Introduction, Purpose, and Methods

Transcription

1 Introduction, Purpose, and Methods This report was prepared to analyze the information and trends developed as part of the City of Aiken s biennial level of service (LOS) analysis. The City of Aiken has adopted a Traffic Management Ordinance to provide better review and analysis of the potential impact of proposed developments. The Ordinance requires that there be prepared a map showing the LOS of the major streets in Aiken on a basis of at least once every two years. This process includes the acquisition of traffic counts using mechanical devices on the majority of the arterial streets and some of the collector streets in the City and the analysis of the data to establish the LOS for each of the street segments studied. The process has been used in 24, 26, 28, 21 and now in 212. In 212, traffic counts were made at 99 count stations, some of which are also established count locations for the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). Figure 1 shows the locations of the traffic count stations. Typically, the count machines are placed at each station for 3 to 5 days. Generally, the highest weekday total between Tuesday and Thursday is selected for use and the tallies are sent to the SCDOT for processing. SCDOT uses the raw count data which is supplied by the City and returns an estimated average annual daily traffic () for each location. This represents effects of daily and seasonal variation and is developed using factors that the SCDOT will not divulge. Since they are averages, the s returned from SCDOT will be exceeded on some days and of course will exceed actual daily volumes on certain days. However, this data provides a good basis for an apples to apples comparison of traffic counts both in terms of location and time. The data is then used to calculate a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c ratio). This ratio is calculated by dividing the by the daily capacity of the roadway. Methodology developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is used to estimate the daily carrying capacity of each segment of roadway in the study network. The FDOT methods are based on the Highway Capacity Manual and include many years of research in the state of Florida to confirm the values. The daily capacity values take into consideration the number of lanes, the presence of medians, the presence and density of traffic signals, speed limits, the amount of turning traffic and many other factors. The value of the v/c ratio is then used to assign an LOS to each segment of the study network. The following Table 1 shows the v/c ratios and LOS used by the City of Aiken as required by the Traffic Management Ordinance. These values are very close but differ slightly from criteria used by SCDOT. As seen in Table 1, streets are considered congested when the v/c ratio exceeds.7, which means the LOS is D or worse. In other words, when the daily capacity has been used to the extent of 7% of its availability, it is expected that there will be traffic congestion. During peak hours it is expect that traffic flow will be restricted with traffic operations in the range of LOS D and possibly worse. LOS at individual intersections is measured 1

2 in a different manner which takes into account the amount of stopped-time delay. It is possible to have LOS on a daily basis, as are used in the Aiken procedure, that differ from the LOS measured in the peak hours at intersections in the system. There may be times of the day when the LOS at intersections or within the segments is better or worse than the value calculated using the daily capacity and the. However, this procedure does give a good indication of street segments that have capacity limitations and congestion issues. For example, in Table 1 it is seen that a segment of street with an LOS C would have acceptable traffic operations when looking at the overall segment and the overall day. There might be times such as the morning, midday and afternoon peak hours when the LOS in a segment might be better or worse than the overall LOS. Again, this procedure provides a snapshot of overall traffic operations. The Aiken Traffic Management Ordinance provides requirements for traffic studies depending upon the LOS derived in this process and the anticipated traffic generation and additions that will result from new development. The scope of the study depends upon the predicted trip generation and the current LOS of each segment of a street facility. Table 1 LOS Criteria for the City of Aiken Study Network LOS V/C Ratio Comments A.3 Excellent traffic flow B >.3 and.5 Good traffic flow C >.5 and.7 Average traffic flow D >.7 and.9 Acceptable traffic flow E >.9 and 1. Congested traffic flow F >1. Severely congested traffic flow 2

3 3 Figure 1 Traffic Count Stations for 212 Level of Service Analysis

4 Analysis of Traffic Count Data The following Table 2 shows the s and LOS for the various segments of the study network. Street segments with LOS E or F are highlighted. Table 2 Year 212 s and LOS for Aiken Study Network Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS 1 Centennial Corporate Churchill 7,6.47 B 2 Fabian Pawnee Silver Bluff 5,2.42 B 3 Pawnee West Pine Log Fabian 6,9.56 C 4 Pawnee Fabian Dougherty 1,1.9 A 5 Vaucluse Robert Bell Gregg Ave. 1,6.12 A 6 Vaucluse Gregg Ave. Trolley Line 1,6.12 A 7 Vaucluse Trolley Line Richland Ave. West 1,6.12 A 8 University Robert Bell Trolley Line 3,5.27 A 9 University Trolley Line Medical Park 7,5.46 B 1 University Medical Park Physicians 14,2.87 D 11 University Physicians Richland Ave. West 14, 1.8 F 4

5 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS 12 Beaufort Street Hampton/Camellia Richland Ave. East 3,.24 A 13 Gregg Ave. Vaucluse Trolley Line 2,2.17 A 14 Gregg Ave. Trolley Line Richland Ave. West 2,3.18 A 15 Hampton Ave. York Street Horry Street 4,5.35 B 16 Hampton Ave. Vaucluse York Street 9,7.75 D 17 Hampton Ave. Laurens Street Vaucluse 7,6.58 C 18 Wire Horry Street Rudy Mason 2,8.22 A 19 Hayne/Park Ave. Richland Ave. West Chesterfield 8,1.62 C 2 Park Ave. Chesterfield Orangeburg 3,.18 A 21 Park Ave. Orangeburg Beaufort 2,4.15 A 22 Park Ave. Beaufort Richland Ave. East 2,5.19 A 23 Two Notch South Boundary Audubon A 24 Two Notch Audubon East Pine Log 45.3 A 25 Dougherty Silver Bluff Neilson Street 11,9.92 E 26 Dougherty Neilson Street Whiskey 12,2.94 E 5

6 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS Powderhouse Powderhouse South Boundary East Pine Log 3,6.28 A East Pine Log Whiskey 3,2.25 A 29 Banks Mill South Boundary East Pine Log 3,7.28 A 3 Trolley Line Robert Bell University 5,2.4 B 31 Trolley Line University Gregg Ave. 5,5.42 B 32 Trolley Line Gregg Ave. Vaucluse 4,2.32 B 33 Silver Bluff Whiskey West Pine Log 1,9.84 D 34 Hitchcock Richland Ave. West Augusta 12,7.78 D 35 Hitchcock Augusta Dibble 17,7.86 D 36 Hitchcock Dibble Casaba 19,.92 E 37 Hitchcock Casaba Silver Bluff 17,3.84 D Rudy Mason Rudy Mason Rudy Mason Rudy Mason Charleston Hwy. Wagener 17,3.84 D Wagener Willow Run 13,8.85 D Willow Run Wrights Mill 12,4.35 B Wrights Mill Wire 12,4.35 B 6

7 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS Rudy Mason Robert M. Bell Robert M. Bell Robert M. Bell Wire York Street 12,6.35 B University Trolley Line 7,.43 B Trolley Line Gregg Hwy. 8,2.5 C Gregg Hwy. Richland Ave. West 7,5.46 B 46 Rutland Drive York Street Edgefield Hwy. 7,8.48 B 47 University Edgefield Hwy. Vaucluse 7,8.48 B 48 University Vaucluse Hudson 6,5.4 B 49 University Hudson University 7,8.48 B 5 Chesterfield Park Ave. South Boundary 7,5.6 C 51 Edgefield Hwy. Croft Mill Rutland Drive 11,2.9 E 52 Laurens Street Hampton Ave. Richland Ave. West 5,1.2 A 53 Laurens Street NW Rutland Drive Hampton Ave. 5,1.2 A 54 Whiskey South Boundary Grace F 55 Whiskey Grace Dupree 2, F 56 Whiskey Dupree Berrie F 7

8 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS 57 Whiskey Berrie Boardman 19, F 58 Whiskey Boardman Hitchcock 18,9.61 C 59 Whiskey Hitchcock Silver Bluff/ Price Ave. 22,3.68 C 6 Whiskey Silver Bluff/ Price Ave. Pine Log 16,.49 B 61 Whiskey Pine Log Millbrook 23,9.73 D 62 Whiskey Millbrook Corporate 27,5.84 D 63 Whiskey Corporate Dougherty 23,3.71 D 64 Whiskey Dougherty East Gate 29,2.89 D 65 Whiskey East Gate Lower Mall/Lowes 24,7.75 D 66 Whiskey Lower Mall/Lowes Brookhaven 22,5.69 C 67 Whiskey Brookhaven Powderhouse 22,6.69 C 68 Whiskey Powderhouse Citadel 2,7.63 C 69 Whiskey Citadel) Chukker Creek 2,2.62 C 7 Whiskey Chukker Creek Talatha Church 17,6.54 C 71 East Pine Log Whiskey Two Notch 2,2.62 C 8

9 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS East Pine Log East Pine Log East Pine Log East Pine Log Two Notch Powderhouse 2,2.62 C Powderhouse Banks Mill 23,8.73 D Banks Mill Old Airport 19,3.59 C Old Airport Charleston Hwy. 17,.52 C 76 Silver Bluff Hitchcock /West Pine Log Dougherty 21,9.67 C 77 Silver Bluff Dougherty Pine Log 24,8.76 D 78 Silver Bluff Pine Log Town Creek 15,6.48 B 79 Silver Bluff Town Creek Hartwell 14,.86 D 8 Silver Bluff Hartwell Woodside Plantation 11,8.72 D 81 Silver Bluff Woodside Plantation Pascallis 1,5.64 C 82 Silver Bluff Pascallis Richardsons Lake 9,.55 C West Pine Log West Pine Log Silver Bluff Pawnee 21,6.66 C Pawnee Whiskey 19,4.59 C 85 York Street Aldrich St. Yates 1,4.32 B 86 York Street Yates Rudy Mason 15,3.47 B 9

10 Segment Street From To V/C Ratio LOS 87 York Street Rudy Mason Hampton Ave. 14,2.44 B 88 York Street Hampton Ave. Richland Ave. East 8,2.25 A Jefferson Davis Hwy. Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West Richland Ave. West/East Richland Ave. East West of City SC ,3.5 C SC 118 SC ,6.39 B SC421 Gregg Hwy.(S-895) 21,6.63 C Gregg Hwy. University 2,8.6 C University Gregg Ave. 18,3.56 C Gregg Ave. Valley 16,5.5 C Valley Hayne 16,5.5 C Hayne Vaucluse/Waterloo 13,7.42 B Vaucluse/Waterloo Newberry 11,.34 B Newberry Beaufort 7,8.24 A Beaufort Rudy Mason 8,8.27 A Figure 2 shows the LOS for the study network on a base map prepared by the City s Department of Public Works/Engineering. As seen in Table 2 and on Figure 2, there are some street segments with poor levels of service of E and F and quite a few with LOS D. 1

11 11 Figure 2 Aiken 212 LOS for Study Network

12 As noted in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2, the locations with LOS D, E or F are on segments of Hitchcock Parkway, Whiskey, Edgefield Highway, Dougherty and University Parkway. The following Table 3 provides a summary of the LOS for the City of Aiken study network. Table 3 Summary of LOS for City of Aiken Study Network LOS Street % of Total Classification Mileage Mileage A % B % C % D % E % F % Total % Proportion About 4/5 About 1/5 As shown in Table 3, some 19.5% of the street mileage in the Aiken study network has LOS D, E or F, with 8.8% having E or F. Therefore, about one-fifth of the major street mileage in Aiken has traffic flow conditions considered below average. This is a slight improvement from 21, when about one-fourth of the street mileage had LOS E or F, with the percentage change from about 25% down to about 2%. 12

13 Trends Analysis A review of traffic count data extending back to 26 was made in order to see if there are any trends of note in the congestion and levels of service in the study network. A calculation was made to determine the overall level of travel in the study network over the last six years. This calculation was made by multiplying the length of each segment by the and the number of days to develop the total vehicle-miles of travel for each segment and the network as a whole. Table 4 shows the total travel in the Aiken study network for the years 26, 28, 21 and 212. As seen in Table 4, there was an increase in total vehicle-miles of travel between 26 and 28 of 13.8%. Between 28 and 21, there was a decrease in total travel of about 4.2%. Between 21 and 212, there was a decrease in total travel of about 6.9%. Despite the decline between 21 and 212, there has been a slight overall increase in total travel on the study network between 26 and 212 of about 1.7% total, or about.33% per year at a straight-line rate. Table 4 Total Aiken Study Network Travel in Years 26, 28 and 21 Year Total Vehicle- Miles of Travel (million vehiclemiles) Change from Previous Measurement Comments NA Baseline year % % % Rudy Mason and new Wal-mart affect travel May reflect economic conditions Reflects economic conditions The declines in total miles of travel on the Aiken street network since 28 generally compare to national trends for travel, reflecting the shrinkage in the national economy. There were of course different rates of change in traffic volumes on the various segments of the study network with increases in some segments and decreases in others, generally related to economic activity and some road improvement projects, including Rudy Mason Parkway and the new connector from Whiskey to Silver Bluff via Fabian Drive. Table 5 shows the trends for the individual street segments in the study network. In some cases, segments were added to the study network or revised and those are noted with NA in the table. 13

14 Table 5 Traffic Volume Changes Segment Street From To 1 Centennial Ave. 2 Fabian 3 Pawnee Corpo rate Pawne e West Pine Log Change from 21 to 212 Churchill 8,6 6,9 7,6 46.2% Silver Bluff NA NA 5,2-22.4% Fabian NA NA 6,9 NA 4 Pawnee/Neilson Fabian Dougherty NA NA 1,1 NA 5 Vaucluse Rober t Bell Gregg Ave. 2,9 1,4 1,6.% 6 Vaucluse Gregg Trolley Line Ave. 2,9 3,2 1,6.% Trolley 7 Vaucluse Line Richland Ave. West 2,9 3,2 1,6.% Rober 8 University t Bell Trolley Line 4,3 6,3 3,5-49.3% 9 University Trolley Medical Park 4,3 6,3 7,5 8.7% 14

15 1 University 11 University 12 Beaufort Street 13 Gregg Ave. 14 Gregg Ave. 15 Hampton Ave. 16 Hampton Ave. Line Medic al Park Physic ians Hamp ton/c amelli a Vauclu se Trolley Line York Street Vauclu se Segment Street From To 17 Hampton Ave. 18 Wire Laure ns Street Horry Street Physicians 7,1 9, 14,2 3.6% Richland Ave. West 7,1 9, 14,.% Richland Ave. East NA NA 3, -23.1% Trolley Line 2,9 3,3 2,2-29.% Richland Ave. West 3, 3,25 2,3-3.3% Horry Street 2,9 6,5 4,5-18.2% York Street 2,9 6,5 9,7 76.4% Change from 21 to 212 Vaucluse 2,9 6,5 7,6 38.2% Rudy Mason 2,9 3,1 2,8-48.1% 15

16 19 Hayne/Park Ave. 2 Park Ave. 21 Park Ave. 22 Park Ave. 23 Two Notch 24 Two Notch 25 Dougherty 26 Dougherty 27 Powderhouse 28 Powderhouse 29 Banks Mill Richla nd Ave. West Chest erfield Orang eburg Beauf ort South Bound ary Audub on Silver Bluff Neilso n Street South Bound ary East Pine Log South Bound ary Chesterfield NA NA 8,1 NA Orangeburg 2,5 3, 3, -44.4% Beaufort 2,5 3, 2,4-55.6% Richland Ave. East 2,5 3, 2,5-28.6% Audubon 3, 2, % East Pine Log 3, % Neilson Street Whiskey 12,5 12,5 12,5 12,5 11,9-2.5% 12,2.% East Pine Log 3,2 3,2 3,6 2.9% Whiskey 4,5 5,45 3,2-4.7% East Pine Log 4,5 4,3 3,7-7.5% 16

17 3 Trolley Line 31 Trolley Line 32 Trolley Line 33 Silver Bluff 34 Hitchcock Rober t Bell Univer sity Gregg Ave. Whisk ey Richla nd Ave. West University 2,9 2,9 5,2 225.% Gregg Ave. 2,9 2,9 5,5 48.6% Vaucluse 2,9 2,9 4,2 13.5% West Pine Log Augusta Segment Street From To 35 Hitchcock 36 Hitchcock 37 Hitchcock 38 Rudy Mason Augus ta Dibble Hunts man Drive Charle ston Hwy. Dibble Huntsman Drive Silver Bluff Wagener 11,4 11, ,2 18,2 15,9 13,8 12,35 12, 28 16,8 18,65 18,35 15, ,9-4.4% 12,7-26.2% Change from 21 to ,7 -.6% 19, -1.% 17,3-1.8% 17,3-1.8% 17

18 39 Rudy Mason 4 Rudy Mason 41 Rudy Mason 42 Rudy Mason 43 Robert M. Bell 44 Robert M. Bell 45 Robert M. Bell 46 Rutland Drive 47 University 48 University 49 University Wage ner Willo w Run Wrigh ts Mill Wire Univer sity Trolley Line Gregg Hwy. York Street Edgefi eld Hwy. Vauclu se Hudso n Willow Run 9,7 Wrights Mill Wire York Street 1,7 1,7 1,7 11,3 11,9 12,8 11,5 13,8 13.1% 12,4 -.8% 12,4 -.8% 12,6 7.7% Trolley Line 5,4 8,75 7, -22.2% Gregg Hwy. 5,4 8,75 8,2-8.9% Richland Ave. West 5,4 9,5 7,5-24.2% Edgefield Hwy. 8,3 14,9 7,8-39.5% Vaucluse 7,6 7,75 7,8 8.3% Hudson 6,6 9,95 6,5-31.6% University 9,9 1,8 7,8-27.8% 18

19 Segment Street From To 5 Chesterfield 51 Edgefield Hwy. 52 Laurens Street NW 53 Laurens Street NW 54 Whiskey Park Ave. Croft Mill Hamp ton Ave. Rutlan d Drive South Bound ary Change from 21 to 212 South Boundary 7, 8,1 7,5 1.4% Rutland Drive 12,6 Richland Ave. West 7,5 12,8 1,2 11,2 51.4% 5,1-39.3% Hampton Ave. 4,7 9,75 5,1-39.3% Grace 55 Whiskey Grace Dupree 21,4 21,4 22,5 22,5 2,8 2.5% 2,8 2.5% 56 Whiskey Dupre e Berrie 22,1 24,4 19,2-3.% 57 Whiskey Berrie Boardman 22, 24,4 19,2-3.% 58 Whiskey Board man Hitchcock 22, 24,4 18,9-6.9% 19

20 Segment Street From To 59 Whiskey 6 Whiskey 61 Whiskey 62 Whiskey Hitchc ock Silver Bluff/ Price Ave. Pine Log Millbr ook Silver Bluff/ Price Ave. Pine Log Millbrook 26 22,9 17,3 29, ,7 19, 24,7 212 Change from 21 to ,3 9.9% 16, 6.% 23,9-7.4% Corporate NA NA 27,5 7.% 63 Whiskey Corpo rate Dougherty 3,9 26,8 23,3-2.5% 64 Whiskey Dough erty 65 Whiskey East Gate Lower 66 Whiskey Mall/L owes 67 Whiskey Brook haven 68 Whiskey Powd erhou East Gate Lower Mall/Lowes Brookhaven 36,3 3,8 24,8 Powderhouse 22,6 Citadel 2,8 33,55 21,5 21,9 21,6 21,4 29,2-11.5% 24,7 16.% 22,5 6.1% 22,6-6.6% 2,7-14.5% 2

21 69 Whiskey 7 Whiskey 71 East Pine Log se Citade l Chukk er Creek Whisk ey Chukker Creek Talatha Church Two Notch Segment Street From To 72 East Pine Log Two Notch Powd 73 East Pine Log erhou se Banks 74 East Pine Log Mill Old 75 East Pine Log Airpor t 76 Silver Bluff Hitchc ock Powderhouse Banks Mill Old Airport Charleston Hwy. 2,5 NA 29, 26 29, 22, 17,7 17,7 Dougherty 22, 19,5 16,45 31, ,15 22,5 19,5 2,9 24, ,2-8.6% 17,6-1.2% 2,2-17.2% Change from 21 to 212 2,2-17.2% 23,8 7.7% 19,3-6.3% 17, -1.2% 21,9-8.4% 21

22 / West Pine Log Dough 28,8 3,75 77 Silver Bluff Pine Log 24,8-14.5% erty Pine 1,2 19,2 78 Silver Bluff Log Town Creek 15,6-2.5% Town 1,2 15,25 79 Silver Bluff Creek Hartwell 14, 35.9% Hartw 1,2 15,25 8 Silver Bluff Woodside Plantation 11,8 14.6% ell Wood side 1,2 1,5 81 Silver Bluff Pascallis 1,5 1.9% Planta tion Pascall 82 Silver Bluff Richardsons Lake NA NA 9, -12.6% is Silver 25,9 29,1 83 West Pine Log Bluff Pawnee 21,6 7.5% Pawne 25,9 29,1 84 West Pine Log Whiskey 19,4-3.5% e Aldric 15, 85 York Street Yates NA 1,4-3.7% h St. 14,1 21,7 86 York Street Yates Rudy Mason 15,3 41.7% 87 York Street Rudy Hampton Ave. 1,3 2,35 14,2 31.5% Maso 22

23 88 York Street n Hamp ton Ave. Richland Ave. East Segment Street From To 89 Jefferson Davis Hwy. 9 Richland Ave. West West of City SC 118 SC 118 SC Richland Ave. West SC421 Gregg Hwy. 92 Richland Ave. West 93 Richland Ave. West 94 Richland Ave. West Gregg Hwy. Univer sity Gregg Ave. University Gregg Ave. Valley 95 Richland Ave. West Valley Hayne 96 Richland Ave. West Hayne Vaucluse/Waterloo 97 Richland Ave. West Vauclu se/wa terloo Newberry 1,3 26 NA NA 18,1 18,1 18,1 18,1 18, 13,4 12,1 1,6 28 2,35 11,85 23,5 23,5 23,5 23,5 18,95 13,55 15, ,2-24.1% Change from 21 to ,3-14.4% 13,6 19.3% 21,6 5.9% 2,8 2.% 18,3-21.5% 16,5-1.3% 16,5 22.2% 13,7 1.5% 11, -23.1% 98 Richland Ave. W/East Newb Beaufort 18,1 15,15 7,8-35.% 23

24 99 Richland Ave. East erry Beauf ort Rudy Mason 9, 8,65 8,8-26.7% 24

25 The following Table 6 shows the ten street segments with the highest overall total increases in traffic from 21 to 212. Table 6 Ten Street Segments with Largest Increases in Traffic Volume from 21 to 212 Segment Street From To Additional from 21 to Edgefield Hwy. Croft Mill Rutland Drive 3,8 65 Whiskey East Gate Lower Mall/Lowes 3,4 1 Centennial Ave. Corporate Churchill 2,4 9 Richland Ave. West SC 118 SC 421 2,2 59 Whiskey Hitchcock Silver Bluff/ Price Ave. 2, 62 Whiskey Millbrook Corporate 1,8 73 East Pine Log Powderhouse Banks Mill 1,7 39 Rudy Mason Wagener Willow Run 1,6 83 West Pine Log Silver Bluff Pawnee 1,5 66 Whiskey Lower Mall/Lowes Brookhaven 1,3 As can be seen in Table 6, the street segments gaining the largest additional daily traffic volume from 21 to 212 are on Edgefield Highway, Whiskey, Richland Ave. West, Centennial, East Pine Log and Rudy Mason Generally, these increases are concentrated in commercial development areas. 25

26 Conclusions There are 9 street segments in Aiken totaling 5.6 miles in length with LOS E or F. There are another 16 segments totaling 6.8 miles with LOS D. The total mileage of the segments with LOS D, E or F is about 12.4 miles, or 9.3% of the total network. The total mileage with LOS D is about 1.7% of the total network. Therefore, in the Aiken major street network, over 9% of the mileage is congested or severely congested and another 11% is described as having acceptable congestion. So, about 2% (or about one-fifth) of the mileage on the City s major streets has significant congestion, with traffic flow rated worse than average. It appears the economic downturn has affected travel in Aiken over the last few years, since the data shows there was a decrease in total vehicle-miles on the major street system of about 6.9% between 21 and 212. However, even with the decline between 21 and 212, there was still an overall increase in total travel on the study network between 26 and 212 of about 2% or about.33% per year. This would not be considered a substantial rate of growth. The street segments showing the largest increases in daily traffic volume are on Richland Ave. West, Hitchcock, University, and Whiskey. These increases are indicative of the continued growth in commercial development in the vicinity of the new Wal-mart on Richland Ave., as well as the continued growth in the Whiskey corridor. Recommendations It is of course possible and perhaps likely that the economy will rebound over the next two and that traffic volumes will grow during that time period. There has been modest new development in the southern portion of Whiskey and Aiken County plans to construct a new county government complex on University Parkway west of Edgefield Highway. This new facility will result in shifting of traffic to University Parkway and streets that connect to it. It is possible there might be a renovation or re-use of the existing county government facility that will affect traffic volumes on Richland Avenue. It is recommended that the same method of assessing LOS be conducted again in 214. There should also be a review with SCDOT to determine if the factors used to estimate from daily raw counts can be provided for the City s review. In the past, the SCDOT has not been willing to provide this information. If provided, it would be advisable to review the factors and determine how well they may apply to data in Aiken. If and when there is a rebound in the economy and/or traffic volumes begin to increase significantly, it would advisable to consider adding travel-time runs to the analysis in order to better pinpoint street segments and intersections with congestion problems. 26