Comments for “ODOT Statewide ATNI - Ped Data Needs”
-
This should probably be a Parallel Route
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of US97? It should probably end around this intersection
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of OR293?
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of OR218?
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of US97?
-
Although technically in the City Limits, this should probably be a parallel route to route pedestrians through the city.
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of OR19?
-
Although technically in the City Limits, do we really have Pedestrian needs along this stretch of OR207?
-
Although technically in city limits, should the ped/bike needs end at the edges of town (7th on the North, C st on the west, and C/3rd St to the South)? It doesn't make too much sense in the context.
-
Why is this section only one-side need?
-
This section is a bit odd - it's technically within city limits but should probably be coded similar to the areas around it outside of city limits to match it's context.
-
This should probably be Data needs on both sides as sidewalks would be the appropriate treatment in Gilchrist and Crescent
-
OR 39 has a parallel route on the A Canal Trail from Esplanade (roughly here) to S 6th Street so we don't intend on having ped/bike facilities on OR39.
-
There is an existing Parallel Route here (from Campus Drive in the north/west to Portland Ave in the east/south) which serves as our Parallel Route
-
There is an existing Parallel Route here (from Campus Drive in the north/west to Portland Ave in the east/south) which serves as our Parallel Route
-
We have sidewalk on the west-side of the US97 Parkway all the way to roughly here before it switches to Parallel Route.
-
Does a MUP along the US97 Parkway count as a Parallel Route, or does it count as a Ped Need one side?
We have MUP/sidewalk from Colorado to the north to Reed Market on the South on the West side of the Parkway. Plan is to improve these if possible.
-
Does a MUP along the US20 count as a Parallel Route, or does it count as a Ped Need one side?
Planning on building a MUP along the East side of the highway between Old Bend Redmond to the North to the Interchange at the south.
-
Does a MUP along the US97 Parkway count as a Parallel Route, or does it count as a Ped Need one side?
Long-term plan here is to have a MUP connecting from roughly MP 134.66 in the North to Empire Ave along the east side of the highway.
-
Does a MUP along the US97 Parkway count as a Parallel Route, or does it count as a Ped Need one side?
Long-term plan here is to have a MUP connecting from Empire to Butler Market on the West side of the highway
-
This applies to the several parts of the US97 Parkway in Bend and probably for bikes and peds, but there are several portions (including this one from Revere to the North to almost Colorado in the south) where we currently have Ped Data for one side (west) and it should identified as Ped Facilities on system rather than the Parallel Route.
Long-term, I'm looking to improve these facilities to buffered or MUP.
-
This applies to the several parts of the US97 Parkway in Bend and probably for bikes and peds, but there are several portions (including this one from Revere to the North to almost Colorado in the south) where we currently have Ped Data for one side (west) and it should identified as Ped Facilities on system rather than the Parallel Route.
Long-term, I'm looking to improve these facilities to buffered or MUP.
-
The whole offramp should have data - whether it's parallel route or one side would be good as it's odd to cut it off half-way.
-
No need to collect data on I5
-
We should look at this underpass if we own it