Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Impact Study
Minneapolis, MN
Prepared For: Allan Klugman, PE, PTOE
City of Minneapolis - Department of Public Works December 17, 2019 Traffic and Parking Services Division 300 Border Avenue N, Minneapolis, MN 55405
Prepared By: Jordan Schwarze, PE
Alliant Engineering, Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700 Saint Paul, MN 55402
Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
Table of Contents
List of Figures ...... ii List of Tables ...... ii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Existing Conditions ...... 1 2.1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ...... 1 2.2 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 2.2.1 Traffic Volumes ...... 1 2.2.2 Roadway/Intersection Characteristics ...... 3 2.2.3 Multi-Modal Transportation Network ...... 3 2.2.4 Crash Characteristics...... 6 2.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ...... 6 2.3.1 Level of Service and Queuing ...... 6 2.4 PARKING ANALYSIS ...... 7 2.4.1 Existing Parking Utilization ...... 7 3.0 Proposed Development ...... 8 4.0 Future Conditions ...... 8 4.1 BACKGROUND GROWTH ...... 8 4.2 TRIP GENERATION ...... 9 4.3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT ...... 9 4.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS – WITHOUT CONVERSION ...... 13 4.5 CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES & TWO-WAY CONVERSION...... 13 4.6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS – WITH CONVERSION ...... 16 4.7 ACCESS ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON ...... 16 5.0 Conclusions ...... 18 Appendix A – Detailed Operations and Queueing Analysis ...... A
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 December 17, 2019 i Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location...... 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ...... 4 Figure 3. Multi-Modal Transportation Network ...... 5 Figure 4. Directional Distribution ...... 10 Figure 5. Year 2023 Conditions Without Conversion ...... 11 Figure 6. Year 2023 Conditions With Conversion ...... 12 Figure 7. Circulation Alternatives – Without Conversion ...... 14 Figure 8. Circulation Alternatives – With Conversion ...... 15 Figure 9: R1-2 & R1-2aP signs ...... 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria ...... 6 Table 2. Existing Intersection Operations Analysis ...... 7 Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates ...... 9 Table 4. Year 2023 Intersection Operations Analysis – Without Conversion ...... 13 Table 5. Year 2023 Intersection Operations Analysis – With Conversion ...... 16 Table 6. Access Alternatives Comparison Matrix ...... 17
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 December 17, 2019 ii Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
1.0 Introduction
Alliant Engineering has completed a traffic impact study (TIS) for a potential multi-family residential development located at 2940 Garfield Avenue in Minneapolis on the site of the existing Garfield Avenue Parking Lot (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to evaluate existing traffic operations within the study area, evaluate proposed development site access alternatives, and identify any potential traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network. The following provides the assumptions, analysis, and conclusions offered for consideration.
2.0 Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed residential development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection operations analysis.
2.1 Study Area Intersections The following intersections were evaluated for the study: • Lyndale Avenue & Mid-Block Alley (between Lake Street and 29th Street) • Lake Street & Mid-Block Alley (between Lyndale Avenue and Garfield Avenue) • Lake Street & Garfield Avenue • Lake Street & Harriet Avenue
2.2 Data Collection
2.2.1 Traffic Volumes To document existing conditions, intersection turning movement counts were collected by Alliant Engineering during the week of October 28, 2019 over the following time periods: • AM Peak Period: 7:00-9:00 a.m. • PM Peak Period: 4:00-6:00 p.m. Historical and current annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) via its Traffic Forecasting & Analysis website.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 1 December 17, 2019
E
E
E
E
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
E
E
E
E
V
V
V
V
A
A
A
A
D
E
T
H
L
L
E
C
I
E
I
A
I
R
R
F
D
R
R
D
N
A
L A
Y 200
H
A
L G
SCALE IN FEET
MIDTOWN MIDTOWN GREENWAY GREENWAY
PROJECT LOCATION
COUNTY 22
COUNTY
LAKE STREET 3 LAKE STREET
E
E
E
E
E
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
V
V
V
V
V
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
T
H
L
L
D
E
C
I
E
I
A
N
I
R
R
F
D
A
R
R
D
R
N
A
L
A
Y
G
H
A
L G
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 1 Project Location ALLIANT Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
2.2.2 Roadway/Intersection Characteristics Roadway/intersection characteristics within the study area (i.e. geometry, traffic controls, posted speed limits, and peak hour traffic volumes) were observed and are shown in Figure 2: Existing Conditions. During the October 2019 turning movement counts, the a.m. peak hour was observed to be 7:30-8:30 a.m. and the p.m. peak hour was observed to be 5:00-6:00 p.m. Within the study area, three roadways currently operate as one-ways. Harriet Avenue, one block east of the proposed development site, operates as a one-way in the northbound direction. To each side of Harriet Avenue, Garfield Avenue and Grand Avenue operate as one-ways in the southbound direction. All three roadways return to two-way traffic south of Lake Street. Each roadway is approximately 30 feet in width, currently providing one travel lane in addition to parking along both sides of the roadway. It should be noted that 28th Street to the north also operates as a one-way in the eastbound direction.
2.2.3 Multi-Modal Transportation Network
The proximity of the proposed development to the Lyndale Avenue/Lake Street intersection and the Midtown Greenway will provide residents/employees/guests with access to several alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, carsharing, bicycling, and transit (see Figure 3: Multi-Modal Transportation Network). The proposed development will provide abundant opportunities for walking, as sidewalks line all study area roadways. It should also be noted that an Hour Car is stationed one block south of the proposed development at the HUGE Improv Theater located near the Lyndale Avenue/31st Street intersection. Access to the Midtown Greenway bike path is located approximately one-quarter mile away from the proposed development on Bryant Avenue near 29th Street. The Midtown Greenway connects with paths around the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and the Southwest LRT Trail to the west, and with trails across the Mississippi River to the east. Future nearby bike facilities may include bike lanes along Bryant Avenue (west) or 31st Street (south) or development of a greenway such as the Pleasant Avenue Bike Boulevard (east). These potential improvements are currently identified within the City of Minneapolis Bikeways Master Plan. Located just east of the Lyndale Avenue/Lake Street intersection, the proposed development is ideally suited for transit access with Metro Transit offering several local and limited stop bus routes in the vicinity. These bus routes provide convenient connections to the Minneapolis central business district (CBD), Saint Paul CBD, and more. It should be noted that the existing Metro Transit local bus Route 21 running along Lake Street is expected to be replaced by the METRO B-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system no earlier than the year 2022.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 3 December 17, 2019 LEGEND
Approach Geometry
E
E
E
U U
U ## (##) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volume
N
N
N
E
E E
V Side-Street Stop Study Intersection
V
V
A
A
A
D
E Alley Study Intersection
H
L
L
C
E
I
A I
R Other Signalized Intersection
F
D
R
D
N
L A
Y ### Existing AADT Volumes
A
L G
One-Way Traffic Flow
MIDTOWN SPEED SPEED SPEED MIDTOWN GREENWAY LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT GREENWAY 30 30 30
LYNDALE AVENUE &
MID-BLOCK ALLEY
E
E
U
U
)
7
N
N
9
E
9
)
E
(
V
2
V
2
1
(
A
2
A
7
3
T
L T D
R 0 (0)* E
I N
L 0 (0) R
A
R
R
A
G
H
T
R
5
5
2
) COUNTY
0
5
(
1
) 22
7
5
7 (
COUNTY SPEED LAKE STREET 17,900 3 LAKE STREET LIMIT
30 0
Crash Totals, 2007-2017 (Rank) 0
3
,
4 1 Pedestrian: 24 crashes (1st)1
Bicycle: 15 crashes (T-2nd)2
Vehicle: 123 crashes (12th)2
)
)
5
)
9
)
8
9 1
1: City of Minneapolis Pedestrian Crash Study )
(
(
8
1
2
(
(
(
9
2: City of Minneapolis Vision Zero Crash Study 0
1
2
7 1
0 R 27 (72)
L L
R T R 3 (1) R T 510 (729) T 506 (742) T 529 (809) L 11 (21) L 0 (9)
(0) 0 L (663) 857 T (58) 32 L
(692) 877 T (23) 10 R (630) 817 T
L L
T
R
R
1 4
4
5
0
(5) 3 R
) )
1
1
)
6 2
)
3
)
( (
9
1
3
(
(
1 (
LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & MID-BLOCK ALLEY GARFIELD AVENUE HARRIET AVENUE
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
*A NOMINAL NUMBER OF MOTORISTS WERE OBSERVED MAKING PROHIBITED MANEUVERS DURING THE PEAK HOURS.
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 2 Existing Conditions ALLIANT
LEGEND
Bike Path
E
E
E
U U
U Metro Transit Route
N
N
N
E
E E
V Bus Stop
V
V
A
A
A
D
E
H
L
L
C
E
I
A
I
R
F
D
R
D
N
L
A
Y
A
L G
MIDTOWN MIDTOWN GREENWAY GREENWAY
COUNTY 22
Routes Served:
Local: 4
Ltd Stop: 113
COUNTY LAKE STREET 3 LAKE STREET
Routes Served: Routes Served:
Local: 21 Local: 21
Ltd Stop: 53
E
E
E
E
E
U
U
U
U
U
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
V
V
V
V
V
A
A
A
A
A
D
E
T
H
L
L
D
E
C
I
E
I
A
N
I
R
R
F
D A
Routes Served: R
R
D
R
N
A
L
A
Y
G
H
A L Local: 4 Routes Served: G Routes Served:
Routes Served: Local: 4 Local: 18
Ltd Stop: 113 Ltd Stop: 113 Ltd Stop: 113, 135
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 3 Multi-Modal Transportation Network ALLIANT Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
2.2.4 Crash Characteristics The City of Minneapolis Pedestrian Crash Study and Vision Zero Crash Study were reviewed to identify crash hotspots within the study area. Within the study area, only the Lyndale Avenue/ Lake Street intersection was identified as a crash hotspot. However, Lyndale Avenue/Lake Street ranked among the top 12 intersections for vehicle-pedestrian crashes (1st: 24 crashes), vehicle-bicycle crashes (Tied 2nd: 15 crashes), and vehicle only crashes (12th: 123 crashes).
2.3 Intersection Operations Analysis
An existing intersection operations analysis was completed to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared.
2.3.1 Level of Service and Queuing Operations analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A to F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. Table 1. Level of Service Criteria Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Signalized Unsignalized Level of Service Description Intersection Intersection A Free Flow: Low volumes and no delays. 0 - 10 0 - 10
B Stable Flow: Speeds restricted by travel conditions, minor delays. > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15
Stable Flow: Speeds and maneuverability closely controlled due to higher C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 volumes. Stable Flow: Speeds considerably affected by change in operating conditions. D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 High density traffic restricts maneuverability, volume near capacity. Unstable Flow: Low speeds, considerable delay, volume at or slightly over E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 capacity. Forced Flow: Very low speeds, volume exceed capacity, long delays with stop F > 80 > 50 and go traffic. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Edition, Transportation Research Board, Exhibits 18-4 & 19-1. The second component of an operations analysis is a study of vehicular queuing, or the lineup of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable LOS, but if queues from the intersection block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. The 95th percentile queue, or the length of queue with only a five percent probability of being exceeded during an analysis period, is considered the standard for design purposes. The intersection operations analysis was performed for each of the study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the study area roadway network using Synchro/SimTraffic software.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 6 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
Results of the existing intersection operations analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections currently operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulations. Detailed operations and queuing analysis results are presented in Appendix A. Table 2. Existing Intersection Operations Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Lyndale Avenue & Mid-Block Alley A / A 2.9 / 4.2 A / B 8.1 / 13.0 Lake Street & Mid-Block Alley A / A 1.3 / 1.6 A / D 1.5 / 27.9 Lake Street & Garfield Avenue A / B 0.8 / 11.3 A / B 1.7 / 12.0 Lake Street & Harriet Avenue A / C 1.5 / 17.4 A / A 1.5 / 9.8 Overall Intersection LOS / Worst Approach LOS Overall Intersection Delay / Worst Approach Delay
2.4 Parking Analysis The proposed development is located on the site of the existing Garfield Avenue Parking Lot, which currently provides 114 regulated stalls for public daily parking.
2.4.1 Existing Parking Utilization Parking utilization, as documented in the Lyn-Lake Parking Study (Stantec, January 2019), for the study area indicates the existing regulated Garfield Avenue Parking Lot (114 spaces) is underutilized relative to privately controlled (2,535 spaces) and on-street (988 spaces) parking locations. Even when adjacent on-street parking was almost 100 percent occupied the Garfield Avenue Parking Lot only reached 60 percent capacity during evening hours and was never more than 80 percent occupied. A review of documented parking observations would indicate that nearby parking facilities have sufficient remaining capacity on typical weekdays to absorb the parking demand to be displaced from the Garfield Avenue Parking Lot by the proposed development. However, the demand for free parking is already high during evening hours, especially on weekends, where additional displaced vehicles would likely cause further strain on the nearby on-street parking network. It should be noted that on-street parking along both sides of Garfield Avenue between 28th Street and Lake Street is well utilized throughout much of the day.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 7 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
3.0 Proposed Development
While no definitive timetable exists for construction of the proposed multifamily residential development, a year 2023 completion was chosen for the purpose of this study. The proposed development is expected to consist of 160 to 200 residential dwelling units. It should be noted that 200 units were analyzed in this study to provide a conservative evaluation of future conditions. It is anticipated that resident parking will be provided in an enclosed garage onsite. However, details on the number of parking stalls that will be made available in the garage are unknown at this time. Four potential vehicular access alternatives for the proposed development were considered: • Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and the existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street • Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue • Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street • Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue The existing development site currently allows pedestrian movements around its perimeter and through the Garfield Avenue Parking Lot. The proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on pedestrian circulation, as pedestrians will still be able to move around the site perimeter.
4.0 Future Conditions
To determine impacts associated with the proposed development, a traffic operations analysis was completed for year 2023 conditions.
4.1 Background Growth A review of historical AADT volumes along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street revealed a long-term declining trend in daily vehicular traffic. However, as is typical practice, a small annual background growth rate (0.25%) was applied to existing peak hour volumes to account for daily variability and provide conservative estimates of background traffic for the year 2023 conditions.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 8 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
4.2 Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates were developed for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as on a daily basis. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition was utilized to estimate the trip generation potential of the proposed development. A 50 percent modal reduction was applied to account for residents utilizing modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. This mode split is common for developments of similar context and is consistent with City goals. The resultant trip generation estimates shown in Table 3 indicate the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 34 a.m. peak hour trips, 43 p.m. peak hour trips, and 544 daily trips. Table 3. Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use1 AM Peak Hour2 Trips PM Peak Hour2 Trips Daily Trips Units Size (ITE Code) In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing: Dwelling 200 18 50 68 52 34 86 544 544 1,088 Mid-Rise (221) Units Modal Reduction: 50% (9) (25) (34) (26) (17) (43) (272) (272) (544)
Total Vehicle Trips 9 25 34 26 17 43 272 272 544
1. Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2. Peak Hour of adjacent roadway network
4.3 Directional Distribution and Trip Assignment
The distribution of site-generated trips was estimated based on existing traffic volumes/patterns and engineering judgement. The resultant directional distribution, shown in Figure 4: Directional Distribution, was applied to estimated site-generated trips to forecast year 2023 conditions. Site-generated trips were then assigned for two of the four potential access alternatives: • Without Conversion – Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and the existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street • With Conversion – Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue The resultant forecasts are shown in Figure 5: Year 2023 Conditions Without Conversion and Figure 6: Year 2023 Conditions With Conversion.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 9 December 17, 2019 LEGEND
XX% Distribution Percentage
Distribution Direction
26TH STREET
%
0 3
27TH STREET 27TH STREET
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
28TH STREET 28TH STREET
MIDTOWN MIDTOWN GREENWAY GREENWAY
COUNTY 22
COUNTY
25% LAKE STREET 3 20%
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
%
5 2
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 4 Directional Distribution ALLIANT
LEGEND
Approach Geometry
E
E U
U ## (##) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volume
N
N
E E
V Side-Street Stop Study Intersection
V
A
A
D
E Alley Study Intersection
L
L
E A
I Other Signalized Intersection
F
D
R
N A
Y ### Forecast AADT Volumes
L G
) One-Way Traffic Flow
5
(
1
R
SPEED SPEED SPEED MIDTOWN (10) 16 R LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT GREENWAY 30 30 30
GARFIELD AVENUE & SITE ACCESS
LYNDALE AVENUE &
MID-BLOCK ALLEY
E
E
)
U
U
7
0
N
N
0
E
1
)
E
(
V
6
V
9
1
(
A
2
A
7
5
T
L T
D
E
I
N
R
A
R
R
A
G
H
T
R
2
6
4
) COUNTY
0
8
(
1
) 22
0
7
7 (
COUNTY SPEED LAKE STREET 18,100 3 LAKE STREET LIMIT
30
0
5
4
,
4
1
)
)
)
)
0
2
2
3 9
2
) 2
(
(
(
1
4
(
(
6
2
4
8
3
1 1
2 R 27 (73)
L L
R T R 5 (6) R T 517 (741) T 513 (754) T 549 (831) L 11 (21) L 0 (9)
(9) 3 L (679) 877 T (59) 32 L
(699) 886 T (24) 11 R (640) 830 T
L L
T
R
R
1 4
4
5
0
(5) 3 R
) )
1
1
)
6 2
)
3
)
( (
9
1
3
(
(
1 (
LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & MID-BLOCK ALLEY GARFIELD AVENUE HARRIET AVENUE
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 5 Year 2023 Conditions Without Conversion ALLIANT
LEGEND
Approach Geometry
E
E U
U ## (##) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volume
N
N
E E
V Side-Street Stop Study Intersection
V
A
A
D
E Alley Study Intersection
L
L
E A
I Other Signalized Intersection
F
D
R
N A
Y ### Forecast AADT Volumes
L G
) One-Way Traffic Flow
8
(
3
R
SPEED SPEED SPEED MIDTOWN (2) 2 L LIMIT LIMIT LIMIT GREENWAY
(15) 23 R L
30 30 30
6
)
8
1 (
GARFIELD AVENUE & SITE ACCESS
LYNDALE AVENUE &
MID-BLOCK ALLEY
E
E
)
U
U
7
0
N
N
0
E
1
)
E
(
V
2
V
9
1
(
A
2
A
7
3
T
L T
D
E
I
N
R
A
R
R
A
G
H
T
R
2
5
4
) COUNTY
0
5
(
1
) 22
8
6
7 (
COUNTY SPEED LAKE STREET 18,100 3 LAKE STREET LIMIT
30
0
5
4
,
4
1
)
)
)
4
3
2
)
6
2
) 2
(
(
(
8
2
(
(
7
3
4
1
3
1 1
0 R 10 (15) R 27 (73)
L L
R T R 3 (1) R T 507 (726) T 513 (754) T 542 (795) L 11 (21) L 0 (9)
(0) 0 L (21) 14 L (59) 32 L
(712) 890 T (670) 866 T (639) 829 T
L L
T T
R R
1 4
0 4
5
0
(23) 10 R (5) 3 R
) )
1
)
1
)
6 2
0 )
) 3
( (
(
9
1
3
(
(
1 (
LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & LAKE STREET & MID-BLOCK ALLEY GARFIELD AVENUE HARRIET AVENUE
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 6 Year 2023 Conditions With Conversion ALLIANT
Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
4.4 Intersection Operations Analysis – Without Conversion Year 2023 conditions were analyzed to determine the near-term impacts of the proposed development. Results of the year 2023 intersection operations analysis, shown in Table 4, indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without modifications to the existing roadway network. Only moderate side-street delay was observed at the Lake Street Mid-Block Alley during the p.m. peak period in the traffic simulations. Detailed operations and queuing analysis results are presented in Appendix A. Table 4. Year 2023 Intersection Operations Analysis – Without Conversion AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Lyndale Avenue & Mid-Block Alley A / A 2.8 / 4.1 A / B 8.6 / 13.5 Lake Street & Mid-Block Alley A / B 1.5 / 14.8 A / E 2.2 / 38.7 Lake Street & Garfield Avenue A / B 0.9 / 12.0 A / B 2.0 / 13.4 Lake Street & Harriet Avenue A / C 1.3 / 16.1 A / B 1.5 / 13.2 Garfield Avenue & Site Access A / A 0.8 / 2.7 A / A 0.4 / 2.9 Overall Intersection LOS / Worst Approach LOS Overall Intersection Delay / Worst Approach Delay
4.5 Circulation Alternatives & Two-Way Conversion Under the existing roadway configuration, motorists can access the proposed development site at four locations: Lyndale Avenue/Mid-Block Alley, Lake Street/Mid-Block Alley, Lake Street/ Parking Lot Access, and Garfield Avenue/Parking Lot Access. The proposed development is expected to eliminate the existing Parking Lot Access along Lake Street. Furthermore, the proposed development may not be accessible via the mid-block alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street. If Garfield Avenue remains a one-way street in the southbound direction, motorists traveling to the proposed development would experience significant circulation issues, especially if alley access to the development site is eliminated. It should be noted that eastbound/westbound left-turn maneuvers at the Lyndale Avenue/Lake Street intersection are prohibited during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, further complicating circulation issues. Therefore, the potential conversion of Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street is being considered. Under this scenario, Harriet Avenue and Grand Avenue could remain as a one-way pair. Illustrations of anticipated traffic circulation within the study area, both with and without the proposed two-way conversion, are shown in Figure 7: Circulation Alternatives – Without Conversion and Figure 8: Circulation Alternatives – With Conversion, respectively.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 13 December 17, 2019 LEGEND
EB Access - Garfield Access Only
WB Access - Garfield Access Only 26TH STREET EB Access - Garfield & Alley Access
WB Access - Garfield & Alley Access
27TH STREET 27TH STREET
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
28TH STREET 28TH STREET
MIDTOWN MIDTOWN GREENWAY GREENWAY
COUNTY 22
COUNTY
LAKE STREET 3 LAKE STREET
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 7 Circulation Alternatives - Without Conversion ALLIANT LEGEND
EB Access - Garfield Access Only
WB Access - Garfield Access Only 26TH STREET EB Access - Garfield & Alley Access
WB Access - Garfield & Alley Access
27TH STREET 27TH STREET
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
28TH STREET 28TH STREET
MIDTOWN MIDTOWN GREENWAY GREENWAY
COUNTY 22
COUNTY
LAKE STREET 3 LAKE STREET
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
U
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
E
N
E
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
V
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y
T
D
E
T
T
H
R
X
N
L
L
D
E
C
I
N
E
U
A
I
A
A
N
I
F
R
A
B
S
R
F
D
A
L
S
R
Y
A
R
D
R
N
L
O
R
A
E
L
A
L
Y
G
L
C
I
B
H
A
L
G
P P
31ST STREET 31ST STREET
Garfield Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 8 Circulation Alternatives - With Conversion ALLIANT Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
4.6 Intersection Operations Analysis – With Conversion Year 2023 build conditions were analyzed to determine the near-term impacts of the proposed development with conversion of Garfield Avenue to two-way operation and eliminating alley access to the proposed development. Results of the year 2023 intersection operations analysis, shown in Table 5, indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the modified roadway network. In addition, no significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulations. In general, the proposed development and conversion of Garfield Avenue to two-way operation is expected to have minimal impact on study area traffic operations. Detailed operations and queuing analysis results are presented in Appendix A. Table 5. Year 2023 Intersection Operations Analysis – With Conversion AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Lyndale Avenue & Mid-Block Alley A / A 2.6 / 3.5 A / C 9.5 / 15.5 Lake Street & Mid-Block Alley A / B 1.4 / 13.1 A / D 1.5 / 28.1 Lake Street & Garfield Avenue A / B 1.1 / 12.0 A / C 2.2 / 15.9 Lake Street & Harriet Avenue A / B 1.2 / 13.6 A / B 1.6 / 12.5 Garfield Avenue & Site Access A / A 1.1 / 2.8 A / A 0.8 / 3.1 Overall Intersection LOS / Worst Approach LOS Overall Intersection Delay / Worst Approach Delay
4.7 Access Alternatives Comparison The pros and cons of alley access and one-way/two-way Garfield Avenue alternatives are summarized in Table 6. It should be noted that two-way operation on narrow roadways with on-street parking is common in the City of Minneapolis. In fact, Garfield Avenue south of Lake Street, also at approximately 30 feet of width, operates as a two-way with on-street parking allowed in each direction. On such roadways, vehicles traveling in opposite directions may have difficulty passing one another. However, Garfield Avenue between 28th Street and Lake Street has several driveways which would allow a vehicle traveling in one direction the opportunity to move aside to allow the vehicle traveling in the opposing direction to pass. Furthermore, no parking is allowed on the Garfield Avenue bridge over the Midtown Greenway, providing another opportunity for opposing vehicles to easily pass one another. Finally, a designated pullout could be added on one side of the street, in combination with the “Yield to Oncoming Traffic” signs shown in Figure 9, at strategic Figure 9: R1-2 & R1-2aP signs locations to allow opposing vehicles to easily pass one another.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 16 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
Table 6. Access Alternatives Comparison Matrix
One-Way (SB) Access along Garfield Avenue, Maintain Alley Access Description Pros Cons Under the one-way access alternative, • Maintains the existing roadway network, signing, and • Significant use of alleys could be expected to/from the southbound right-in/right-out access to striping. development site if alley access is maintained. the proposed development would be • Easier to navigate the narrow one-way roadway of • Maintaining alley access along the pedestrian heavy provided along Garfield Avenue, the Garfield Avenue. Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street allows for more potential existing roadway network and access to • No impacts to parking or traffic flow on narrow one-way conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at the the proposed development from the roadways with dense parking. alley/sidewalk interface. alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake • Maintained alley access improves inbound traffic • More turns from mid-block locations, possibly leading to Street would be maintained. circulation. an increase in rear-end type crashes. • Existing Lake Street alley is very narrow and would likely need to be converted to one-way traffic under heavier use. • Allowing access at multiple locations in an already tight and congested area.
One-Way (SB) Access along Garfield1. A pedestrian Avenue, at the crosswalkNo Alley presses Access the pedestrian push buttons, the vehicular beacon changes from a blank- Description Pros Cons Under the one-way access alternative, • Maintains the existing roadway network, signing, and • Significant traffic circulation, particularly when southbound right-in/right-out access to striping. approaching the development site inbound. the proposed development would be • Minimal conflicts at mid-block alley intersections. • Likely to increase turning maneuvers at the crash hotspot provided along Garfield Avenue and the • Easier to navigate the narrow one-way roadway of Lyndale Avenue/Lake Street intersection. existing roadway network would be Garfield Avenue. maintained. Alley access to the • No impacts to parking or traffic flow on narrow one-way proposed development site would not roadways with dense parking. be provided.
Two-Way Access along Garfield1. CurbA Avenue,pedestrian extensions atMaintain thecan crosswalk improve Alley thepresses safety Access the of pedestrian pedestrian pushcrossings buttons, by reducing the vehicular the pedestrian beacon changes crossing from distance, a blank - Description Pros Cons Under the two-way access alternative, • Improved traffic circulation • Modifies the existing roadway network, signing, and Garfield Avenue would be converted to • Opposing vehicles on the narrow one-way roadway of striping. a two-way street. Access to the Garfield Avenue could produce a traffic calming effect • Maintaining alley access along the pedestrian heavy proposed development would be resulting in lower vehicle speeds. Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street allows for more potential provided along Garfield Avenue and • Some use of alleys would be expected, reducing volumes conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at the from the alleys along Lyndale Avenue along the narrow two-way roadway of Garfield Avenue. alley/sidewalk interface. and Lake Street. • More difficult to navigate the narrow two-way roadway of Garfield Avenue, possibly leading to an increase in sideswipe and parked vehicle type crashes. • Allowing access at multiple locations in an already tight and congested area.
Two-Way Access along Garfield1. CurbA Avenue,pedestrian extensions atNo thecan Alley crosswalk improve Access thepresses safety the of pedestrian pedestrian pushcrossings buttons, by reducing the vehicular the pedestrian beacon changes crossing from distance, a blank - Description Pros Cons Under the two-way access alternative, • Improved traffic circulation • Modifies the existing roadway network, signing, and Garfield Avenue would be converted to • Minimal conflicts at mid-block alley intersections. striping. a two-way street. Access to the • Opposing vehicles on the narrow one-way roadway of • More difficult to navigate the narrow two-way roadway of proposed development would be Garfield Avenue could produce a traffic calming effect Garfield Avenue, possibly leading to an increase in provided along Garfield Avenue. Alley resulting in lower vehicle speeds. sideswipe and parked vehicle type crashes. access to the proposed development site would not be provided.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 17 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
5.0 Conclusions
The following study conclusions are offered for consideration: • Results of the existing intersection operations analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, no significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulations. • The proposed development, to be located on the site of the existing Garfield Avenue Parking Lot, is expected to consist of up to 200 residential dwelling units. o It is anticipated that resident parking will be provided in an enclosed garage onsite. However, details on the number of parking stalls that will be made available in the garage are unknown at this time. ▪ A review of parking observations documented in the Lyn-Lake Parking Study (Stantec, January 2019), indicate that nearby parking facilities have sufficient remaining capacity on typical weekdays to absorb the parking demand to be displaced from the Garfield Avenue Parking Lot by the proposed development. However, the demand for free parking is already high during evening hours, especially on weekends, where additional displaced vehicles would likely cause further strain on the nearby on-street parking network. It should be noted that on-street parking along both sides of Garfield Avenue between 28th Street and Lake Street is well utilized throughout much of the day. o Four potential vehicular access alternatives for the proposed development were considered: ▪ Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and the existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street ▪ Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue ▪ Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and the existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street ▪ Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue o The proposed development is expected to generate approximately 34 a.m. peak hour trips, 43 p.m. peak hour trips, and 544 daily trips. These estimates include a 50 percent modal reduction to account for residents utilizing modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. Site-generated trips were assigned for two of the four potential access alternatives: ▪ Without Conversion – Maintain the existing roadway network, provide access to/from Garfield Avenue and the existing alleys along Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street ▪ With Conversion – Convert Garfield Avenue to a two-way street between 28th Street and Lake Street, provide access only to/from Garfield Avenue
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 18 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
• Results of the year 2023 intersection operations analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without modifications to the existing roadway network. Only moderate side-street delay was observed at the Lake Street Mid-Block Alley during the p.m. peak period in the traffic simulations. • Results of the year 2023 intersection operations analysis indicate that all study intersections are expected to operate at overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the modified roadway network. In addition, no significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the traffic simulations. In general, the proposed development and conversion of Garfield Avenue to two-way operation is expected to have minimal impact on study area traffic operations. • The pros and cons of alley access and one-way/two-way Garfield Avenue alternatives are summarized in Table 6. Additional considerations for the conversion of Garfield Avenue to a two-way street are documented in Section 4.7: Access Alternatives Comparison.
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 19 December 17, 2019 Traffic Impact Study Garfield Parking Lot
Appendix A – Detailed Operations and Queueing Analysis
Alliant No. 119-0198.0 A1
Existing Year 2019 Conditions - AM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 1.8 1.4 11.3 3.9 0.0 2.7 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A B A A A Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 53 65 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 6.6 1.8 3.9 Approach LOS AAAA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 1.3 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A D A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 6 6 0 0 45 51 0 0 0 11 0 11 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.1 1.5 0.0 30.2 Approach LOS AAA D
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.8 0.5 0.0 9.8 0.0 7.5 14.2 20.0 5.0 0.7 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A B C A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 4 4 21 15 0 15 0 32 50 50 47 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.3 0.6 7.7 9.2 Approach LOS AAAA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 3.8 1.1 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.8 19.1 20.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C A A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 39 25 10 10 6 2 47 47 27 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.2 1.0 17.0 0.0 Approach LOS AACA
Existing Year 2019 Conditions - PM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.8 1.7 21.1 22.8 0.0 13.7 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A C C A B Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 35 37 424 433 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 6.0 1.8 22.8 Approach LOS AAAC
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 0.0 12.9 1.3 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A E A B A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 7 7 0 0 44 55 0 0 0 31 0 31 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.0 1.4 0.0 17.9 Approach LOS AAAC
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.4 0.1 7.6 1.1 0.0 13.9 0.0 5.5 18.3 21.1 10.2 1.8 Movement LOS A A A A A A B A A C C B A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 22 15 65 53 0 24 0 32 91 91 53 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.4 1.3 8.1 13.1 Approach LOS AAAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 6.6 0.9 0.4 5.3 1.5 1.1 16.4 22.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C A A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 64 37 10 30 22 14 44 44 37 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.3 1.5 13.8 0.0 Approach LOS AABA Year 2023 Conditions - Without Conversion - AM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 10.7 4.0 0.0 2.8 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A B A A A Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 55 64 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.1 Approach LOS AA AA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 4.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 15.1 1.5 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A B A C A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 23 19 0 0 56 63 0 0 0 28 0 28 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.2 1.8 0.0 14.8 Approach LOS A AAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.9 0.5 0.0 16.5 0.0 5.5 18.4 20.7 6.8 0.9 Movement LOS A A A A A A C A A C C A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 6 7 20 12 0 10 0 30 58 58 49 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.3 0.6 6.6 12.0 Approach LOS AAAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 4.6 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.6 18.9 17.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Movement LOS A A A A A A C C B A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 46 33 20 0 0 0 48 48 24 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.1 1.0 16.1 0.0 Approach LOS AACA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A Garfield Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Access Approach Delay (sec/veh) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS AAAA
Year 2023 Conditions - Without Conversion - PM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 16.4 13.5 0.0 8.6 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A C B A A Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 56 271 285 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 2.0 13.5 Approach LOS AA AB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 26.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 35.3 2.2 Movement LOS D A A A A A A A A E A E A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 70 62 0 0 59 71 0 0 0 51 0 51 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 2.1 1.6 0.0 38.7 Approach LOS A AAE
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.4 0.2 7.9 1.2 0.0 14.4 0.0 5.4 20.3 17.3 11.0 2.0 Movement LOS A A A A A A B A A C C B A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 21 16 65 52 0 24 0 36 105 105 53 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.4 1.4 7.9 13.4 Approach LOS AAAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 6.5 0.8 0.6 5.9 1.5 1.1 25.8 20.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Movement LOS A A A A A A D C A A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 67 39 11 33 18 3 39 39 34 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.2 1.5 13.2 0.0 Approach LOS AABA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A Garfield Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Access Approach Delay (sec/veh) 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS AAAA Year 2023 Conditions - With Conversion - AM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 9.9 3.5 0.0 2.6 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 53 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 Approach LOS AA AA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 1.4 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A B A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 9 9 0 0 52 55 0 0 0 10 0 10 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.2 1.6 0.0 13.1 Approach LOS A AAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 2.3 0.4 0.1 7.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.2 17.3 19.8 7.0 1.1 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A C C A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 25 23 21 28 22 15 10 10 30 63 63 48 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.4 0.8 7.2 12.0 Approach LOS AAAB
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 4.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.8 13.0 17.4 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Movement LOS A A A A A A B C A A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 42 28 14 0 2 2 37 37 25 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.1 1.0 13.6 0.0 Approach LOS AABA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 3.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.1 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A Garfield Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Access Approach Delay (sec/veh) 2.8 0.0 0.5 0.2 Approach LOS AAAA
Year 2023 Conditions - With Conversion - PM Peak Hour Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.4 17.3 15.5 0.0 9.5 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A C C A A Lyndale Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 45 313 327 0 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.0 1.8 15.5 Approach LOS AA AC
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6 0.0 26.3 1.5 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A E A D A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 5 6 0 0 53 60 0 0 0 36 0 36 Mid-Block Alley Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.1 1.5 0.0 28.1 Approach LOS A AAD
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 8.5 0.8 0.3 8.3 1.3 1.0 14.9 0.0 4.9 20.5 21.5 11.8 2.2 Movement LOS A A A A A A B A A C C B A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 69 55 40 73 65 56 29 29 36 90 90 54 Garfield Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.0 1.5 8.4 15.9 Approach LOS AAAC
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 7.0 1.0 0.3 4.8 1.5 1.1 11.6 22.8 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Movement LOS A A A A A A B C A A A A A Lake Street & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 70 42 14 21 16 11 37 37 35 0 0 0 Harriet Avenue Approach Delay (sec/veh) 1.5 1.5 12.5 0.0 Approach LOS AABA
Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection Intersection MOE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Total Movement Delay (sec/veh) 5.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.8 Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A Garfield Avenue & Movement 95th Queue (ft) 36 0 36 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 Site Access Approach Delay (sec/veh) 3.1 0.0 1.4 0.2 Approach LOS AAAA