Arlington Public Schools Abingdon Elementary School Site Evaluation Preliminary Transportation Findings

Similar documents
Arlington Public Schools Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation Preliminary Findings. Thomas Jefferson Working Group Meeting #2 October 1, 2014

Arlington Public Schools New Elementary School at Thomas Jefferson Site Off-Site Transportation. Thomas Jefferson BLPC / PFRC Meeting July 27, 2016

Arlington Public Schools Thomas Jefferson Site Evaluation Transportation Networks. Thomas Jefferson Working Group Meeting #6 November 10, 2014

2016 APS Go! Surveys Summary Results for Oakridge Elementary School

Abingdon Elementary School School Transportation Report

2016 APS Go! Surveys Summary Results for Arlington Traditional School

2016 APS Go! Surveys Summary Results for Trades Center

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period

APS Stratford Project Transportation Analysis Overview. Stratford BLPC #5 June 1, 2015

Arlington s Master Transportation Plan

Virginia Hospital Center Expansion

Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets DRAFT Recommendations. Oakland Public Works Department September 11 and 13, 2014 Open Houses

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

Parent Survey Report: One School in One Data Collection Period

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

Transportation, Parking & Roads

Business owner or commercial property owner in Arlington, 8. Visitor in Arlington, 17

US 41 COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue

University of Victoria Campus Cycling Plan Terms of Reference. 1.0 Project Description

Sebastopol Charter School Traffic Management Plan

J Street and Folsom Boulevard Lane Conversion Project (T ) Before and After Traffic Evaluation

San Ramon Elementary School. Travel Plan

July 5, Arthur R. Ware, Jr. Elementary School 2017 Safe Routes to School Walkabout Report

Data Analysis February to March Identified safety needs from reported collisions and existing travel patterns.

Master Transportation Plan Bicycle Element Survey

Wellington Exempted Village School District SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL TRAVEL PLAN January 2014

Sustainable Transportation Initiatives and Plans in Caledon

CITY OF OAK CREEK SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ACTION PLAN. East Middle School

C/CAG. Sunnybrae Elementary School Walking and Bicycling Audit. San Mateo-Foster City School District JUNE 2013

The Nexus between Transportation Demand Your sub title Management (TDM), Transit Station Access, and Internal Station Circulation

TRANSPORTATION TRAINING TOPICS. April 6, 2010

Getting Your SRTS Project Funded. Ryan Snyder

PenPlace SPRC #6. September 27, DRAFT

Transportation Planning Division

LTAC: Katie Mencarini, Central & Hampton Roads streets and a fifteen minute debrief to discuss the findings. Participants walked along Mill Road

Aitkin School Routing Plan July 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Introduction

Data Analysis February to March Identified safety needs from reported collisions and existing travel patterns.

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

Columbia Pike Implementation Team (CPIT) Meeting

El Paso County 2040 Major Transportation Corridors Plan

ELEMENT 11 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE 2015 BICYCLE PLAN TOWARDS A BIKABLE FUTURE

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

CPC Parking Lot Riverside Drive. Transportation Rationale

Providence Downtown Transit Connector STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FIRST DRAFT NEW ES AT REED SITE WASHINGTON, DC. May 8, 2018 (DRAFT)

Walkabout Summary Report

Living Streets Policy

A Safe Routes to School Survey in Hillsborough County

Town of Bethlehem. Planning Assessment. Bethlehem Town Board

APPENDIX A. Outreach Summary

1609 E. FRANKLIN STREET HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vallecito Elementary School. Travel Plan

Magnolia Place. Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared for: City of San Mateo. Prepared by: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Solana Beach Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS)

McKenzie Interchange Project Fall 2015 Engagement. Appendix 2: Engagement Materials and Feedback Form

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Double the amount of bicycle ridership while at the same time reducing the number of bicycle crashes by one-third.

Pedestrian Survey Report

North Shore Transportation Improvement Strategy

OCEAN DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Traffic Impact Memorandum. May 22, 2018

Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan

CONNECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES

WELCOME TO OPEN HOUSE # 1 June 14, 2017

Advancing Transportation Choices in Des Moines. MPO Environmental Roundtable January 9, 2018

CITY OF ABBOTSFORD TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT MASTER PLAN

West Dimond Blvd Upgrade Jodhpur Street to Sand Lake Road

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1 STUDY OVERVIEW Study Scope Study Area Study Objectives

2 Mark Twain Elementary School Report

City of Novi Non-Motorized Master Plan 2011 Executive Summary

Welcome to the McKenzie Interchange Project Open House!

ARCADIA ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOLS

MTP BICYCLE ELEMENT UPDATE. November 2017

HYATTSVILLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. City Council Update March 19, 2018

Introduction. Using the Checklist. TDM-Supportive Development Design and Infrastructure Checklist Version 1.0 (30 June 2017) City of Ottawa

Capital Bikeshare 2011 Member Survey Executive Summary

BID Strategy Group and Stakeholders Meeting. April 17, 2018

Why Zone In on Speed Reduction?

Madison Urban Area and Dane County. Bicycle Transportation Plan Summary. September Introduction. Bicycle Plan Scope and Planning Process

Washington County, Oregon

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

TYSONS CORNER BICYCLE MASTER PLAN

WELCOME. City of Greater Sudbury. Transportation Demand Management Plan

City of Sammamish. Welcome. Issaquah-Fall City Road Improvements Project Phase I Design: 242nd Avenue SE to Klahanie Drive SE

Work Zone Pedestrian & Cyclist Accommodation in Washington, DC

PROSPECT ELEMENTARY GIRARD INTERMEDIATE GIRARD JUNIOR HIGH

Appendix C 3. Bicycle / Pedestrian Planning

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

School Travel Survey for Principals. 1. How do most of your students get to school in the morning? (Please select only one box)

See Figure 38, Existing Nonmotorized Connections.

Safe Routes to School Program in California: An Update

FY 2018 I-66 Commuter Choice Program Presentation to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission May 3,

Walkable Communities: National Best Practices and Applications in Memphis, TN

WALK- AND bike-friendly TURLOCK

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CALEDON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS STUDY

Kingwood Area Mobility Study. Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority (TIRZ #10)

Transcription:

Arlington Public Schools Abingdon Elementary School Site Evaluation Preliminary Transportation Findings Arlington County Public Facilities Review Committee (PFRC) November 19, 2014 SAN ANTONIO-BEXAR COUNTY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Key Questions: How does the transportation system currently operate on and surrounding the Abingdon ES site? What is the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) potential for Abingdon ES? How might the transportation system operate when the expansion is completed?

Multimodal Transportation Study Existing Conditions Walking, bicycling, carpooling, transit use, bus use Crash data Parking supply and demand Stakeholder input on key transportation issues and opportunities Existing infrastructure (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Traffic Study (current trip distribution and intersection level of service)

Multimodal Transportation Study Existing Conditions Walking, bicycling, carpooling, transit use, bus use Crash data Parking supply and demand Stakeholder input on key transportation issues and opportunities Existing infrastructure (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Traffic Study (current trip distribution and intersection level of service) Future Analysis Future Traffic Study (scenarios for future trip distribution and intersection/congestion impacts) Projected parking needs Infrastructure needs (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Site design and access/circulation

Multimodal Transportation Study Existing Conditions Walking, bicycling, carpooling, transit use, bus use Crash data Parking supply and demand Stakeholder input on key transportation issues and opportunities Existing infrastructure (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Traffic Study (current trip distribution and intersection level of service) Future Analysis Future Traffic Study (scenarios for future trip distribution and intersection/congestion impacts) Projected parking needs Infrastructure needs (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Site design and access/circulation } Sept Dec 2014

Multimodal Transportation Study Existing Conditions Walking, bicycling, carpooling, transit use, bus use Crash data Parking supply and demand Stakeholder input on key transportation issues and opportunities Existing infrastructure (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Traffic Study (current trip distribution and intersection level of service) Future Analysis Future Traffic Study (scenarios for future trip distribution and intersection/congestion impacts) Projected parking needs Infrastructure needs (focus on pedestrian and bicycle access) Site design and access/circulation } } Sept Dec 2014 Jan June 2015

HOW DOES THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CURRENTLY OPERATE AT AND AROUND ABINGDON ES? >> Existing Infrastructure

Key Themes: Public Input Need to focus on improved walking and bicycling conditions Concerns about vehicle speeds on S Abingdon Street Concerns about congestion at S Abingdon Street and 29 th Street Difficult intersections S Abingdon Street and 29 th Street / 30 th Street 28 th Street and S Abingdon Street Limited parking; Existing parking spaces are too narrow 8.5 ft. x 15 ft. Concerns crossing S Walter Reed Drive from Windgate Village Lighting on trail in Fort Reynolds Park Limited bicycle parking available With expansion, provision of new parking and new entrances to school Limited connectivity to S Fairlington

Route 7A 7C 7F 7Y Stops on roads 31 st Street S, Abingdon Street 29 th Street S Walter Reed and Arlington Mill 31 st Street S, Abingdon Street 29 th Street S 31 st Street S, Abingdon Street 29 th Street S Hours, Monday to Friday 4:45 am to 11:22 pm 6:05 am to 8:47 am 5:34 am to 11:38 pm 5:09 am to 9:42 pm Headways between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Every 8 minutes Every 20 minutes Every 50 minutes Every 9 minutes

78 spaces in school lot 30 spaces in tennis court lot Over 650 spaces on streets surrounding Abingdon campus

HOW DOES THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CURRENTLY OPERATE AT AND AROUND ABINGDON ES? >> Transportation System Use

To School From School 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other 0% Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Transit Other Student Travel Tally Parent Survey Student Travel Tally Source: 2014 Parent Survey (202 respondents) and Student Travel Tally (275 respondents) Parent Survey

Walk Bike School Bus Personal Vehicle Carpool Transit Other APS Neighborhood Schools (average) 24% 1% 45% 28% 1% 0% 0% APS Neighborhood Schools (range) 7% - 44% 0% - 5% 29% - 63% 18% - 38% 0% - 2% 0% - 1% 0% - 1% Abingdon Elementary (neighborhood school) 23% 0% 52% 24% 1% 0% 0% Source: 2014 Abingdon Parent Survey (202 respondents) and 2013 APS GO! Parent Survey of All APS Neighborhood Elementary Schools (except schools with fewer than 100 responses)

1% 1% 7% Walk Drive alone in private car Drive (APS vehicle) 91% Carpool Source: 2014 Staff Survey, 99 respondents

Observation & Mode Counts Intersection Counts Speed/Class/Volume Counts Abingdon Elementary School

Source: Manual Counts, Sept 2014

Source: Manual Counts, Sept 2014

Source: Intersection Counts, Sept 2014 and Field Observations, Nov 2014

Source: Manual Counts, Sept 2014

Source: Manual Counts, Sept 2014

Source: Field Observations, Nov 2014

29 th Street S primarily consists of school-related traffic S Abingdon Street experiences typical commuter peaks During school arrival and dismissal, 29 th Street S has similar volumes to S Abingdon Street During all other times, S Abingdon St has higher traffic volumes Traffic volumes on S Abingdon Street do not vary significantly between the data collection locations

Overall 85 th percentile speeds do not significantly exceed the speed limit 85 th percentile speeds during arrival exceed the school zone speed limit S Abingdon Street Speed Data Overall Speed Limit: 25 MPH 85 th Percentile Speed: 24 MPH During Arrival and Dismissal School Zone Speed Limit: 20 MPH 85 th Percentile Speed: 26 MPH/22 MPH (AM/PM)

During arrival, motorists may experience slight delay: Traveling west 28 th Rd at Abingdon Rd Intersection of Abingdon Rd & 29th St Traveling east on 30 th St at Abingdon Rd Intersection of Abingdon St & 31 st St During dismissal, motorists experience less delay compared with arrival due to less commuter traffic and fewer trips associated with the school

78 spaces in school lot 30 spaces in tennis court lot Over 650 spaces on streets surrounding Abingdon campus

*Shows parking after arrival (~8:20AM) on a typical day

*Shows parking before dismissal (~1:50PM) on a typical day

*Shows parking during a school event: Back to School Night (~7:15PM)

Three years of crash data Crash data doesn t capture near misses or close calls Eight total crashes Four crashes involved one moving vehicle and parked vehicles One crash involved car braking behind school bus No pedestrian or bicycle crashes Source: Arlington County Department of Environmental Services (2011-2013)

WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) AT ABINGDON ES?

Opportunities Neighborhood school site (compact walk zone) Generally complete sidewalk network Proximity to regional trails Available transit service (bus, Capital Bikeshare) Existing percentage of students walking Engaged and enthusiastic staff (e.g. success of Safety Patrol) Challenges Topography (hilly) Existing staff travel modes Intersection deficiencies

Child's Age Distance Safety of intersections and crossings Lack of adults to walk or bike with Concerns about bullying, violence, or crime Speed of traffic along route Amount of traffic along route Darkness Lack of crossing guards Weather or climate Other transportation options are more convenient Lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities Afterschool activities Hills Heavy/bulky items to carry Lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities at school School is on the way to another destination Before school activities Lack of bicycle Source: 2014 Parent Survey Very Important 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Somewhat Important

20% 27% 23% 12% Less than 1/4 mile 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 1 mile up to 1 1/2 miles 1 1/2 miles or more 18%

Trip distance Trip duration Heavy or bulky items to carry Weather or climate Convenience Hills Comfort Lack of showers or lockers Need car for travel during work Lack of sidewalks or pathways Difficult road crossings Concern about violence or crime 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: 2014 Staff Survey Very Important Important

Heavy or bulky items to carry Weather or climate Trip distance Lack of showers or lockers Convenience Lack of comfortable places to bike Trip duration Comfort Difficult crossings Lack of covered bicycle parking Don't own a bicycle or bikeshare membership Lack of secure bicycle parking Need car for travel during work Don't know safe route Bikeshare stations too far away Concern about violence or crime on route Don't know how to ride a bicycle 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Source: 2014 Staff Survey Very Important Somewhat Important

Convenience to other destinations (e.g., home, errands) Weather or climate Heavy/bulky items to carry Convenience to APS work location Trip duration Reliability Trip distance Stops/stations too far away Comfort Frequency Cost Operating hours Need car for travel during work 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: 2014 Staff Survey Very Important Somewhat Important

HOW WILL THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATE WHEN THE EXPANSION IS COMPLETE?

Site design components impact circulation, access and mode choice School driveway locations Location and design of pick up/drop off and bus loop Degree of separation of travel modes Parking Minimize and mitigate on-site conflicts between users Balancing parking demand with other site needs (e.g. green space) Address key facility gaps/issues for bike and pedestrian access

Finalize existing traffic analysis Conduct infrastructure assessment Coordinate with design team on site layout Finalize existing conditions report Continue SRTS Team and community engagement Assess future impacts of school expansion on transportation network Evaluate future parking demand