Traffic Impact Analysis

Transcription

1

2 Traffic Impact Analysis Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. Waterloo, Iowa SEH No. A-CLAAS November 16, 2004

3

4 Table of Contents (Continued) Table of Contents Certification Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction Description of the Site Existing Traffic Demands and Development Traffic Forecasts Trip Generation and Trip Distribution Capacity Analysis and Levels of Service Conclusions...14 List of Tables Table 1 Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts...5 Table 2 Comparison of HCM Delays and Levels of Service (LOS)...8 Table 3 Comparison of SimTraffic Simulation Delays and Levels of Service (LOS)...9 Table 4 Projected Queue Lengths on Shaulis Road Eastbound at US 218 (approximate approach length = 220 feet)...11 List of Figures Figure 1 Waterloo, Iowa and Proposed Isle of Capri Development Location...2 Figure 2 Proposed Development Site and Potential Local Roadway Access...3 Figure 3 Projected Casino Trip Distribution on Local Roadway System...6 Figure 4 Existing Laning and Traffic Control: US 218, Dysart Road, and Shaulis Road...10 Figure 5 Proposed Mitigation at Dysart Road and Shaulis Road All-Way Stop...12 Figure 6 Proposed Mitigation at US 218 and Shaulis Road Lane Assignments and Split Phasing on Shaulis...13 Traffic Impact Analysis Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. A-CLAAS Page i

5 November Traffic Impact Analysis Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. Prepared for Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. 1.0 Introduction Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. has proposed the construction of a 50,000 square foot building, including a 30,000 square foot casino and a 15,000 square foot restaurant. Associated with the construction of the casino and restaurant is the proposed construction of a five-story, 125-unit hotel and a parking lot accommodating between 800 and 1000 vehicles. This report presents an analysis of the anticipated traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. 2.0 Description of the Site As shown by the shaded area in Figure 1 below, the proposed site of the development is in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of Interstate Highway 380 (I-380), U.S. Highway 20 (US 20), and U.S. Highway 218 (US 218) in southern Waterloo, Iowa. The proposed development is bounded on the north by US 20, on the east by US 218, on the south by Shaulis Road, and on the west by Hess Road. A-CLAAS Page 1

6 Figure 1 Waterloo, Iowa and Proposed Isle of Capri Development Location Figure 2 shows the proposed development site in greater detail. At this time, the exact location, configuration, and orientation of the casino/hotel development within the parcel described above is not known. Final plans will depend on access approval, among other factors. However, as shown in the figure, it is anticipated that the development will be constructed north and east of the existing Lost Island Water Park, which is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. Also shown in Figure 2 are two potential accesses between the development and the local roadway system. One potential access is from the development west to Hess Road; the other access is from the development south to Shaulis Road. At this time, it is expected that only one of the access options will be implemented. Future development of the site, if it occurs, may dictate that a second access be created. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 2

7 Figure 2 Proposed Development Site and Potential Local Roadway Access Potential Hess Access Isle of Capri Casino and Hotel Lost Island Water Park Potential Shaulis access Dysart Rd 3.0 Existing Traffic Demands and Development Traffic Forecasts With assistance from the City of Waterloo, bi-directional 15-minute mechanical traffic counts were collected in October 2004 in the study area on key roadways serving the casino site. Mechanical counters were used to collect traffic data for the four-day period beginning on a Thursday afternoon and ending on the following Monday morning. This time period was selected to capture background traffic levels for the following time periods and trips: the peak Monday morning and Thursday afternoon traffic attributable to commuters to and from Hawkeye Community College, located to the south of the study area; the peak errand-running/shopping times occurring on the weekend (Friday afternoon and evening, and Saturday and Sunday afternoon); and the peak times during which the casino will generate traffic (Friday afternoon and evening and Saturday evening). Details of the mechanical counts are included in the appendix. In addition, turning movement counts were conducted at key intersections in October 2004 on late Thursday and Friday afternoons and Saturday late morning and early afternoon. The intersections at which turning movement count data were collected are those expected to be most affected by the site- Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 3

8 generated traffic: Hess Road and Shaulis Road, Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, and Shaulis Road and US 218. The turning movement counts provide turning movement patterns at each of these key intersections, which were added to projected traffic demands generated by the proposed casino/hotel development and by the water park. In addition to the count data collected in October 2004, attendance information for Lost Island Water Park (for 2003) was obtained for inclusion in the analysis. Operators of the water park provided attendance information for the entire summer, for the peak month (August), and for peak day (Sunday, August 17). They also indicated the peak arrival time for their facility is between 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., and the peak departure time is between 4:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. 4.0 Trip Generation and Trip Distribution As estimated by Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., the average daily traffic attracted to this casino facility is 2,000 vehicles per day. Using the most up-to-date casino admissions information from the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, it was determined that the peak month of the casino operation (July 2004 in the year beginning October 2003 and ending September 2004) contains 9.8 percent of the annual admissions. The average daily traffic of 2000 vehicles per day converts to an annual total of 730,000 vehicles. Therefore, in the peak month, a total of 71,540 vehicles are forecast. This value corresponds to 17,885 vehicles per week within that peak month. Based on other studies, a Friday typically generates 16 percent of the weekly demand for a casino 2,862 vehicles in this case and a Saturday typically generates 23 percent of the weekly demand 4,114 vehicles in this case. Table 1 shows the existing background traffic, the casino-generated traffic, and the water park-generated traffic for three potential peak hours. Friday from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. is the time period during which the background (existing) traffic is highest. Based on other casino-related studies, during that hour, 5.15 percent of the daily traffic (147 vehicles) is expected to arrive at the casino, and 4.1 percent of the daily casino traffic (117 vehicles) is expected to be departing the facility. The time period between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. is the peak hour of casino-generated trips on Fridays. During that hour, 8 percent (229 vehicles) of the Friday casino traffic is arriving, and 3.25 percent (93 vehicles) is departing. Finally, Saturday between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. represents the peak hour of casino-generated trips on Saturday, the casino s busiest day of the week. During that hour, it is projected that 6.95 percent (286 vehicles) of the Saturday casino traffic will be arriving and 3.75 percent (154 vehicles) will be departing. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 4

9 Table 1 Peak Hour Traffic Forecasts Background Traffic* (veh/hr) Casino Traffic (veh/hr) Water Park Traffic (veh/hr) Total Traffic (veh/hr) Day and Time Friday, 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m Friday, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m Saturday, 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m * Background traffic does not include Lost Island Water Park traffic In examining Table 1, it is evident that without considering the traffic generated by the water park, traffic during each of the three potential peak hours is reasonably close to each of the others. However, because the water park closes daily at 6:30 p.m., it contributes no traffic to two 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. peak hours. Consequently, the peak hour to be evaluated for this study is 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a Friday during the peak month. Because the objective of this report is to identify worst-case conditions, the month of peak water park traffic (August) is being used in the evaluation, and the month of peak casino traffic (July) is also being used. In fact, casino admissions in August are 93 percent of those in July. As a result, if August casino traffic had been used, the peak hour difference would have been only approximately 20 vehicles. As indicated earlier, turning movement counts were collected at key intersections and used to identify origins and destination patterns for existing trips. Origins and destinations of casino-based trips were identified by the developer and are shown in Figure 3. These distributed trips from the development site were combined with existing traffic volumes to determine peak hour demands on the roadway system. These peak hour demands have also been included in the appendix. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 5

10 Figure 3 Projected Casino Trip Distribution on Local Roadway System 7% 20% 60% 3% 2% Dysart Rd 8% 5.0 Capacity Analysis and Levels of Service Existing and projected peak hour traffic demands for a Friday afternoon peak hour in August, as well as existing roadway geometry and characteristics and proposed accesses to the casino were incorporated into computerized traffic models using the Synchro/SimTraffic software package. This analysis package is capable of performing network-wide and intersection-byintersection analysis using either of two methods: conventional Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) calculations and microscopic (vehicle-by-vehicle) simulation. The purpose of the microscopic simulation is either to identify problems the calculations of the HCM methods fail to show or to confirm or dispute problems the calculations the HCM method identified. Four different traffic volume scenarios were analyzed. First, the current operation (October 2004) was analyzed. This scenario did not include volumes for the water park, which is closed in October, or for the yet-to-be-constructed casino development. This volume condition was analyzed to determine current delays and levels of service. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 6

11 The second scenario, August 2004, added Lost Island Water Park demands to the October 2004 volumes to determine conditions during a typical Friday afternoon peak hour in August without the casino development. The third scenario was an analysis of estimated traffic conditions in August 2006, after the opening of the casino. This scenario included traffic arriving and departing the casino/hotel complex, as well as traffic departing the water park, during a summer Friday afternoon. In this scenario, it was assumed that all casino/hotel traffic would utilize a single access located on Shaulis Road east of the water park. The casino driveway was assumed to consist of four lanes, two lanes entering the casino site and two lanes exiting. The final scenario analyzed was essentially the same as the third scenario except that all casino and hotel traffic was assumed to use a single access to Hess Road and located north of the water park. In all cases, five intersections were analyzed: the three intersections involving the local roadway network Hess Road and Shaulis Road, Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, and US 218 and Shaulis Road; the driveway access to and from Lost Island Water Park; and the casino/hotel driveway, located east of the water park on Shaulis Road in one case and north of the water park on Hess Road in the other case. Of the five intersections, only US 218 and Shaulis Road is signalized. Hess Road and Shaulis Road is an all-way stop controlled intersection, Dysart Road and Shaulis Road is a three-legged intersection with stop sign control for southwestbound Shaulis Road, and each of the driveway intersections in the analysis assume stop sign control only for the driveway (i.e., the main roadway traffic is uncontrolled). Table 2 shows the results of the HCM analysis of the four different scenarios. In this table, for each of the four scenarios and for each of the intersections, average delays (in seconds per vehicle) are shown, as well as level of service (LOS), both for the overall intersection and for the worst approach (the approach experiencing the highest delay). LOS is a grading method, based on average delay per vehicle, which categorizes conditions for those not familiar in day-to-day traffic operations. Grades range from LOS A, which is virtually no delay, to LOS F, representing significant average delays per vehicle. Because there are situations in which a serious problem on one approach may not be reflected in an overall intersection LOS, delays and levels of service for the worst approach at each intersection have also been included in this analysis. Table 3 shows the corresponding results obtained from the SimTraffic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 7

12 Table 2 Comparison of HCM Delays and Levels of Service (LOS) Intersection Overall Worst Approach Average Delay Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Intersection: US 218 and Shaulis Road October B 22.3 C+ August B C+ August 2006 (without mitigation) 19.0 B C+ August 2006 (with mitigation) 27.1 C 33.3 C- Intersection: Shaulis Road and Hess Road October A- 9.7 A- August A A- August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 9.9 A B+ August 2006 (Hess Road access) 12.0 B 13.6 B Intersection: Shaulis Road and Dysart Road October A 12.5 B August B 33.5 D- August 2006 (without mitigation) 17.2 C E August 2006 (with mitigation) 23.3 C D- Intersection: Shaulis Road and Lost Island Water Park Driveway October A+ 0.0 A+ August A C+ August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 8.1 A C August 2006 (Hess Road access) 9.6 A D+ Intersection: Isle of Capri Casino Driveway August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 2.8 A C+ August 2006 (Hess Road access) 2.7 A B Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 8

13 Table 3 Comparison of SimTraffic Simulation Delays and Levels of Service (LOS) Intersection Overall Worst Approach Average Delay Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Intersection: US 218 and Shaulis Road October B+ 13 B August B 18 B- August 2006 (without mitigation) 19 B- 22 C+ August 2006 (with mitigation) 25 C 29 C Intersection: Shaulis Road and Hess Road October A- 7 A- August A- 8 A- August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 8 A- 8 A- August 2006 (Hess Road access) 9 A- 9 A- Intersection: Shaulis Road and Dysart Road October A 6 A August A 10 B+ August 2006 (without mitigation) 7 A- 10 B+ August 2006 (with mitigation) 10 B+ 12 B Intersection: Shaulis Road and Lost Island Water Park Driveway October A+ 2 A+ August A 9 A- August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 6 A 10 B+ August 2006 (Hess Road access) 6 A 12 B Intersection: Isle of Capri Casino Driveway August 2006 (Shaulis Road access) 3 A 10 B+ August 2006 (Hess Road access) 4 A 7 A- For the most part, the HCM methods and the simulation show similar results when comparing one scenario to another, although the magnitudes of the delays vary between the two methods. In general, simulation yields lower delays than the more conservative HCM methods, particularly for those locations with stop sign control. Except for two approaches, the analyses indicated that the increases in delays caused by the additional traffic generated by the casino/hotel development are relatively small, giving the existing roadway geometrics and traffic control. When comparing existing August afternoon peak traffic (without the development) with forecast August afternoon peak traffic with the development, average intersection delays increased by less than 6 seconds per vehicle at all intersections. In addition, at all intersections except Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, the increase in the average delay on the worst approach increased no more than three seconds per vehicle. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 9

14 On the other hand, the combination of the two methods of analysis did identify two potential problems, both originating in the short section of Shaulis Road between Dysart Road and US 218. As shown in Figure 4, the intersection of Dysart Road and Shaulis Road has stop sign control on one approach, southwestbound Shaulis Road, which consists of a two-lane approach permitting right turns from the right lane and left turns from the left lane. Both the southeastbound Shaulis Road approach and the northwestbound Dysart Road approach are uncontrolled and consist of one lane in each direction. The intersection of Shaulis Road and US 218 is signalized, with two through lanes in all directions, and with separate left turn bays for both directions of US 218. Left turn arrows are also provided in both directions on US 218. Figure 4 Existing Laning and Traffic Control: US 218, Dysart Road, and Shaulis Road Shaulis Rd Shaulis Rd Shaulis Rd U.S. Hwy 218 Dysart Rd First, the HCM analysis indicated there could be a problem at the intersection of Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, in particular with the southwestbound left turning traffic. Based on HCM results, delays on the southwestbound approach would increase from an existing 33.5 seconds per vehicle to 44.6 seconds per vehicle, with a corresponding fall in LOS from LOS D- to LOS E. It should be noted that the simulation analysis did not identify this movement as being a potential problem. The other potential problem indicated, as determined from the simulation analysis, is the possibility of northeastbound traffic approaching the intersection of US 218 and Shaulis Road extending back into the intersection of Dysart Road and Shaulis Road. Table 4 shows the projected queue lengths obtained from the simulation analysis. The analysis indicates that for the peak traffic conditions simulated using the existing geometry and traffic control (the unmitigated analysis), the average queue length on that Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 10

15 approach will be 165 feet, occupying 75 percent of the approach length. In addition, it is expected that 5 percent of the time vehicles would back up more than 242 feet, which is beyond the Dysart Road and Shaulis Road intersection. Table 4 Projected Queue Lengths on Shaulis Road Eastbound at US 218 (approximate approach length = 220 feet) Average Queue 95 th Percentile Length (feet) Queue Length (feet) October August August 2006 (unmitigated) August 2006 (mitigated) Because these two potential problems were identified and it should be emphasized that these are potential problems based on worst-case traffic demands mitigation measures were also developed to address these problems. The results of these mitigation measures are also shown in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. The first mitigation measure shown in Figure 5 and designed to address the potential problem with delays anticipated by southwestbound left turning traffic at Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, is to change the control at that intersection from one-way stop sign control to all-way stop sign control. As shown in Table 2, implementing all-way stop sign control at this intersection reduces the delay to the critical approach to 32.8 seconds per vehicle (LOS D-), which is slightly less than the expected delay to the critical approach without the casino/hotel development. The penalty to improve the critical approach is paid by all other traffic (southeastbound Shaulis Road and northwestbound Dysart Road), which currently is not required to stop as it approaches the intersection. As a result, while the average delay for vehicles on the critical approach are essentially the same for the before-development and the mitigated after-development, the average delay for all vehicles using the intersection would increase from 12 seconds per vehicle (LOS B) to 23.3 seconds per vehicle (LOS C-). Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 11

16 Figure 5 Proposed Mitigation at Dysart Road and Shaulis Road All-Way Stop Shaulis Rd Shaulis Rd Dysart Rd The second mitigation measure shown in Figure 6 and designed to address the queuing problem northeastbound on Shaulis Road at US 218, is to modify the functions of the lanes on that approach. The two-lane approach currently allows left turning and through traffic to use the left lane and right turning and through traffic to use the right lane. Under the mitigated scenario, the left lane would be changed to a left turn only lane, and the right lane would permit left turning, through, and right turning traffic. Allowing left turns to go north on US 218 from both lanes serves the relatively heavy demand generated by motorists leaving both the water park and the casino at the same time. In conjunction with the conversion of the lane functions, it is expected that the traffic signal operation would need to be altered due to safety considerations. Because of the dual turning lanes, a split-phase operation (serving northeastbound Shaulis Road and southwestbound Shaulis Road at different times, rather than simultaneously as at present) may be required. If split phasing is determined to be necessary, controller settings will need to be altered, and signal heads for both directions on Shaulis Road will need to be changed from three-section (red, yellow, and green ball indications) to foursection (red, yellow, and green ball with green arrow indications) displays. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 12

17 Figure 6 Proposed Mitigation at US 218 and Shaulis Road Lane Assignments and Split Phasing on Shaulis U.S. Hwy 218 Shaulis Rd U.S. Hwy 218 Shaulis Rd The results of this second mitigation measure are shown in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 for the intersection of US 218 and Shaulis Road. As occurred with the mitigation at Dysart Road and Shaulis Road, the mitigation results in an increase in the average delay to all vehicles entering the intersection. In addition, the delays to vehicles on the worst approach (southwestbound Shaulis Road) also increase, primarily due to the increase in traffic signal cycle length required to accommodate the split-phase operation. On the other hand, Table 4 shows that the mitigation measure accomplishes it goal in reducing the approach queue on Shaulis Road between Dysart Road and US 218. Finally, the results shown in Table 2 and Table 3 can assist in determining which of the driveway accesses will have the least impact on traffic. The intersections that would be affected by the different potential access points are Hess Road and Shaulis Road, Shaulis Road and the Lost Island Water Park driveway, and the casino/hotel driveway itself. The other two intersections shown in the tables are unaffected because the same traffic will pass through those intersections, regardless of driveway location. Using Table 2 because the differences are more evident using HCM analysis than using simulation analysis, notice that the average delays are somewhat higher at Hess Road and Shaulis Road and at the water park driveway if the casino access is on Hess Road. This result makes sense because a Hess Road access requires the casino traffic destined for the US 218 intersection which is the majority of the casino traffic to pass through the Hess Road intersection and to pass by the water park driveway. Because of the distribution of trips to and from the casino, a Shaulis Road access sends significantly fewer vehicles past the water park driveway and through the Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 13

18 Hess Road intersection. On the other hand, delays at a casino driveway on Hess Road would be slightly less than delays at a casino driveway on Shaulis Road. Average delays to all vehicles are virtually identical, but an extra four seconds of delay would be expected for each vehicle departing the casino driveway if it were located on Shaulis Road. However, because the majority of traffic patronizing the casino arrives and departs via the US 218 intersection, the four-seconds time savings would more than be offset by the additional travel time required by a Hess Road driveway access. 6.0 Conclusions The impacts on traffic by the development of a casino/hotel complex in the southwest quadrant of highways US 20 and US 218 have been analyzed. It was determined that the worst conditions likely to be experienced would occur between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on Friday afternoon during July or August. During this time period, the three primary types of trips will consist of commuters returning home or running errands, patrons of the Lost Island Water park departing that facility, and patrons of the casino arriving and departing that site. Two different methods were used to analyze traffic impacts: HCM calculations and traffic simulation. In general, it is anticipated delays will increase due to the additional traffic generated by the casino and hotel; however, at most locations within the study area, the delay increases will be minor. Potential problems were identified for the worst case conditions using the two analysis methods. The location of these problems was on the section of Shaulis Road between Dysart Road and US 218. Because the two analysis methods did not identify the same problems, it should be emphasized that these are potential problems, and there is some question as to whether these problems will actually develop. In response to the potential problems, mitigation measures were developed. The first mitigation measure, designed to reduce delays to southwestbound vehicles approaching Dysart Road, was to convert the control at the intersection of Dysart Road and Shaulis Road from the existing one-way stop sign control to all-way stop sign control. The second mitigation measure, designed to reduce potential queuing problems on Shaulis Road at US 218, was to change the functions of the lanes on Shaulis Road at that location. Also, in conjunction with the lane reassignments, safety considerations may require that the traffic signal operation and equipment be changed to provide a split-phase operation for the two Shaulis Road approaches. Again, the mitigation measures described above address potential problems, are very low cost, can be accomplished in a very short period of time, and, therefore, may not need to be implemented for the casino opening. Finally, two different locations for the casino access were identified and analyzed, one on Shaulis Road and one on Hess Road. Because the majority of the traffic arriving at and departing from the casino is expected to do so via the Shaulis Road/US 218 intersection, both customer convenience and the traffic analysis favor the Shaulis Road access for the casino. Traffic Impact Analysis A-CLAAS Wayne Claassen Engineering and Surveying Inc. Page 14

19 Appendix

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34