League City Parkway at Brittany Lakes/Fennigan Intersection Evaluation/ Traffic Study. Second Public Meeting February 6, 2018

Transcription

1 League City Parkway at Brittany Lakes/Fennigan Intersection Evaluation/ Traffic Study Second Public Meeting February 6, 2018

2 City Project Information League City Parkway and Brittany Lakes Dr./ Fennigan Lane Traffic System Improvement Project CIP #: TR1101A Project Manager: Susan Oyler, P.E. City of League City 500 W Walker St League City, Texas Phone: susan.oyler@leaguecitytx.gov

3 Meeting Agenda Introduction Project Overview First Public Meeting Intersection Concepts Summary of Resident Feedback Additional Study Findings Public Feedback Closing Remarks

4 Project Overview Intersection Planned for Improvement City is Aware of Some Concerns Project is Part of Citywide Mobility

5 Study Intersection

6 First Public Meeting On December 14, 2017 At League City YMCA Attended by over 40 people Provided Project Status and Study Findings Presented Three Intersection Concepts Listened to Resident Feedback Extended Comment Period Until January 8 th Received 13 Written Comments

7 First Meeting Outline Traffic Study Findings LCP carries over 20,000 vpd Fennigan/Brittany Lakes carries about 2,500 vpd Existing Level of Service (LOS) LOS D AM Peak (EB) LOS E PM Peak (WB) Meets Traffic Signal Warrants Intersection Improvement Concepts Concept 1 Roadway Shift Roadway Shifted for Left Turn Lanes with Signal Concept 2 Covered Ditch Ditch Covered for Left Turn Lanes with Signal Concept 3 Roundabout Redesign with Partial Covering of Ditch and Yield signs Public Feedback

8 Concept 1 Roadway Shift Features: Dedicated EB/WB left-turn lanes Within existing right-of-way (ROW) No impacts to existing drainage Moves travel lanes closer to homes Includes Traffic Signal Control Pros: Provides LOS B for both peaks Slightly less expensive Cons: Roadway closer to sidewalk Less efficient signal operation

9 Concept 2 Covered Ditch Features: Dedicated EB/WB left-turn lanes Completely within existing ROW Converts open drainage to covered box culverts Requires modifications to existing drainage Includes Traffic Signal Control Pros: LOS B for AM & PM peak Provides good sight distance More landscape opportunities Allows better traffic operations Cons: Moderately expensive Slightly longer construction time

10 Concept 3 Roundabout Features: Extensive revision of intersection geometry Approach roadways are also modified Accommodated within existing ROW Partial conversion of open drainage to covered No Traffic Signal but Yield Signage Pros: Improved traffic safety Lower vehicular delay (LOS B) Aesthetically pleasing character Reduced travel speeds Cons: Most expensive option Longest duration for construction Closures required for construction

11 Resident Feedback Compilation from Public Meeting and Comment Cards Better Traffic Flow: Need to make traffic signals work better Install signal at Landing at the same time (or Landing first) Address Elementary school traffic along LCP As a major thoroughfare, LCP must be done right for mobility Traffic flow is now a problem from IH 45 to Landing Drainage Concerns: Hydraulics study to evaluate drainage Hurricane Harvey caused flooding consider it in design Keep the culverts large Cover entire ditch along LCP

12 Resident Feedback Improved Pedestrian/Traffic Safety: Need traffic light with crosswalks Reduce speeding on LCP Better sidewalks for pedestrians/school kids Neighborhood Concerns: Should not affect getting in and out of neighborhoods Project may devalue home prices Signal may cause more traffic and wait times Increased noise due to traffic Concept Feedback: Supports Concept 2 with left turns Concept 1 makes roadway closer to homes Prefers Concept 2 considering driving habits along LCP Roundabouts are confusing Concept 2 is the only one that makes sense City should focus on other projects or options

13 Resident Feedback Public Ranking of Options: Concept 2 Ranked best Concept 3 Ranked second Concept 1 Ranked last Concept #1 Rank Concept #2 Rank Concept #3 Rank Response # Response # Response #3-1 - Response # Response # Response # Response #7-1 - Response # Response #9-2 3 Response # Response # Response # Response # Average Score (Lower score= Higher rank)

14 Additional Study Findings Future Scenarios Analyzed based on Public Comments Existing 2018 Future Years (10 years), 2038 (20 years), 2048 (30 years) 2028 AM Peak PM Peak Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Unsignalized (WB) 10.7 B 89.0 F Unsignalized (EB) 72.5 F 26.1 D Roundabout 13.5 B 14.8 B Signalized 19.3 B 13.2 B 2038 AM Peak PM Peak Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Unsignalized (WB) 11.8 B F Unsignalized (EB) F 53.3 F Roundabout 21.4 C 24.1 C Signalized 22 C 16.5 B 2048 AM Peak PM Peak Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Unsignalized (WB) 18.0 C F Unsignalized (EB) F F Roundabout 98.7 F F Signalized 62.1 E 32.0 C Existing AM Peak PM Peak Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Unsignalized (WB) 9.8 A 45.0 E Unsignalized (EB) 31.2 D 17.3 C Roundabout 10.2 B 11.1 B Signalized 16.8 B 12.4 B LOS Delay for AWSC/Roundabout (s/v) Delay for Traffic Signal (s/v) A B > 10 and 15 > 10 and 20 C > 15 and 25 > 20 and 35 D > 25 and 35 > 35 and 55 E > 35 and 50 > 55 and 80 F > 50 > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board. (2010). Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC.

15 Additional Study Findings Traffic Flow Cost Undue stops for all vehicles with Stop Control Signal will allow traffic flow to be coordinated along LCP Roundabout is likely to reduce speeds along LCP LCP recommended for widening to 6 lanes in 2035 per Mobility Plan Roundabout is most expensive Traffic Signal with left-turns is moderately expensive Annual maintenance costs similar for all options Future Year Findings Existing all-way stop control will have unreasonable delays Delays will double in 10 years and skyrocket in 20 years Signal and Roundabout will both operate with an acceptable LOS C Both options are acceptable for the next 20 years Roundabout begins to fail around 30 years

16 Polling of Options Based on the information shared, what is your preferred option? A. Option 1: Roadway Shift B. Option 2: Covered Ditch C. Option 3: Roundabout D. Option 4: Delay or Explore Alternate Projects

17

18 Closing Remarks City would like additional public feedback 1. Are there any concerns? 2. Any suggested changes to concepts? Can still provide input until end of February 2018 Please submit comment cards at the back Share with others who were not able to attend Additional comments or THANK YOU