avenue to Ostrom Avenue, shows a high morning demand that is likely associated with attendees/employees of Syracuse University.

III. Analysis of Alternatives

Based on the demand for bike facilities that may be added to the existing lane geometry on Euclid Avenue, four (4) striping alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives would re-apportion available pavement width to the multiple street users. Without the availability of funds to construct pavement changes, the interim solutions for re-designation of existing pavement width is a viable consideration. Alternatives were considered as follows:

Alternative 1: Eliminate On-Street Parking and Create Buffered Bike Lanes

This alternative includes re-striping the existing pavement width to provide one (1)-11’ travel lane in each direction, one (1)- 6’ bike lane in each direction, and a 2.5’ hatched buffer area between the bike lane and driving lane. Under this alternative, parking would be eliminated on Euclid Avenue. Vehicles that previously parked on Euclid Avenue would be required to find other available parking. Travelers could use other modes of travel such as transit, bicycling or walking rather than automobile, thereby reducing the parking demand in light of such forces.

Alternative 1

PAGE 11


Observations show the weekday peak period parking is comprised in part by University faculty and students, while the parking demand for residents is more closely represented by night-time parking occupancy. The current parking demand at night time is less than the parking demand during the day.

As shown in Table 4, with the exception of the block from Ostrom Avenue to Livingston Avenue which is closest to the campus as well as nearest the Shaw Dorm where night-time rates range from 88% to 100%, night-time parking occupancy from Maryland to Livingston Avenue ranges from 44% upwards to 88% after 9PM and before 6AM. Observation of parking occupancy on the intersecting streets revealed parking availability in the evening hours that could offer parking to those displaced from Euclid Avenue.

Advantages:

Provides dedicated bike lanes for the demonstrated bicycle demand.

Striped buffer between the bike lanes and the travel lanes, as well as elimination of parking where a vehicle door from exiting drivers could interfere with bike riders improves rider safety.

Elimination of on-street parking facilitates snow removal from Euclid Avenue.

Disadvantages:

Residents who utilize on-street parking on Euclid Avenue will be required to secure alternative night-time parking off-street or on an intersecting street. Some capacity was observed on adjacent streets, to accept all or a portion of the off-peak parking demand within proximity to Euclid Avenue.

Parking occupancy on the intersecting streets will increase in the off-peak parking periods due to diverted parking demand from Euclid Avenue.

Alternative 2: Floating Partial Parking with a Cycle Track

This alternative includes two (2)-10’ travel lanes with two (2)- 4.5’ bike lanes on one side of the roadway adjacent to a 2’ buffer between the bike lanes and one (1)-8’ parking lane. Floating parking is defined as parking placed between the travel lane and bike lanes and at a distance away from the roadside curb. In this alternative, parking would be prohibited during limited seasonal daytime hours to facilitate snow removal.

PAGE 12


Alternative 2

The parking demand would not be significantly affected and the parking utilization would be generally reflected as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4, though with the development of the floating parking lanes with the presence of driveways may result in minor parking space reductions.

Advantages:


Snow removal would be facilitated by daytime parking prohibitions imposed on a seasonal basis.

Parking would be maintained on one-side of Euclid Avenue.

Installation of a buffer zone and parking between the bicyclists and travel lanes separates the bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic. This isolation would shield bike traffic from faster moving vehicle traffic.

Disadvantages:

Local drivers are mostly unfamiliar with floating parking. However, instituting an education process and installation of ground-mounted signage along the roadside could clarify this use. Over time, this situation would change as drivers become familiar with this facility.

Parking would be maintained on one side of Euclid Avenue requiring parking restrictions on a seasonal, daily basis to ensure snow plowing can be accomplished without conflict with parked vehicles.

PAGE 13


Minimal parking loss due to development of the floating parking lane may further reduce the available parking spaces over curbside parking.

Maintaining bus stop operations in both directions would impact traffic flow because bus stops in the floating parking lane would only accommodate one direction of bus travel.

Alternative 3: Partial Parking with a Cycle Track

This alternative includes two (2) - 4.5’ bike lanes next to one curb, a 2’ striped buffer between the travel lane and two-way cycle track, one (1)-10’ travel lane in each direction and one 8’ parking lane next to the opposite curb. Similar to Alternative 2, the parking demand would not be expected to change and the parking utilization can be seen in Tables 2, 3, and 4.

Alternative 3

Advantages:




Installation of a buffer zone between the bicyclists and travel lanes separates the bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic. Even without parking on the same side of the roadway as the cycle track, this isolation would offer a narrow separation between the bike traffic and faster moving vehicular traffic.

PAGE 14


Disadvantages:

Despite maintaining parking on Euclid Avenue, there would be times when no parking would be allowed on Euclid Avenue to facilitate seasonal snow removal. With anticipated time restrictions during weekday hours, this could allow for residents to secure parking during evening hours without competing with non-residents who generally were observed parking during weekday hours.

Alternative 4: Partial Parking with Bike Lanes

The cross section for this alternative includes one (1)- 8’ curbside parking lane, two (2)- 4.5’ bike lanes on either side of Euclid Avenue, and one (1)- 11’ travel lane in each direction. Parking would be prohibited during weekdays and available only on weekends and evenings. Parking on the north side of Euclid Avenue would be eliminated because greater number of parking spaces available on the south side to facilitate bike lane construction. Referring to Tables 2, 3, and 4, parking demand would not change however, the availability for north side parking would be eliminated and also impacted by parking restrictions on the south side of Euclid during seasonal daily parking would modify the occupancy rates.

Alternative 4

Advantages:

Dedicated bike lanes constructed in response to demonstrated demand.


PAGE 15



Maintains parking availability for night-time residential use.

Disadvantages:

Similar to Alternative 3, despite maintaining parking on Euclid, there would be times when no parking would be allowed on Euclid to facilitate seasonal snow removal. With anticipated time restrictions during weekday hours, this could allow for residents to secure parking during evening hours without competing with non-residents who generally were observed parking during weekday hours.

Compared to the alternatives that offer a striped buffer between the bike lanes and the travel lanes, bike riders may experience conflicts with car doors opened into the bike lane by exiting driver/backseat passenger, commonly referred to as “dooring”. Additionally, cyclists would be riding within proximity of faster-moving vehicles without a buffer to isolate the slower-moving cyclist.

Alternative 4B: Partial Parking with Bike Lanes (Alternating Blocks)

This alternative is similar to Alternative 4 with parking alternating block to block on one side of the roadway by even/odd day designation. With parking limited to the south side of Euclid Avenue, seasonal restrictions would designate parking on every other block, retaining on-street parking along Euclid Avenue throughout the day.

Advantages:

Dedicated bike lanes constructed in response to demonstrated demand.

Snow removal would be facilitated by even/odd parking prohibitions imposed on a seasonal basis.

Disadvantages:

Removal of snow on an alternating block to block basis would require some additional coordination to ensure the blocks left for snow removal the next day are completed.

Parking Impacts:

The City of Syracuse implemented a new traffic pattern in October, 2014 converting unneeded travel lanes to bike facilities and created additional parking spaces Comstock Avenue and Waverly Avenue. It is our understanding the City of Syracuse is also considering striping changes to the 800 block of Livingston Avenue (currently 26 feet wide) and Ostrom Avenue (currently 28 feet wide) that could provide additional parking spaces in proximity to Euclid Avenue.

PAGE 16


Data supplied by the City indicates the approximate parking offsets with the implementation of these striping changes as follows:

Alternative 1 Parking Capacity Impacts

Number of Spaces (Lower Range)

Number of Spaces (Upper Range)

Euclid Avenue Existing Parking -64 -72

Ostrom Avenue Potential New Parking +26 +37

Livingston Avenue Potential New Parking +22 +22

Comstock Avenue New Metered Parking +56 +56

Waverly Avenue Upcoming New Metered Parking +78 +78

Overall Impact - Parking Capacity +118 +121

*Metered parking for weekday hours would not be considered a direct offset for daytime residential demand.

Retention of on-street, overnight parking is an important factor to residents. Based on the peak overnight demand measured in this analysis, adding parking to Ostrom Avenue and Livingston Avenue is expected to essentially offset the loss of parking on Euclid Avenue. A summary of impacts to overnight parking follows:

Alternative 1 Overnight Parking Impacts

Number of Spaces (Lower Range)

Number of Spaces (Upper Range)

Euclid Avenue Overnight Parking Demand -38 -39

Ostrom Avenue Potential New Parking +26 +37

Livingston Avenue Potential New Parking +22 +22

Overall Impact – Overnight Parking (Excludes potential latent demand along Ostrom Avenue and Livingston Avenue)

+10 +21

PAGE 17


Parking losses on Euclid Avenue due to the implementation of Alternative 1 could be mitigated by the changes indicated above. The number of spaces lost on Euclid Avenue is approximately 64 and 72 spaces, depending on the date (even/odd parking). With the addition of parking to both Ostrom Avenue and Livingston Avenue, there could be approximately 48-59 spaces gained. The parking gained on these intersecting streets can extend through the entire day, as this parking is expected to be alternating sides by odd/even days to allow for snow plowing operations.

IV. Recommendations

There is a demonstrated demand for bike facilities on the Euclid Avenue corridor as has been initially quantified by this analysis. Addressing this demand by the inclusion of bike lanes within the existing pavement width may be accomplished by re-striping the existing pavement area and modifying on-street parking restrictions.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are preferred alternatives for Euclid Avenue because they introduce buffered bike lanes to address the bicycle demand while separating slower moving bikes from vehicle flows. Alternatives 3, 4, and 4B provide the least lateral space between vehicles and bikes and the least effective buffer for bicyclists, however, also offer some on-street Euclid Avenue parking availability that Alternative 1 does not. Ranking of these alternatives, based on bicyclist safety and mobility, leaves Alternatives 4 and 4B lower than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. As Alternatives 4 and 4B did not offer the benefits to bicycle demand of the remaining alternatives, these were dropped from further consideration,

The remaining alternatives were examined for time-of-day, on-street business/residential parking demand accommodation. It was observed that most business use was assessed to commuting student and faculty parking where they choose unmetered, on-street parking when privately-owned, off-street parking was available. Shifting this demand to off-street lots, on-street residential demand could divert to the available side-street capacity noted. Alternatives 2 and 3 offer retention of parking on Euclid Avenue while Alternative 1 would eliminate all on-street parking however, the loss of parking on Euclid Avenue could be accommodated by the parking space increases implemented recently on Comstock Avenue and with proposed parking changes on Ostrom and Livingston Streets. There is, an apparent opportunity to accommodate weekday business parking in off-street lots leaving reduced demand for on-street parking to residential users. Overall, the parking impacts can be managed, even for Alternative 1, which would eliminate all parking on Euclid Avenue.

In summary, Euclid Avenue is essential to east-west bike mobility in the City’s eastside area and provides an opportunity to encourage traveler mode shift from motorized vehicles to bicycles, which would benefit both residents and businesses along this corridor. The elimination of on-street parking on Euclid Avenue under this alternative could be mitigated by the recently-implemented parking changes along Comstock Avenue and by potential modifications on Ostrom and Livingston Avenue. Therefore, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative as it provides the greatest bike level of service benefits and with buffered lanes, supports greater safety for bike riders, while maintaining vehicular mobility.

APPENDIX A

TYPICAL SECTIONS CONCEPT PLANS FOR ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2

Documents

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, … · 2015. 3. 21. · Euclid Avenue Parking Study City of Syracuse, NY during a typical weekend day. In general, less parking activity