RM 620 FEASIBILITY STUDY SURVEY RESPONSES as of January 11, 2016 1/11/16
Who is Responding to the RM 620 Feasibility Study Survey? As of January 11, 2016, 2,835 survey responses have been received Approximately 71% of the survey respondents say they live along the RM 620 corridor Survey responses have come from 84 unique zip codes Roughly 58% of respondents say they travel along RM 620 several times a day About 19% of respondents say they have been involved in a traffic crash on RM 620 2
RM 620 Intersections The top ten intersections most often identified by survey respondents as having significant mobility problems include: 70% 60% 66.6% 64.3% 50% 40% 43.7% 41.7% 39.7% 37.8% 34.2% 30% 29.4% 27.6% 27.3% 20% 10% 0% Bullick Anderson Mill Lohmans Hollow Rd Crossing Rd/RM 2222 Rd/Ameno Dr Four Points Dr Bee Cave Pkwy HEB/Plaza Volente Lakeway Blvd Quinlan Park Rd Lohmans Spur Falcon Head Blvd 3
For what purpose do you use RM 620? Run daily errands/shopping 84.4% Access other roadways 61.3% Visit family/friends 59.2% Access recreational activities 56.7% Travel to/from a work location outside the RM 620 corridor 43.8% Travel to/from a work location located along the RM 620 corridor 34.0% Travel to/from school 26.7% I avoid RM 620 as much as possible 16.9% Recreational bicycling/jogging/walking 10.9% Job-related travel requirements 8.1% Other (please specify) 5.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 4
When do you experience significant traffic congestion problems on RM 620? Weekday evening rush hour 87.1% Weekday morning rush hour 78.9% Unpredictable 44.0% Weekends 42.0% Weekday lunch time 41.5% Other 12.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5
How does the traffic on RM 620 impact you? Longer travel times along RM 620 95.8% Longer wait time to enter/exit my community 67.5% Difficulty crossing RM 620 to get to schools or other destinations within my community 45.0% Notice cars cutting through neighborhood streets to avoid traffic 40.1% Increase in traffic violations due to traffic congestion (i.e. running red lights, illegal turns, running on shoulders, etc.) 37.3% Difficulty walking or biking to and from my neighborhood 13.3% Other 12.4% RM 620 traffic does not affect my neighborhood directly 7.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6
What are the most significant problems along RM 620? Rank the order of each of the problems from 1 (most significant) to 10 (least significant) Average Ranking Percentage Who Ranked this #1 1 Overall traffic congestion along the corridor MORE SIGNIFICANT 2.88 39% 2 Traffic backups at specific intersections on RM 620 3.26 25% 3 Congestion during accidents 5.11 6% 4 Overall safety along the corridor 5.14 11% 5 Traffic backups at schools and churches 5.37 6% 6 Difficulty turning/merging onto RM 620 from cross streets 5.48 4% 7 Difficulty/delay turning onto cross streets from RM 620 5.97 2% 8 Difficulty accessing businesses or residences from RM 620 6.37 3% 9 Difficulty crossing RM 620 6.56 2% 10 Conflicts between auto and bicycle/pedestrian traffic using the corridor LESS SIGNIFICANT 8.04 2% 7
How can these problems be addressed? Rank the order of each of the problems from 1 (most effective) to 5 (least effective) Average Ranking Percentage Who Ranked this #1 1 Eliminate traffic signals on through traffic by building over/under passes at intersections MORE EFFECTIVE 2.35 39% 2 Intersection improvements that reduce travel time along RM 620 2.38 23% 3 Add more lanes to RM 620 2.42 28% 4 5 Intersection improvements that improve access to and from cross streets Add a separate bicycle/pedestrian path along the entire RM 620 corridor LESS EFFECTIVE 3.26 7% 4.39 3% 8
Suggestions from the public* Synchronize traffic signals Restrict development Improve safety Create a new alignment Make intersection improvements Add lanes Add overpasses Improve access Add turn lanes Lower the speed limit Create a divide highway Create a toll road Implement public transportation Remove traffic lights Extend SH 45 Add frontage roads Improve travel time Pedestrian improvements Increase police presence Bicycle improvements Elevate roadway Visual/aesthetic improvements 4.6% 4.3% 3.9% 3.0% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% [CELLREF] 6.3% 7.4% 7.2% 8.7% 9.5% 11.3% 15.1% *Suggestion responses were grouped into themes. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of responses per theme by the total number of responses. 9
Common Themes from Open-ended Comments 10