Conversion of One-Way Couplet Streets to Two-Way

Transcription

1 Conversion of One-Way Couplet Streets to Two-Way May 5, 2016 Oklahoma Traffic Engineers Association 2016 Spring Meeting, Tulsa, OK Kevin St. Jacques, P.E., PTOE, PTP Freese and Nichols

2 Overview Initial Considerations Assess the Alternatives Implementation Strategies Case Studies 2

3 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Why Are One-Way Pairs Created? Streets grew, engineers provided solution Positive attributes of one-way couplets Distributes traffic off congested street Reduces crashes Allows for better signal progression Can reduce delay and emissions Expands traffic exposure for development Can allow room to retain/add parking on street Can allow room to retain/add pedestrian space along street 3

4 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Benefits of one way pairs No need for left turn bays = Room for Bulb-outs Logical terminus can signify change in uses 4

5 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Why Convert Back to Two-way Streets? 5 Negative attributes of One-way couplets vs. Two-way Can induce higher traffic speeds More complex traffic circulation Splits development energy, neighborhoods Potential economic enhancements End terminus configuration issues Development intensity/attraction imbalance on pair Traffic volumes or traffic patterns change Development patterns change

6 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Existing One-Way Character One direction traffic flow Parking both sides Short Ped Crossings

7 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Desired Two-Way Character Two directional flow Left turn bays Retain parking both sides Short Ped Crossings

8 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Initial Steps: 1. Review the Pros and Cons Internally History of installation (dates, supporters, funding, etc.) Benefits/challenges of current configuration Bike/ped, density, development vision, etc. Identification of city internal issues and concerns Maintenance, crime, crashes, etc. 8

9 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Initial Steps: 2. Review the Pros and Cons with Stakeholders Reminder of benefits of current configuration Identify known shortcomings of current configuration Vetting of stakeholder issues, concerns, desires, vision 9

10 INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Initial Steps: 3. Formal Initiation of Corridor Study Define extent and context of study Stakeholder concurrence with study Formation of Project Steering Committee of staff and stakeholders 10

11 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES 1. Multimodal Performance Measures (manage expectations, data needs & analysis tools) Traffic Delay, Avg. Speed, Level of Service Net gain/loss in parking Traffic access and circulation complexity Intensity/safety of pedestrian crossings Streetscape (curb to ROW) space allocation Costs vs. Benefits Relative Weight of each measure Review Performance Measures with stakeholders 11

12 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES 2. Operational Data Collection Geometrics: ROW, curb lines, sidewalks, parking, etc. Traffic operations (daily counts, TMCs, speeds, trucks, etc.) Parking operations (occupancy, turnover, etc.) Pedestrian and bicycle observations Traffic control information Crashes and other incidents Other (rail crossings, special events, etc.) 12

13 ASSESS CASETHE ALTERNATIVES STUDY #2 13 Gray Street Main Street Gray Street Main Street Gray Street Main Street Operational Data Collection Geometrics: ROW, curb lines, sidewalks, parking, etc. Traffic operations (daily counts, TMCs, speeds, crashes, etc.) Other (traffic control, special events, etc.) University to Webster Santa Fe James Garner Jones Peters Crawford Porter Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. Ent. Ext. North Side South Side North Side South Side University to Webster Webster to Webster to Santa Fe Santa Fe to Santa Fe to James Garner James Garner to James Garner to Jones Jones to Jones to Peters Peters to Peters to Crawford Crawford to Porter North Side South Side North Side South Side Crawford to University Webster Santa Fe James Garner Jones Peters Crawford Porter Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Table 1. Parking Maneuver Counts along Main and Gray Streets Table 2. Available On-Street Parking Spaces along Main and Gray Streets Table 3. Pedestrian Crossings PM Peak Hour

14 ASSESS CASETHE ALTERNATIVES STUDY #2 3. Land Use Data Collection Existing: successes and challenges Development locations Development performance indicators (revenue data, etc.) Planned and emerging development Latent and potential development 14

15 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES 4. Develop Alternative Concepts Geometric configuration options Enhanced one-way pair Various two-way street concepts Tradeoffs between lanes and parking Side Street circulation options Terminus treatments 15

16 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES Alternative Concepts Existing Two-Way (3) Two-Way (4) Two-Way (5) Modified One-Way 16

17 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES 5. Analyze the Alternatives Re-distribution of existing traffic, new traffic Initial screening of alternatives Comparative performance assessments Cost implications of top ranked alternatives Other implications (railroad, etc.) 17

18 ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES REALLOCATE VOLUMES FOR TWO-WAY OPERATIONS Critical Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Terminus configurations effect Crossing street turn choices Key destination routes 18

19 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Consensus Building for Solutions Corridor visioning charrette with stakeholders Collaboration on performance measures and weights Screening of possible concepts Traffic reallocation exercises (modeled vs. calculated) Traffic flow simulation presentations Concept visualization 19

20 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Costs and Funding of Solution Quantify Monetary and Other Costs of Solution Identify Benefits of Solution (for funding justifications) Identify Potential Sources of Funds Public (City, other agencies) Private (Individual, Company, Association, Foundation, others) Concur on an Action Plan Champion(s) Partners and Responsibilities 20

21 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment (7) CASE STUDY #1 Deciding Issues Volumes Geometrics Termini Connections Driveways Parking Context Circulation Full or Part Cost Impacts 21

22 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Convert 11 th /12 th to two-way streets 11 th St. 12 th St. 22 Deciding Issues Volumes Geometrics Termini Connections Driveways Parking Context Circulation Full or Part Cost Impacts

23 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Convert 11 th /12 th to two-way streets 23

24 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Convert 11 th /12 th to two-way streets 24

25 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Keep Bosque/Homan, 17 th /18th one-way Deciding Issues Volumes Geometrics Termini Connections Driveways Parking Context Circulation Full or Part Cost Impacts 25

26 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Convert 25 th /26 th to two-way streets Deciding Issues Volumes Geometrics Termini Connections Driveways Parking Context Circulation Full or Part Cost Impacts 26

27 CASE STUDY #1 Waco Downtown Couplets Assessment Convert 25 th /26 th to two-way streets 12

28 CASE STUDY #2 Downtown Norman Grey St Lower Intensity Congested Terminus Roundabout (Terminus) Main St (4 Lane) To I-35 Main St (5 Lane) Indirect Terminus Main St Higher Intensity

29 CASE STUDY #2 History of Main & Gray Streets Originally configured as two-way streets 1 lane each way plus angled parking Converted to one-way in 1974 Traffic Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS) University Blvd to Porter Ave the most accident prone segment in Norman. Head-in parking was identified as the major cause of the collisions Requests to convert back to 2-way began in 1990s Quick study concluded traffic would overwhelm Main Street Transportation Plan for 2035 showed changing traffic patterns Main & Gray Streets could be reduced by one travel lane thru Downtown 29

30 CASE STUDY #2 Alternative Concepts Geometric configuration options Tradeoffs between lanes and parking Terminus treatments Preferred Existing Two-Way (3) Two-Way (3) Two-Way (4) Two-Way (5) Evaluated 30

31 CASE STUDY #2 Traffic Distribution onto Two-way Network 31

32 CASE STUDY #2 32 Traffic Operations Analysis Existing 1-way with 2015 Traffic Existing 1-way with 1.2 Growth Factor Two-Way Scenario 1.2 Growth Factor Mitigation Scenario 1.2 Growth Factor Intersection Intersection Control Control Control Control Delay Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (Sec/veh) (Sec/veh) (Sec/veh) (Sec/veh) LOS Gray Street at Flood Avenue Gray 12.6 Street at B Flood Avenue 10.9 B 6.5 A 6.4 A Gray Street at Lahoma Avenue* Gray 4.6 Street at A Lahoma Avenue* 4.4 A 3.4 A 3.4 A Gray Street at University Boulevard Gray 10.5 Street at B University 10.2 Boulevard B 12.0 B 12.2 B Gray Street at Webster Avenue Gray 5.5 Street at A Webster Avenue 10.5 B 9.0 A 6.8 A Gray Street at Santa Fe Avenue Gray 4.2 Street at A Santa Fe Avenue 5.3 A 10.5 B 10.6 B Gray Street at James Garner Avenue* Gray 3.4 Street at A James Garner 20.8Avenue C 15.3 B 15.1 B Gray Street at Jones Avenue* Gray 0.0 Street at A Jones Avenue* 0.0 A 5.8 A 5.8 A Gray Street at Peters Avenue Gray 16.9 Street at B Peters Avenue 14.7 B 8.4 A 11.0 B Gray Street at Crawford Avenue* Gray 1.7 Street at A Crawford Avenue* 1.4 A 5.4 A 5.4 A Gray Street at Porter Avenue Gray 20.3 Street at C Porter Avenue 17.8 B 20.2 C 20.3 C Main Street at Flood Avenue Main 32.8 Street Cat Flood Avenue 37.3 D 24.7 C 24.9 C Main Street at Lahoma Avenue* Main 31.7 Street Dat Lahoma Avenue 63.8 F 4.1 A 4.0 A Main Street at Downtown Shopping Main Street at Downtown Shopping 13.9 B 3.7 A Center Center 3.3 A 3.4 A Main Street at University Boulevard Main 11.7 Street Bat University 15.8 Boulevard B 47.4 D 35.4 D Main Street at Webster Avenue Main 11.5 Street Bat Webster Avenue 23.2 C 59.6 E 50.8 D Main Street at Santa Fe Avenue Main 3.1 Street Aat Santa Fe Avenue 4.2 A 17.7 B 20.8 B Main Street at James Garner Avenue* Main 1.5 Street Aat James Garner 15.7Avenue C 34.9 C 35.9 D Main Street at Jones Avenue* Main 1.4 Street Aat Jones Avenue* 1.0 A 29.6 D 10.6 B Main Street at Peters Avenue Main 7.5 Street Aat Peters Avenue 8.8 A 21.3 C 18.3 B Main Street at Crawford Avenue Main 4.0 Street Aat Crawford Avenue 6.6 A 12.5 B 12.1 B Main Street at Porter Avenue Main 16.9 Street Bat Porter Avenue 17.3 B 37.2 D 37.7 D * Two-way stop controlled intersection. Delay based on HCM 2010 methodology Synchro Analysis Results for Existing One-Way And Two-way Configurations (PM Peak Hour)

33 CASE STUDY #2 Multimodal Pros and Cons of 1-1 TWLTL Factor Positive Attributes Negative Attributes Traffic Operations Creates a calmer traffic environment, better suited to Downtown destination. The new directional flow on both streets provides more direct access to destinations. Higher average delay, lower LOS, parking interrupts flow of the one through lane Train Crossings Pedestrian Crossings Queuing traffic still has two lanes in each direction spread across two streets, queues generally dissipate after one traffic signal cycle The bulb-outs are retained, keeping crossing distances minimal with good pedestrian visibility and accommodations Traffic queues are about 1.5 to 2 times as long as existing, back of queue extends to over 3 blocks on Main Street during PM peak Pedestrians must watch for added conflicts from left and right turning vehicles from added traffic direction Parking Retains angled parking on both sides, center turn lane allows use of angled parking from both directions by smaller vehicles (special ordinance) Added cost to re-orient parking stalls and modify bulb-outs, large vehicles would need to turn from through lane to enter opposite side parking Special Events Downtown functional as a destination with same amount of angled parking and new parking garage, traffic flow more logical for visitors High traffic generation events will not be as well accommodated for throughput. Development The two-way flow of traffic on both streets and the traffic calming allow for better visibility of businesses, less focus on passing through Downtown Current pass-thru traffic may divert to other routes, reducing exposure 33

34 CASE STUDY #2 Steps to Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way 1. Oversized base on pedestals for future opposite flow signal pole 34 Oversized base on pedestals for future opposite flow Signal pole

35 CASE STUDY #2 Steps to Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way 1. Convert one lane to opposite flow on lower volume street 35

36 CASE STUDY #2 Steps to Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way 3. Convert one lane to Eastbound on Westbound Gray Street only A.Erect EB signal poles & test lights, install RR xing arms, bag new signs, then B. Stripe the lane line, connect signal heads, unbag signs, open EB 36

37 CASE STUDY #2 Steps to Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way 4. Convert one lane to Westbound on Eastbound Main Street only A. Erect WB signal poles & test lights, install RR xing arms, bag new signs, then B. Re-stripe angled parking on north side of Main Street to reverse the angle, then C. Stripe the lane line, connect signal heads, unbag signs, open WB lane 37 14

38 CASE STUDY #2 Steps to Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way 5. Convert center lane on Main and Gray Streets to TWLTL w/ LT bays A. Stripe the lane line, adjust signal indications as needed 38 14

39 CASE STUDY #2 Costs of Converting Main and Gray Streets from 1-way to 2-way Improvement Estimated Costs Traffic Signal Modifications (opposite flow signal at 7 intersections) $200,000 Traffic Signal Operation Modifications at Terminus Intersections $100,000 New traffic signals (4 $250K ea.) $1,000,000 Intersection modification for improved LOS for key cross streets $200,000 Pavement Markings and opposing direction signage $200,000 Railroad Crossing Improvements (opposite flow Signals and Gates) $300,000 Supplemental Safety Devices for Railroad Quiet Zone $1,000,000 Total Potential Cost $3.0 Million 39

40 Discussion Kevin St. Jacques, P.E., PTOE, PTP Freese and Nichols (OKC) (Dallas) 40