JONES BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Booz Allen Hamilton with JPL Engineering
Las Vegas, Nevada November 19, 2009
This report is confidential and intended solely for the use and information of the company to whom it is addressed.
Table of Contents Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 ES.1 Data Collection ...... 1 ES.2 Corridor Improvement Plan ...... 3 ES.3 Cost Estimation ...... 6 1.0 DATA COLLECTION ...... 9 1.1 Overview...... 9 1.2 Collection of Corridor Geometrics ...... 11 1.3 Land Use ...... 12 1.4 Population and Employment ...... 21 1.5 Traffic Demand and Forecasts ...... 22 1.6 Transit Supply & Demand ...... 26 1.7 Safety ...... 28 1.8 Previous Studies ...... 30 2.0 ROAD GEOMETRICS ...... 33 2.1 Overview...... 33 2.2 Desert Inn to Edna Avenue ...... 34 2.3 Edna Avenue to Sahara Avenue ...... 37 2.4 Sahara Avenue to Oakey Boulevard ...... 40 2.5 Oakey Boulevard to Charleston Road ...... 44 2.6 Charleston Road to Alta Drive ...... 47 2.7 Alta Drive to US 95 ...... 50 3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS ...... 57 3.1 Overview...... 57 3.2 Signal Timing...... 58 3.3 Access Control to Sections of Jones Boulevard ...... 64 3.4 Emergency Response ...... 67 3.5 One-Way Preference Couplets ...... 68 3.6 Analysis of Corridor Safety ...... 76 4.0 ROLE OF TRANSIT ...... 79 4.1 Overview...... 79 4.2 Current Transit Provision ...... 80 4.3 Transit Demand and Forecasts ...... 87 4.4 Neighborhood/Business Concerns ...... 91 4.5 Capital and Operational Improvements ...... 92 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...... 99 5.1 Overview...... 99 5.2 Generation of Alternatives ...... 100 5.3 Screening Methodology ...... 103
i Table of Contents Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.4 Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 104 5.5 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ...... 113 6.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LAYOUTS & PLANS ...... 117 6.1 Overview...... 117 6.2 Jones Corridor Plan Views...... 118 6.3 Presentation of Conceptual Design Layouts and Plans ...... 122 6.4 Conclusion...... 160 7.0 COST ESTIMATE ...... 163 7.1 Overview...... 163 7.2 Cost Data and Cost Model ...... 164 7.3 General Model Assumptions ...... 166 7.4 Corridor Improvement Cost Estimates ...... 168 7.5 Total Cost of Improvements ...... 177 7.6 Operating Costs ...... 178 8.0 CONCLUSION ...... 181 8.1 Implementation Context ...... 181 8.2 Implementation Strategy ...... 182 8.3 Proposed Improvements’ Benefits & Remaining Challenges...... 183 8.4 Final Remarks ...... 185 APPENDIX A – TURN COUNT DATA ...... 187 APPENDIX B – INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS...... 188 APPENDIX C – COMPLETE CORRIDOR PLAN VIEWS ...... 189
ii Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jones Boulevard Corridor Study has been a part of an ongoing effort by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) to evaluate major arterials in metropolitan Las Vegas. The purpose of the Jones Boulevard Corridor Study and of this final report is to propose a select set of improvements which would best enhance the transportation system’s performance in the Study Area over the next 20 years and beyond, while taking into account probable project constraints. This report is the final product of a yearlong study by the Consultant Team – Booz Allen Hamilton with JPL Engineering – in collaboration with the Technical Working Group (TWG) which included representatives from the RTC, Clark County Public Works, the City of Las Vegas Public Works, and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).
Exhibit ES.1 – Jones Boulevard Corridor Study Area Jones Blvd Corridor
ES.1 DATA COLLECTION
An extensive data collection formed the basis of the study analysis, the development of a set of alternatives, and the selection of a final alternative. The data collection process included the review of corridor geometrics, city and county planning maps and data, traffic data from NDOT and the City of Las Vegas, public services along the corridor including 1 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
health and education, area transit service, stakeholder outreach, and consultation with engineers and planners in the TWG and their agencies. The TWG met five times between January and September 2009 to guide the process at key points and to review and to comment on deliverables. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 detail the data collection process.
ES.1.1 Key Findings
Some of the most important findings of the data analysis focused on high congestion and on the concern and the desire of stakeholders to improve safety along the corridor. The following points highlight the most acute problems facing the Study Area. Chapter 3 provides the full data analysis.
FAST Operations data show the lowest average speeds and the highest traffic volumes between Charleston Boulevard and Desert Inn Road. Southbound on Jones between Oakey and Sahara, the average afternoon rush hour speed drops to 20 miles per hour on the two lanes. Northbound, the average afternoon rush hour speed drops to under 15 miles per hour between Edna and Sahara because of queuing at the Sahara intersection.
The corridor experiences the heaviest traffic between 3 PM and 6 PM. Although data indicate northbound traffic is slightly heavier, the difference is not sufficient to conclude drivers favor any one direction. Also, most traffic flows southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening, an effect amplified in the corridor’s northern segment.
Intersections are key bottlenecks. Members of all agencies cited queuing problems on Jones at the Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue intersections. Furthermore, turn count data reveals that a high percentage of traffic enters and leaves Jones at these intersections, particularly at Charleston where the afternoon peak turning movements account for 22 southbound percent and 33 percent northbound.
An informal outreach effort by staff at Public Works at the City of Las Vegas raised the issue of turning safety as an important issue to stakeholders in the area. NDOT accident data corroborated stakeholder concerns, showing 40% of crashes linked to turning and 27% involving a vehicle making a left turn. Also, bus passengers worried about their safety waiting at bus stops so close to the curb on a major arterial.
Finally, as discussed in Chapter 4, RTC’s forecasting projects ridership on Route 102: Jones will remain flat. Eventually, much of the ridership will be diverted to new bus services providing more direct services to employment centers. While the bus has a healthy ridership, RTC is not anticipating the need for investment in transit capacity.
These findings indicate the major points that the development of alternatives must address. The primary goal is to improve traffic flow on Jones Boulevard by eliminating key bottlenecks and increasing capacity, with a focus on major intersections and on the roadway 2 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study segment between Charleston and Sahara. The other goals are to improve safety on the corridor and to better integrate Jones with the major east-west corridors of US 95, Charleston, Sahara, and Desert Inn.
ES.2 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Based on the available data and TWG and stakeholder input, the Consultant Team developed four basic alternatives. The May 2009 TWG was a watershed meeting where the main corridor-wide alternatives were reduced to one. The preliminary set of alternatives developed based on the data analysis included four main options presented in Chapter 5. The TWG selected a final hybrid alternative based on three of those preliminary alternatives. Chapter 5 also describes the alternative review, selection, and refinement process.
Exhibit ES.2 – Road Widening and Shoulder Conversion to Increase Capacity
For the selected alternative, the corridor improvement plan consists of three main strategies. The first strategy, shown in Exhibit ES.2, is to use road widening and shoulder conversion to increase capacity. In this case, unused right-of-way and shoulder areas are converted to traffic lanes. On the segment from Charleston Boulevard to Sahara Avenue, the proposed improvements would implement the same configuration as exists on Jones between Sahara and Desert Inn Road: as the red arrows in the figure above indicate, the proposed improvements would add one additional lane in each direction. Between Charleston and the southbound US 95, the proposed improvements would only add one additional southbound lane to Jones, leveraging unused right-of-way. The 80 foot wide
3 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study right-of-way only allows one additional lane while preserving the existing center turn lane which provides access to driveways on Jones.
Based on peak flows between Desert Inn and Sahara, the additional lanes will raise Jones Boulevard’s capacity by close to one third, allow more vehicles to use the corridor, and increase average speeds during rush hour. In the long term, the extra capacity will help accommodate expected infill growth along the corridor in the Study Area. The TWG determined that, since planned improvements on Valley View Boulevard will provide preferential flow for northbound traffic with an extra northbound lane, Jones could provide a functional complement and emphasize southbound flow. Although the two arterials are nearly two miles apart, the study team expects these two arterials to function in part as a preferential couplet over time. The two roads are adjacent exits off of US 95, the primary travel artery in west Las Vegas.
Since the Consultant Team identified major intersections as major bottlenecks impeding peak hour flow on Jones, the second main strategy of the proposed corridor improvement plan is to increase capacity at target intersections. At Upland, Charleston, Sahara and Desert Inn, the proposed improvements would require right-of-way acquisition to add sufficient through lanes and bus turnouts while maintaining dedicated right and left turn lanes. The figure below shows the location of the proposed intersection improvements – the buses represent bus turnouts and the turn signs represent intersections.
Exhibit ES.3 – Bus Turnouts and Intersection Improvements to Increase Capacity
4 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Dedicated turn lanes reduce queuing behind the substantial turn traffic. Bus turnouts will keep buses from backing up traffic once the shoulder areas have been converted to traffic lanes. Higher intersection capacity will help avert backups at these major intersections, especially Sahara, and will ensure the utility of the additional traffic lanes constructed under the first main strategy. The improvements at the Upland intersection will improve flow from the southbound US 95 off ramp and the highways connectivity to the commercial centers further south on Jones.
The final strategy of the corridor improvement plan is to address stakeholder concerns about roadway safety in the Study Area. The five proposed bus turnouts address the safety concerns related waiting and boarding at bus stops. Additionally, the Consultant Team proposes lengthening left turn pockets at ten locations to provide drivers with a longer stopping distance to reduce collisions. The figure below shows the location of the proposed improvements.
Exhibit ES.4 – Left Pocket Extensions to Improve Corridor Safety
The proposed corridor improvements provide a feasible approach to address the most pressing issues identified in the data collection and analysis phases. For presentation purposes to ensure clarity, the three primary strategies are broken into seven plan elements detailed in the conceptual layouts and plans in Chapter 6. The following table describes a
5 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study scenario for a reasonable implementation timeline for each for these seven proposed plan elements for the Jones corridor. The northern corridor segment lies between Upland and Charleston. The central corridor segment of Jones Boulevard lies between Charleston and Sahara.
Exhibit ES.5 – General Timeline for Implementation of Proposed Corridor Improvement Elements Feasible Timeline Proposed Plan Element Short Term Medium Term Long Term (1-2 years) (2-5 years) (5-10 years)
Northern Segment Widening Central Segment Shoulder Conversion Upland Intersection Improvements Charleston Intersection Improvements Sahara Intersection Improvements Bus Turnout Construction Left Turn Pocket Extensions
The precise implementation timeline depends heavily on regional revenue generation and the budgeting priority process. However, if in the short term funds become available, left turn pocket extensions could be implemented at any time because of minimal planning and engineering required. The central Study Area improvements should coincide with intersection capacity improvements to ensure their utility, and these plan elements could be feasible in the medium term. However, they are more likely in the long-term because of the right-of-way acquisition required. The northern Study Area widening requires the most intensive construction and is probably feasible only in the long-term.
ES.3 COST ESTIMATION
In Chapter 7, this report develops construction cost estimates for each of the seven plan elements. Local and industry design standards as well as data on similar construction projects helped determine work items and unit quantities. The final unit cost estimates are the product of a weighted average based on regional and quality adjustments and are in 2009 dollars. For the estimation, the Consultant Team depended primarily on local construction cost data from the Las Vegas metropolitan area supplemented by regional data and additional national data to ensure at least three data points for each cost item. The table in Exhibit ES.6 below presents the total cost for each of the seven proposed plan elements.
6 Executive Summary Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit ES.6 – Total Estimated Construction Cost of Each Proposed Plan Element ROW Acquisition Percent Proposed Improvement Total Cost Share of Item Cost Total Costs Northern Study Area Widening & Restriping 0% $2,623,000 32% Central Study Area Shoulder Conversion 0% $668,000 8% Upland Intersection Improvements 0% $190,000 2% Charleston Intersection Improvements 43% $1,541,000 19% Sahara Intersection Improvements 29% $1,395,000 17% Bus Turnouts Construction 52% $1,227,000 15% Left Turn Lane Extensions 0% $532,000 7% Total Cost of Proposed Improvements 21% $8,176,000 100%
The estimated costs include a 20 percent contingency and 15 percent for agency design, engineering, and management costs. Right-of-way acquisition costs are the most variable and uncertain element, so the table provides the share of these costs in each plan element separately. The proposed improvements would impose an additional operating cost of approximately $16,000 per year, primarily in repaving costs.
7 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.0 DATA COLLECTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of the Jones Boulevard corridor study is to evaluate potential roadway improvements that will accommodate expected growth in travel demand on the Jones Boulevard corridor. This chapter provides a summary of the available data sources. Exhibit 1.1 shows the study area: Corridor: Jones Boulevard between US 95 and Desert Inn Road (DI). Length of about 3 miles.
Major Parallel Arterials: Rainbow Blvd, Torrey Pines Dr, Lindell Rd, Decatur Blvd, Arville St.
Major Crossing Arterials: US 95, Alta Dr, Charleston Blvd, Oakey Blvd, Sahara Ave, Edna Ave, Desert Inn Rd
Major Intersections: Jones Blvd at US 95 (on- & off-ramps), Jones Blvd at Alta Dr, Jones Blvd at Charleston Blvd, Jones Blvd at Oakey Blvd, Jones Blvd at Sahara Ave, Jones Blvd at Edna Ave, Jones Blvd at Desert Inn Rd.
Exhibit 1.1: Study Area Jones Blvd Corridor
9 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Following the project kick-off meeting held on November 25 2008, the study team began collecting and analyzing data in order to help define potential transportation improvements in future project tasks. Exhibit 1.2 summarizes the data that were collected, grouped into the following categories: Corridor Geometrics; Land Use; Population and Employment; Traffic Demand and Forecasts; Transit Supply and Demand; Safety; and Previous Studies.
Exhibit 1.2: Data Collected
Received Item Category Data Item From Corridor Engineering drawings of right-of-way and roadway Clark 1 Geometrics geometrics, with aerial survey maps (see Chapter 2) County Relevant local land use plans and documents, City of 2 Land Use including base & proposed zoning Las Vegas Clark 3 Land Use Planned land use and zoning maps and layers. County Population & Socioeconomic data: population and employment 4 RTC Employment through 2030 Traffic Demand Existing traffic counts on Jones Blvd, major 5 NDOT & Forecasts intersections, and neighboring arterials Traffic Demand Existing turn counts for major intersections on Jones City of 6 & Forecasts Blvd Las Vegas Traffic Demand Future projected traffic demand on Jones Blvd, major 7 RTC & Forecasts intersections, and neighboring arterials Transit Supply Transit ridership on Jones Blvd and neighboring 8 RTC & Demand arterials, including average ons/offs by stop Annual vehicle crash data for Jones Blvd, major 9 Safety NDOT intersections, and neighboring arterials by type Previous RTC's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (November 10 RTC Studies 2008) Previous 11 Sahara Avenue Corridor Study (October 2007) RTC Studies Previous 12 Tropicana Avenue Corridor Study (March 2008) RTC Studies Previous 13 Flamingo Road Corridor Study (May 2008) RTC Studies Previous 14 Valley View Boulevard Corridor Study (May 2009) RTC Studies
The remainder of this chapter describes these items in more detail.
10 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.2 COLLECTION OF CORRIDOR GEOMETRICS
Corridor geometric data were gathered in three phases: Phase I collected record drawings for land development projects (private sector) and public works project along the corridor. Phase II obtained ROW data in CADD format, and Phase III was the field investigation and intersection specific survey. All three phases have been completed.
Record drawings were gathered from each of the participating entities by research in the respective plan rooms. Jones from Desert Inn to Sahara is within Clark County’s jurisdiction and Jones from Sahara to US 95 is within the jurisdiction of the City of Las Vegas. The Jones Boulevard – or State Route 596 – is owned by the Nevada Department of Transportation, the agency responsible for maintenance on most of its length. Clark County has provided both land development and public works record drawings and the City of Las Vegas has provided information on land development. The City of Las Vegas Public Works Department has indicated that there has been no major Public Works project within their jurisdictions for the last five years. The major public works within the Corridor that were identified are:
Traffic Signal Systems Jones and Edna, 1998 and Desert Inn and Jones, 1984 SID 24 Jones Boulevard Spring Mountain to Charleston, 1980.
There have been an assortment of land development projects throughout the corridor, most of which matched the existing geometrics of Jones Boulevard or included improvements on minor intersections. For instance the Oracle Business Park development at the Jones/O’Bannon intersection tied the existing Jones Boulevard into the half street improvement on O’Bannon Drive.
Record Drawings were collected in electronic format (.TIF or .PDF). Street center line data and ROW data have been obtained in GIS format and converted to AutoCAD.
11 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.3 LAND USE
To examine corridor land uses, the Jones Boulevard study area can be broken into two segments:
The area South of Sahara (Desert Inn Road to Sahara Avenue) is Clark County land – this part of the County is known as Spring Valley. From Desert Inn Road to Sahara Avenue, Jones Boulevard is a Primary Arterial (100 ft).
The area North of Sahara (Sahara Avenue to US 95) is part of the City of Las Vegas. From Sahara to Charleston, Jones Boulevard is a Primary Arterial (100 ft); from Charleston to US95, Jones is a collector (80 ft).
The Study Area is not included in any Redevelopment Area of the City of Las Vegas.
1.3.1 Southern Area – Spring Valley Portion
Clark County’s detailed land use map was adopted in November 2004 and last amended in July 2007. The URL for the map can found at: http://gisgate.co.clark.nv.us/gisplot_pdfs/cp/spvplu.pdf
Clark County did not report any land use changes since the last amendment. This southern portion of the study area, which extends approximately 1.25 miles, is mainly commercial and office professional, as illustrated in the map on the following page.
At the Desert Inn Road and Sahara intersections, the land use is designated general commercial or commercial neighborhood (these areas are shown in red and dark pink). General commercial allows retail, service, wholesale office and general business of fairly “intense” commercial nature.
The middle part of this portion is all office professional (light pink). Finally, a series of public facilities is located in the southern part of the corridor, about ¼ mile North of Desert Inn (these are shown in green).
The map also highlights some small parcels of Clark County land east of the corridor and north of Sahara. A community district is also identified.
12 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.3: Land Use – Clark County “Valley View” Portion of Jones Blvd
Charleston Boulevard
Sahara Avenue
Desert Inn Road
13 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Clark County Land Use Legend
1.3.2 Northern Area – City of Las Vegas Portion
To the North of Sahara Avenue, we enter the City of Las Vegas portion (Jones is at the intersection of the City’s Southwest and Southeast sectors). Relevant City of Las Vegas planning documents include:
Master Plan 2020 Policy Document (July 2000), http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/LV2020MasterPlan.pdf
Southwest Sector Zoning (Revised October 1, 2008), http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/southwestsectorzoning.pdf
Southeast Sector Zoning (Revised October 1, 2008), http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/southeastsectorzoning.pdf
No specific smaller scale land use plans were identified.
14 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The last revision to the Southwest Sector land use sector is very recent and no changes have been reported.
Exhibit 1.4: Southwest Sector Map Showing Land Use along Jones
US 95 Southeast Sector
Charleston Boulevard County
Sahara Avenue
The Northwest corner of Jones and Sahara is zoned as Service Commercial and is currently occupied by a Taco Bell. Service Commercial allows low to medium intensity retail, office and other commercial uses that serve primarily local area patrons.
The area just south of Oakey Boulevard, on the West side of Jones, features Office and some medium density housing (25 dwelling units per gross acre).
Almost the entirety of the block North of Oakey, on the West side of Jones, is a public facility. This is the Rawson-Meal Psychiatric Hospital.
15 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Clark County Land Use Legend
16 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.5: Southeastern Sector Showing Land Use along Jones Blvd
US 95
Charleston Boulevard Oakey Boulevard
Sahara Avenue
On the East side of Jones Boulevard between Sahara Avenue and Charleston Boulevard, the land use is mainly Service Commercial (Pink). A small park is located just on the corner of Oakey Boulevard.
The land use changes markedly North of Charleston Boulevard. The area is mostly residential. The Western side of the corridor is almost entirely Low Density Housing units (up to 5.5 dwelling units per acre). The Eastern side of the corridor alternates between
17 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Service Commercial and Low Density Housing. The graphic that follows presents a detailed view of this part of the corridor.
Exhibit 1.6: Southeastern Sector Showing Land Use along Jones Boulevard (Detailed View)
US 95
Numerous small service commercial lots interspersed with low density housing units Alta Drive
Charleston Boulevard
18 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.3.3 Important Corridor Land Uses & Facilities
Summary of Community Facilities along Corridor
Name Address Fire Stations State Fire Marshall (not a station) 2855 S. Jones Blvd. Police Stations Las Vegas Metro Police 401 S. 4th Street Parks Dexter Park 800 Upland Blvd. Medical Facilities Red Rock Medical Center 5701 W. Charleston American Surgery Center 2575 Lindell Rd. Spring Mountain Treatment Center 5460 W. Sahara Kindred Hospital 5110 W. Sahara Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital 1650 Community College Drive (Oakey and Jones) Libraries West Charleston Library 6301 W. Charleston Schools Odyssey Charter School 2251 S. Jones Blvd. Elaine Wynn Elementary 5655 Edna Ave. Red Rock Elementary 408 Upland Blvd. Warren Elementary 6451 Brandy Wine Way Vegas Verdes Elementary 4000 El Parque Ave. Hancock Elementary 1661 Lindell Road Adcock O.K. Elementary 100 Newcomer St. C Owen Roundy Elementary 2755 Mohawk St. Elaine Wynn Elementary 5655 Edna Ave. Griffith Elementary 324 Essex East Drive Las Vegas Day School 3275 Red Rock St. (Desert Inn and Jones) Cornerstone Christian Academy 5825 Eldora Ave. Garside Jr. High School 300 S. Torrey Pines Cumorah Academy 6000 West Oakey Bonanza High School 6665 Del Rey Ave. Community College of Southern Nevada 6375 West Charleston Community Centers Mirabelli Community Center 6200 Hargrove Ave. Howard Lieburn Senior Center 6230 Garwood Ave. Child and Adult Sexual Assault 6375 W. Charleston Desert Willow Treatment Center 6171 W. Charleston Other Nevada Power 6770 W. Sahara (Jones and Sahara)
Home Owners Associations (HOAs) Name Location Charleston Preservation NA, #10, #11 Jones and Charleston (West side of Jones, North of Charleston) Upland Alta NA East of Jones between Evergreen and Alta
19 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Mixed Use Districts (MUD) Summary According to the Clark County mixed use districts map, there are no MUDs within the Jones Corridor.
Transit Oriented Development The City wide 2020 Master Plan lays out potential locations for future transit oriented development (TOD) nodes, as well as potential future mixed-used urban hubs. Three such locations are identified for Jones Boulevard:
Jones Blvd and US 95 is a potential future mixed-use urban hub.
Jones Blvd and Charleston Ave, and Jones Blvd and Sahara Ave, are both identified as potential future Transit-Oriented Development centers.
Exhibit 1.7: Potential Future Urban Hubs of Transit-Oriented Development and Mixed Use Development
Source: Las Vegas Master Plan 2020, City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Dept. 20 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
On January 8 2009, RTC provided population and employment projections for specified Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the Las Vegas region, including the Jones Blvd study area. The forecast years are 2013, 2020, and 2030. The projections are derived from the RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model, using year 2000 US Census data as base year data.
RTC also provided a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) shape file showing the TAZ locations and the size of each TAZ in square miles. From these data, projected population and employment densities were calculated at the TAZ level.
The Jones Corridor study area does not contain major origin-destination points. However its location between major employment hubs (Strip, downtown, and Summerlin) and proximity to US 95 and I-15 makes it regular commute shed as illustrated by the Exhibit below.
Exhibit 1.8: Study Area in Relation to Major Employment Hubs
Source: Las Vegas Master Plan 2020, City of Las Vegas Planning and Development Dept.
21 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.5 TRAFFIC DEMAND AND FORECASTS
1.5.1 Existing Traffic Counts
The NDOT 2007 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County provides Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimates at select count locations in the Las Vegas region, including Jones Blvd, parallel arterials, and crossing arterials. These data are collected by electronic sensors. The exhibit below shows the locations of these sensors in and adjacent to the study area, including preferential couplets. The numbers on the graphic identify sensor locations, not AADT.
Exhibit 1.9: Traffic Count Locations
Source: 2007 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
For each count location, the 2007 Annual Traffic Report provides AADT estimates from 1998 to 2007. Exhibit 1.10 shows an example of these data, including locations (0030)738 and (0030)739, which are both on Jones Blvd.
22 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.10: AADT Estimates by Count Location, 1998 – 2007
Source: 2007 Annual Traffic Report for Clark County, NDOT
Exhibit 1.11 provides an example of NDOT’s Traffic Information Access (TRINA) application on the NDOT website which provides bi-directional hourly traffic volume data at select count locations for select days in the year.
Exhibit 1.11: Average Vehicles per Hour on Jones at Edna Ave, Sept. 15 – 20, 2008
23 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application, NDOT
Exhibit 1.11 shows these data for the count location (030)738 on Jones Blvd just south of Edna Ave (between Desert Inn Rd and Sahara Ave).
Another important traffic demand data set is the peak hour turning movement counts conducted by the City of Las Vegas. The City provided the turn counts from July 2008 for Upland Boulevard, Alta Drive, Evergreen Avenue, Charleston Boulevard, Oakey Boulevard, Sahara Avenue, and Desert Inn Road. The counts include a peak morning hour and a peak evening hour in 15 minute increments. A summary of the data is available in Appendix A.
1.5.2 Future Traffic Demand
On December 15 2008, RTC provided bi-directional future AADT projections in the Jones Blvd study area for the following forecast years: 2013, 2020, and 2030. The projections are derived from the RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model. Exhibit 1.12 shows the AADT projections in the study area for the year 2030.
24 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.12: Study Area AADT Projections, Year 2030
Source: RTC 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model
On January 5 2009, for the same forecast years (2013, 2020, 2030), RTC also provided projected AM and PM peak hour volumes, travel times, and volume/capacity (V/C) ratios by roadway segment.
25 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.6 TRANSIT SUPPLY & DEMAND
On December 11 2008, RTC provided transit ridership on Jones Blvd and neighboring arterials, including average ons/offs by stop. Route 102 is the transit route that operates on Jones Blvd. Exhibit 1.13 shows monthly ridership on Route 102 from November 1993 through November 2008.
Exhibit 1.13: Route 102 Jones Blvd Monthly Ridership, 1993 to 2008
Source: RTC
Exhibit 1.14 shows average daily passenger ons and offs by stop, as well as average daily load, for Route 102: Jones Blvd based on year 2006 data.
Exhibit 1.14: Route 102 Average Daily Boardings by Stop, Year 2006 Data
Average Average Stop ID Bus Stop Name Daily On Daily Off Daily Load Northbound 1185 Jones Bl./Desert Inn Rd. 10 13 530 1182 Jones Bl./Coley Ave. 0 1 529 1224 Jones Bl./Tara Ave. 1 19 511 1205 Jones Bl./Laredo St. 0 73 438 1217 Jones Bl./Sahara Ave. 113 33 517 1209 Jones Bl./O'Bannon Dr. 0 1 516 1210 Jones Bl./Oakey Bl. 13 5 525 1225 Jones Bl./Transverse Dr. 0 54 470 1176 Jones Bl./Charleston Bl. 150 86 535 1192 Jones Bl./Evergreen Ave. 2 13 524 1169 Jones Bl./Alta Dr. 17 14 528 1194 Jones Bl./Fairwood Ave. 7 21 513 Southbound 1189 Jones Bl./Elton Ave. 26 9 431 1183 Jones Bl./Dayton Ave. 3 2 431 1170 Jones Bl./Alta Dr. 18 16 433 1193 Jones Bl./Evergreen Ave. 4 11 425 1177 Jones Bl./Charleston Bl. 139 125 439 1226 Jones Bl./Transverse Dr. 9 6 442 1211 Jones Bl./Oakey Bl. 6 20 428 1208 Jones Bl./O'Bannon Dr. 4 2 430 1218 Jones Bl./Sahara Ave. 81 126 384 1188 Jones Bl./Eldora St. 6 12 378 1187 Jones Bl./Edna Ave. 3 5 376 1212 Jones Bl./Palmyra Ave. 0 0 376 1186 Jones Bl./Desert Inn Rd. 6 22 360 Source: RTC 26 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.15 shows passengers per service hour (PPSH) numbers for Route 102: Jones Blvd and other RTC routes for the month of November 2008, separately for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
Exhibit 1.15: Passengers per Service Hour by Route, November 2008
Source: RTC
Such data are also available for the months from April 2007 to October 2008.
27 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.7 SAFETY
On December 16 2008, NDOT provided vehicle crash data on Jones Blvd by major intersection and by type, for the time period from January 2005 to September 2008. The three primary crash types are those involving one or more fatalities, those involving one or more injuries (no fatalities), and those that involve property damage only. Exhibit 1.16 shows an example of these data for Jones Blvd at Edna Ave.
Exhibit 1.16: Crash Data for Jones Blvd at Edna Ave, Jan 2005 to Sep 2008
Source: NDOT data – January 2006 – October 2008
The NDOT Traffic Crash Data database provides nearly 40 separate attributes for each incident recorded. Key variables include the time and location of the crash, the number of injuries occurring, the primary cause of the crash, and the action of the primary and secondary vehicles at the time of the crash. As an example of the applications of this data, the table in Exhibit 1.17 shows the frequency of primary vehicle actions and Exhibit 1.18 shows the number of accidents in the period covered by the data (January 2006 to October 2008) at each intersection.
28 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 1.17 – Accident Distribution by Primary Vehicle Action Intersection Cross Street Number of Accidents Share of Total Accidents US 95 Jones Blvd Interchange 99 20.1% Elton Ave 7 1.4% Fairwood Cir 3 0.6% Edgewood Cir 3 0.6% Dayton Cir 2 0.4% Cromwell Cir 2 0.4% Borden Cir 7 1.4% Jones Cir 7 1.4% Alta Dr 43 8.7% Evergreen Ave 20 4.1% Charleston Blvd 62 12.6% Del Ray Ave 1 0.2% Transverse Dr 6 1.2% Doe Ave 4 0.8% Oakey Blvd 26 5.3% O’Bannon 1 0.2% Sahara Ave 78 15.8% Laredo St 27 5.5% Tara Ave 8 1.6% Edna Ave 21 4.3% Coley Ave 3 0.6% Darby Ave 1 0.2% Palmyra Ave 3 0.6% Eldora Ave 14 2.8% Desert Inn Rd 45 9.1% Grand Total 493 100.0%
Exhibit 1.18 – Accident Distribution by Study Area Intersection Primary Vehicle Action Number of Accidents Share of Accidents Backing Up 4 0.8% Changing Lane 33 6.7% Entering Lane 16 3.2% Going Straight 274 55.6% Leaving Lane 10 2.0% Making U-Turn 3 0.6% Parked 0 0.0% Passing Other Vehicle 3 0.6% Stopped 5 1.0% Turning Left 105 21.3% Turning Right 31 6.3% Unknown 9 1.8% Grand Total 493 100.0%
29 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
1.8 PREVIOUS STUDIES
Regional Transportation Plan RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2009-2030 was completed by RTC in November 2008. The RTP is a comprehensive and long-range plan for the transportation system in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. It details the transportation investment needed between now and the year 2030. The RTP is also the guiding document for making the best use of federal transportation funds. The RTP was obtained from the RTC website.
Sahara Avenue Corridor Study The Sahara Avenue Corridor Study was completed by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. on behalf of RTC in October 2007. The study purpose was to identify and evaluate alternatives to improve transportation along the Sahara Avenue Corridor between the Western Beltway and Hollywood Boulevard. The study reports were obtained from RTC.
Tropicana Avenue Corridor Study The Tropicana Avenue Corridor Study was completed by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. on behalf of RTC in March 2008. The study objective was to develop recommendations for improving Tropicana Avenue between Hualapai Way and Boulder Highway in order to serve the growing travel needs of the community. The Final Report was obtained from the RTC website.
Flamingo Road Corridor Study The Flamingo Road Corridor Study was completed by PB on behalf of RTC in May 2008. The study objective was to develop alternative solutions to address short-term and long-term transportation challenges on Flamingo Road between Town Center Drive and Nellis Boulevard. The Final Report was obtained from the RTC website.
Valley View Boulevard Corridor Study The Louis Berger Group completed the Valley View Boulevard Corridor study in January 2009. RTC commissioned the study to identify short and long term solutions to address traffic congestion and support planned land uses on the corridor. The Final Report was obtained from the RTC website.
30 Chapter 1: Data Collection Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
32 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.0 ROAD GEOMETRICS
2.1 OVERVIEW
In addition to data collection to understand Jones Boulevard’s safety and traffic performance, its planned land uses, and its role within the broader context of Metropolitan Las Vegas, the other necessary element of the corridor study is the current physical layout of the corridor. Drawings of the current roadway configurations are the basis for the conceptual designs and layouts of Chapter 6. This chapter of the report summarizes findings of the existing roadway geometrics for the Jones Boulevard Corridor Study. The compilation of the geometrics data builds on collection and development of the following: Street Center line data collected from Clark County in GIS format and converted to AutoCAD
Additional Right of Way collected from Clark County in GIS format and converted to AutoCAD
Clark County aerial survey maps, imported into AutoCAD
Available record drawings from Nevada DOT (e.g., striping plans) and from City of Las Vegas (collector intersection)
The project team integrated these corridor data into a single format that was customized for the project report and for the Technical Working Group sessions.
The project team then developed a template for all key geometrics fields required for the analysis. The template is organized into two main parts: intersection and segment. Each contains the descriptive fields summarizing the geometrics for the given segment, as well as a textual description of constraints on street widening. As part of this analysis, the project team performed targeted field visits to physically check and measure data such as bus stop locations and north-south grade separation details, as well as roadway width and right of way width.
The geometrics data are organized into the six major segments of Jones Boulevard comprising the Study Area: Desert Inn Road to Edna Avenue
Edna Avenue to Sahara Avenue
Sahara Avenue to Oakey Boulevard
Oakley Boulevard to Charleston Road
Charleston Road to Alta Drive
Alta Drive to US 95.
33 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.2 DESERT INN TO EDNA AVENUE
The southernmost segment in the Study Area, from Desert Inn Road to Edna Avenue, is just over a half a mile long. It can be characterized by:
Street section improvements per current code
100’ right of way
Pavement fairly new
No sidewalk at parcel 163-11-807-007 and 008. Existing wall on these two parcels encroach into right of way approximately 3.25’.
Majority of this segment is commercial. All commercial on west side of Jones.
DESERT INN – JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes NB, R - - Width - Shoulder NB - - Width - Through-Lanes SB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB - - Width - Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density.
34 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.1: Intersection Jones and Desert Inn
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.52 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 100’ Median Description 14’ RAISED MEDIAN North-South Grade Separation Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening SB Jones- Screen wall sticks out onto ROW- wall to back of curb dim. is 2.75’ NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 7 - Commercial 0 – Residential
35 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Bus Stops (give location) 2- BUS STOPS - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE AT SW PROPERTY OF APN 163-12-401-009 - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE AT NW PROPERTY OF APN 163-12-301-006 Minor Street Intersections 2- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -PALMYRA AVE. -COLEY AVE. SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 3 - Width FROM LIP 13’, 11’ & 11’ Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 17 - Commercial: 0 – Residential: Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE AT NE PROPERTY OF APN 163-11-704-016 - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-11-804-002 Minor Street Intersections 3- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -DARBY AVE. -PALMYRA AVE. -COLEY AVE.
Exhibit 2.2: Lane Markings from Desert Inn through Edna
36 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.3 EDNA AVENUE TO SAHARA AVENUE
The next segment in the Study Area, from Edna Avenue to Sahara Avenue, is just over a half a mile long. It can be characterized by: Street section improvements per current code
100’ right of way
The majority of this segment is commercial.
EDNA – JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes NB, R - - Width - Shoulder NB - - Width - Through-Lanes SB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB - - Width - Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density.
37 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.3: Intersection Jones and Edna
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.52 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 100’ Median Description 14’ RAISED MEDIAN North-South Grade Separation Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening - NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 3 - Width FROM LIP-13’, 11’ & 11’ Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 6’
38 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Number of Driveways 10 - Commercial 0 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE AT NW PROPERTY OF APN 163-12-201-003 - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT AT NW PROPERTY OF APN 163-12-201-009 Minor Street Intersections 3- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -TARA AVE. -ELDORA AVE. -LAREDO ST. SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 3 - Width FROM LIP 13’, 11’ & 11’: 2 LANES OF 11’ WITH SHOULDER OF 8’ SAHARA TO LAREDO ST. Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 14 - Commercial: 0 – Residential: Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - BENCH AND SIGN ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-11-604-014 - CANOPY AND SIGN AT SW CORNER OF SAHARA AND JONES INTERSECTION ON JONES Minor Street Intersections 3- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -TARA AVE. -ELDORA AVE. -LAREDO ST.
Exhibit 2.4: Lane Markings from Edna through Sahara
39 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.4 SAHARA AVENUE TO OAKEY BOULEVARD
The next segment in the Study Area, from Sahara Avenue to Oakey Boulevard, is just over a half a mile long. It can be characterized by: Street section improvements per current code
100’ right of way
Pavement fairly new
Majority of this segment is commercial. SWC of Oakey and Jones is residential with no direct access onto Jones. Community has block wall.
SW O’Bannon has not been dedicated or improved.
SAHARA AVE.– JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 2 - Width 10’,10’ Turn Lanes NB, R 1 - Width FROM LIP-10’ Shoulder NB - - Width - Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 2 - Width 10’, 10’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB YES - Width 7.5’ Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density.
40 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.5: Intersection of Jones and Sahara
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.52 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 100’ Median Description 14’ RAISED MEDIAN
41 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
North-South Grade Separation ± 2.57’ by APN 163-02-721-008, 1909 S JONES BLVD ± 4.4’ by APN 163-02-802-008, 2101 S JONES BLVD ± 2.69’ by APN 163-01-401-014, 2280 S JONES BLVD Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening MEDIAN WITH JERSEY RAIL USED DUE TO CHANGE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN NORTH BOUND AND SOUTHBOUND LANES NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 12’ & 12’ Shoulder Width 10’ Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 10 - Commercial 0– Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - CANOPY AND SIGN AT AT SW PROPERTY OF APN 163-01401-011
-SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-01-304-003 Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -O’BANNON DR. SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Shoulder Width 10’ Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 10 - Commercial 0 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS -STAND ALONE SIGN ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-02-802-008
-CANOPY AND SIGN AT SW CORNER OF WEST OAKEY JONES INTERSECTION ON JONES Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -O’BANNON DR.
42 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.6: Lane Markings from Sahara through Oakey
43 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.5 OAKEY BOULEVARD TO CHARLESTON ROAD
The next segment in the Study Area, from Oakey Boulevard to Charleston Road, is just over a half a mile long. It can be characterized by: Street section improvements per current code
100’ right of way
Pavement fairly new
This segment is entirely commercial.
OAKEY BLVD.– JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes NB, R - - Width - Shoulder NB YES - Width FROM LIP-10’ Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width 12’ & 12’ Turn Lanes SB, L 1 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes SB, R 1 - Width FROM LIP-10’ Shoulder SB - - Width - Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density.
44 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.7: Intersection of Jones and Oakey
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.54 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 100’ Median Description 14’ RAISED MEDIAN North-South Grade Separation Super elevated at APN 163-01-102-022 Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening Part of APN 163-02-502-001 has not been dedicated to Jones. NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Shoulder Width FROM LIP-10’
45 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Sidewalk Width 6’ EXCEPT FRONTAGE OF APN 163-01-201-006 WHERE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK Number of Driveways 10 - Commercial 0 – Residential Bus Stops (give location) 2- BUS STOPS - CANOPY AND SIGN ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-01-205-001 - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 163-01-102-007 Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -DOE AVE. SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Shoulder Width TRANSITIONS FROM 4’ TO 10’ (FROM LIP) Sidewalk Width 6’ Number of Driveways 9 - Commercial 0 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - STAND ALONE SIGN. ADJ TO PROPERTY APN 163-01-104-002 - CANOPY AND SIGN AT SW CORNER OF CHARLESTON JONES INTERSECTION ON JONES Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -TRANSVERSE DR.
Exhibit 2.8: Lane Markings from Oakey through Charleston
46 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.6 CHARLESTON ROAD TO ALTA DRIVE
The next segment in the Study Area, from Charleston Road to Alta Drive, is just under a half a mile long. It can be characterized by: Street section improvements per current code
80’ right of way
Pavement fairly new
This segment is mostly residential. Large commercial sites are situated at the intersection of Jones and Charleston. A few small scale commercial uses are located on the east side of Jones interspersed with residential.
Residents of two large apartment complexes (APN 138-36-401-012) park along northbound Jones.
CHARLESTON ROAD– JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 13’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 2 - Width 10’ & 10’ Turn Lanes NB, R 1 - Width FROM LIP-10’ Shoulder NB - - Width - Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width FROM LIP-12’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 2 - Width 10’ & 10’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB - - Width - Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density, intersection alignment.
47 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.9: Intersection of Jones and Charleston
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.49 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 80’ Median Description 13’ TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE North-South Grade Separation nominal Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening Jones used for parking for Apartment Complexes NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 11’ & 11’ Shoulder Width FROM LIP-6’ Sidewalk Width CHARLESTON TO EVERGREEN IS A 5’ SIDEWALK AND FROM EVERGREEN TO ALTA IT IS A DETACHED SIDEWALK WITH 4’ 48 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
LANDSCAPE AND 5’ SIDEWALK Number of Driveways 14 - Commercial 10 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - CANOPY AND SIGN TO PROPERTY APN 138-36-316-010 -STAND ALONE SIGN AND AT SW OF PROPERT APN 138-36-401-014 Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -EVERGREEN AVE. SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width FROM LIP-10’ & 10’ Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 5’ Number of Driveways 5 - Commercial 1 – Residential Bus Stops (give location) 2- BUS STOPS -SIGN AND BENCH. TO PROPERTY APN#138-35-718-019 -SIGN AND BENCH AT SW CORNER OF ALTA AND JONES INTERSECTION ON JONES Minor Street Intersections 1- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -EVERGREEN AVE.
Exhibit 2.10: Lane Markings from Charleston through Alta
49 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
2.7 ALTA DRIVE TO US 95
The northernmost segment in the Study Area, from Alta Drive to US 95, is just under a half a mile long. It can be characterized by: Street section improvements per current code
80’ right of way
Pavement fairly new
This segment is a mix of residential and commercial site.
ALTA DR.– JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 1 - Width 12’ Turn Lanes NB, R - - Width - Shoulder NB YES - Width FROM LIP-6’ Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width FROM LIP-10’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 1 - Width 12’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB - - Width - Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density.
50 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.11: Intersection of Jones and Alta
Segment Description Segment Length ± 0.46 miles Back-of-Sidewalk to Back-of-Sidewalk ROW Width 80’ Median Description 12 TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE North-South Grade Separation Amenities/Other Potential Constraints on Widening - NORTHBOUND Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width 12’ & 11’ Shoulder Width FROM LIP-6’ Sidewalk Width 5’
51 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Number of Driveways 20 - Commercial 13 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE AND BENCH AT NW OF PROPERTY APN 138-36-210-020 - SIGN ON STREETLIGHT POLE ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 138-36-112-008 Minor Street Intersections - SOUTHBOUND Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width FROM LIP-10’ &11’ Shoulder Width - Sidewalk Width 5’ Number of Driveways 2 - Commercial 2 – Residential Bus Stops 2- BUS STOPS - SIGN AND BENCH. ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 138-35-515-001 - SIGN AND BENCH. ADJ. TO PROPERTY APN 138-35-618-008 Minor Street Intersections 6- MINOR INTERSECTIONS -ELTON AVE. -FAIRWOOD CIRCLE -EDGEWOOD CIRCLE -DAYTON CIRCLE -CROWELL CIRCLE -BORGEN CIRCLE -JONES CIRCLE UPLAND BLVD.– JONES INTERSECTION Through-Lanes NB 2 - Width FROM LIP-10’ & 11’ Turn Lanes NB, L 2 - Width 10’ Turn Lanes NB, R - - Width - Shoulder NB - - Width - Through-Lanes SB 2 - Width 11’ & 11’ Turn Lanes SB, L 1 - Width 12’ Turn Lanes SB, R - - Width - Shoulder SB YES - Width FROM LIP-6’ Potential Constraints on Widening Right of way, utility density, elevation gain on west side, freeway overpass. 52 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.12: Lane Markings from Alta through US 95
53 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.13: Intersection of Jones and Upland
54 Chapter 2: Road Geometrics Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 2.14: Intersection of Jones and US 95
55 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
56 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS
3.1 OVERVIEW
Chapter 2 provided familiarity with the present state and configuration of Jones Boulevard in the Study Area. Chapter 3 focuses on the next important element of understanding and improving a corridor’s performance: the evaluation of existing management technologies and policies. The purpose of Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access is to investigate traffic management and control strategies for the study area and neighboring sections. Of specific interest is the signal timing and synchronization within the area. This chapter is organized into the following sections:
Section 2: Signal Timing. This section describes existing signal timing patterns along the corridor and strategy within broader network as well as associated demands.
Section 3: Access Control to Sections of Jones Boulevard. Section 3 evaluates “parking lane” and “deceleration lane” utilization along the corridor as part of the development of alternatives.
Section 4: Emergency Management. This section discusses emergency management issues and strategies along the corridor.
Section 5: One Way Preference Couplets. Finally, Section 5 investigates operation of Jones as a one-way preference couplet with other North-South arterials in the vicinity of the study area.
In reviewing each of these corridor management components, Chapter 3 provides a valuable context in which to ascertain how existing systems affect corridor performance. Understanding these systems also helps in the development and evaluation of alternatives in Chapter 5. The management systems detailed in this chapter may be leveraged to improve corridor performance or may be impacted by proposed improvements, and therefore, they are an important element for the corridor study to consider.
57 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.2 SIGNAL TIMING
The Study Area of Jones Boulevard lies squarely within a grid network in the Spring Valley / Southwest portion of the City of Las Vegas. From a signal timing perspective, Jones, Durango, Decatur, Valley View, Sahara, and Charleston are all interlinked. All these intersections more or less run at the same cycle length in the broader sub-region. The agency responsible for managing the signals and controlling the traffic within the study area is the Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST).
3.2.1 Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST)
FAST is under the jurisdiction of the RTC elected board, which makes policies for FAST. Transportation strategies are set by the Operations Management Committee (OMC), comprised of the RTC, Clark County, NDOT and the cities of Henderson, Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. RTC staff are responsible for two major areas that make up the FAST system: the Arterial Management Section, which includes arterial streets and roadways (including Jones Boulevard); and the Freeway Management Section, which includes the entire freeway network.
FAST is designed to both monitor and control traffic. The traffic control component of the system consists of freeway and arterial management. Traffic control requires detection of traffic conditions through the use of video image detection and inductive loop detection. Visual verification of conditions is possible through closed-circuit television cameras. Traffic control is achieved through the use of traffic signals, ramp meters, dynamic message signs, and lane use control signals.
3.2.2 Jones Boulevard Demand
Through Movements
In the Study area, the afternoon peak period (3-6pm) carries more traffic than the morning peak. Northbound is the peak direction, by a factor of 1.2 for most of the corridor, and by a factor of 1.7 towards the northern end of the corridor.
During the afternoon peak, in the northbound direction, Jones Boulevard carries between 1,300 and 1,600 vehicles per hour. Southbound traffic is lighter, at 800 to 1,250 vehicles
58 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study per hour. The morning peak is the inverse; however the combined volumes are 30 to 35 percent lower. Exhibit 3.1 on the following pages depicts through volumes along the corridor.
Exhibit 3.1: Through Movement Volumes, Jones Boulevard
Traffic Demand: Jones Blvd Hourly Traffic between Desert Inn Rd and Sahara Ave (based on Sep 2008 data) 3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000 Average Vehicles Hour per
750
500
250
0
M M M M M M M M AM AM AM A AM AM A AM A PM PM P PM PM P PM PM P P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :0 :00 :00 :00 :0 :00 :0 :00 :0 :00 :00 :0 :00 :0 :00 :0 :00 1 2:00 AM3 4 5:00 AM6 7 8:00 9 2 1 2 3 4 5:00 6 7 8 9:00 PM 12 10 11:00 AM1 10 11
Total Northbound Southbound Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application, NDOT
Traffic Demand: Jones Blvd Hourly Traffic between Sahara Ave and Charleston Blvd (based on Aug 2007 data) 3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000 Average Vehicles Hourper
750
500
250
0
M M AM PM 0 AM 0 AM 0 AM 0 AM 0 A 0 AM 0 AM 0 PM 0 PM 0 PM 0 PM 0 PM :0 00 AM 0 00 AM 00 :00 AM :00 PM 00 PM 00 PM 00 P :00 :00 PM 1: 2:0 3:0 4:0 5:0 6:0 7: 8: 9: 1:0 2:0 3:0 4: 5: 6: 7:0 8:00 PM9:0 12 10 11:00 AM12 10 11
Total Northbound Southbound Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application, NDOT
59 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 3.1: Through Movement Volumes, Jones Boulevard (continued)
Traffic Demand: Jones Blvd Hourly Traffic between Charleston Blvd and US 95 (based on Aug 2008 data)
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000 Average Vehicles per Hour
750
500
250
0
M M M M M M M M M M M A AM P P 0 A :00 A :00 P 1:00 A 2:0 3:00 AM4:00 A 5:00 6:00 AM7:00 AM8 9:00 AM 1:00 P 2:00 3:00 PM4:00 PM5 6:00 PM7:00 P 8:00 9:00 PM0:00 P 12:00 AM 10:00 11:00 AM12:00 PM 1 11:00 PM
Total Northbound Southbound Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application, NDOT
Turning Movements
The project team reviewed recent count data for right and left turning movements from Jones to major corridor intersecting arterials (e.g., Alta, Oakey, and Charleston). The data confirmed significant turning movements, particularly at Charleston where the afternoon peak turning movements account for 22 percent and 33 percent Northbound and Southbound traffic, respectively. Appendix A provides a summary of turning count data.
3.2.3 Timing Strategy
FAST maintains the cycle lengths (i.e., one cycle of all possible movements) at major intersections the same. The standard pattern utilized is 140 seconds for weekdays, between 630am and 700pm. During off-peak periods the cycle is reduced to 100 seconds. During the evening shoulder the cycle is set at 120 seconds. Cycles at major intersections are:
Cycle Length Period Time Spread (seconds) 1 0500-0630 100 2 0630-0915 140 3 0915-1530 140 4 1530-1900 140 5 1900-2200 120 6 2200-0500 100
60 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
These cycles are consistent with all major arterials near Jones (Rainbow, Desert Inn, Decatur, Sahara…). Another reason why the cycles are consistent from arterial to arterial is because of the need for consistency between the traffic offsets. This is illustrated below in Exhibit 3.2.
Exhibit 3.2: Typical Signaling Offsets around Jones Boulevard
40 110 40 Charleston
40 110 110 Sahara
40 110 40 Desert Inn
Rainbow Jones Decatur
Individual cycle elements vary by cycle length, but on Jones follow the following structure.
Duration Traffic Direction (seconds) 19 NB left and NB through 22 NB left goes off, NB and SB through 19 SB through and SB left 20 WB and Left Through 40 WB through and EB through 20 EB Left and Through Total: 140 sec.
FAST can adjust the length of a left turn split in real time, however has not changed the signal timing patterns in the past several years. No changes are planned in the near term either.
Jones Boulevard has less traffic than the nearest North-South arterials Decatur or Rainbow, but remains nevertheless a very important North-South arterial within the sub-region. As far as North-South versus East-West movement, Jones will always run a second to Charleston and Sahara, given the much larger East-West volumes. This is why it would be extremely difficult to increase the Jones-Sahara or Jones-Charleston left turn cycles.
61 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.2.4 Speed Distance Statistics
FAST periodically conducts tachometer runs across major arterials in its jurisdiction. These data provide valuable information regarding average speeds as well as delay patterns along major arterials. The weakness in these data is that they represent singular data points (e.g., three runs for a single day, or six runs for two consecutive days); they are not averages over extended periods of time. The project team collected FAST speed distance data for Jones Boulevard and the following neighboring arterials:
North-South arterials: Buffalo, Rainbow, Decatur
East-West arterials: Charleston, Sahara
The analysis focused on establishing the average speeds for the Jones corridor, particularly differences between North and South of Sahara. The second objective was to compare average speeds, or “steady state speeds” between segments on Jones and on the other arterials to see if there were any anomalies.
Exhibit 3.3 illustrates historical run data for the Charleston to Desert Inn portion of the segment for four major parallel arterials. Source data are all from 2006 and 2007.
Exhibit 3.3: Average Speeds, Charleston-Desert Inn For Major Arterials in Study Area (Southbound)
50 45
40 Buffalo 35 Rainbow 30 Jones Decatur Speed, mph 25 20 15 Charleston- Oakey- Sahara-Edna Edna-Desert Oakey Sahara Inn
Source: FAST Operations, Booz Allen analysis. Speed averages based on the number of runs conducted, Buffalo (2); Rainbow (6); Jones (3); Decatur (2). All data weekday3pm or pm rush except Decatur which was a week-end run.
62 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Based on this limited sample, Jones Boulevard performs extremely well compared to comparable arterials between Sahara and Desert Inn from a mobility perspective, but north of Sahara particularly between Oakey and Sahara is where the performance is significantly worse.
Examining the Northbound direction reveals an equally interesting picture, as illustrated below in Exhibit 3.4. Here the mobility performance of Jones on the Southern end of the study area is again above average, except between Edna and Sahara where the average speed was only 12.8 mph. The two runs were held at 2:44pm and 3:02pm, and could well have been affected by an incident or other external factor. What is interesting to note is the mobility performance on the northern end of the corridor is actually quite good compared to the other parallel arterials, towards the top end of the range.
Exhibit 3.4: Average Speeds, Desert Inn - Charleston For Major Arterials in Study Area (Northbound)
50 45 40 Buffalo 35 Rainbow 30 Jones 25 Decatur Speed,mph 20 15 10 Desert Inn- Edna-Sahara Sahara- Oakey- Edna Oakey Charleston
Source: FAST Operations, Booz Allen analysis. Speed averages based on the number of runs conducted, Buffalo (2); Rainbow (6); Jones (2); Decatur (2), and weighted by segment length. All data weekday3pm or pm rush except Decatur which was a week-end run.
63 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.3 ACCESS CONTROL TO SECTIONS OF JONES BOULEVARD
This section examines access control for the main sections of Jones Boulevard in the Study Area, with focus on the “parking” lane and “deceleration” lane utilization as they may impact the development of alternatives for the corridor.
3.3.1 Desert Inn Road to Sahara Avenue
South of Sahara, there is no shoulder width on either side. Vehicles entering commercial driveways slow down within their through (or turn) lanes, then turn into those entrances. Sahara Avenue also delineates the border between the County and the City of Las Vegas. Within the County the speed limit is 45 mph. In the City on Jones the speed limit is 35 mph.
Sahara is where the 3rd northbound lane ends in a so-called right hand trap. The arterial transforms from five lanes at the intersection (2 left turning, 2 through, 1 right turning) to only two through lanes on the other side of the intersection north of Sahara.
View of Jones/Sahara View of Jones/Sahara South of Intersection North of Intersection
Between DI and Sahara, transit vehicles on Jones at Sahara Intersection RTC’s Route 102 have no other choice but to RTC Bus Route 102 temporarily occupy the third (right most) through lane while passengers alight and board.
The bus in the photograph below is traversing Sahara Avenue. The driver knows that along this section of Jones the shoulder is wide enough (10 feet) to make a stop without interfering with through traffic.
64 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.3.2 Sahara Avenue to Charleston Boulevard
The segment between Sahara Avenue and Charleston Boulevard is characterized by a 10 foot shoulder (technically there are some 4 to 10 foot transitions but those occur at the intersection with Charleston – the vast majority of the segment has 10 foot shoulders on both sides). During this 1.08 mile of roadway, there are 20 commercial driveways on the northbound side, and 19 on the southbound side.
Besides the occasional transit and delivery vehicle stops, the shoulders are underutilized.
Transit Vehicle Stopped Between Oakey The Curve Between Oakey and and Charleston (Southbound) Charleston
3.3.3 Charleston Boulevard to US 95
The segment from Charleston to US95 is significantly narrower than the prior two, at only 80 feet. The shoulder width northbound is 8 feet, and southbound it is 0 feet. So southbound anytime a vehicle decelerates to turn, or loads/unloads, that lane comes to a halt.
This segment is also notable for the number of driveways. Along the 0.95 mile of roadway there are 34 commercial and 23 residential driveways northbound, and 7 commercial and 3 residential driveways southbound.
The City of Las Vegas provided neighborhood feedback to the Study Team, particularly for the northern portion of the study area. Vehicular issues noted along Jones Corridor include:
“Cut through traffic on Elton and Upland is an issue” “Traffic on Torrey Pines has increased” “It is hard to make left turn onto Jones coming out of Elton” “Narrowing of Jones north of Alta creates a log jam” “It is difficult to get in and out of driveways of businesses (converted homes) between US 95 and Alta.”
65 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The photographs below identify various uses of the “parking” lane in the northbound direction for delivery trucks. Similar patterns can be seen for RTC Route 102 buses.
Jones between Charleston and Alta Jones between Charleston and Alta UPS Delivery Truck FedEx Delivery Truck
Jones at Alta Jones between Alta and Charleston RTC Bus Route 102 RTC Bus Route 102
The development of alternatives along Jones Boulevard needs to take into account the provision of transit; outreach to neighborhood groups indicates that there is a lack of bus turnouts and in some areas the sidewalks are too narrow.
The second bus photo also shows several driveways. The narrowness would require incoming vehicles to come to almost a complete stop in the deceleration lane prior to making the turn. Entrances and egresses of the various driveways must be taken into account in the development of alternatives.
66 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FAST maintains only one camera along the corridor; it is CCTV 18 at the intersection of Sahara and Jones. The agency regularly responds to complaints. Calls are routed to the customer line, and logged into a database. FAST staff records how the complaint was resolved. A brief interview of FAST personnel indicated that most of these complaints fit into one of three categories:
Construction-related (e.g., Decatur) Side street access problems Emergency vehicle pre-emption.
While these three have differing impacts on trips along Jones they are a good source of input in the development of alternatives, particularly to facilitate emergency response.
Emergency responders (Nevada Highway Patrol, fire trucks and ambulances) respond to incidents on Jones where appropriate. US 95 provides the most immediate northern access, however serving arterials is always challenging from a capacity perspective. There is only one emergency facility in close vicinity to the Study Area; it is Fire Station 6 just to the east of Jones Boulevard on Upland Boulevard. The station is located about 200 feet east from the Jones Boulevard and Upland Boulevard intersection, which is also the exit intersection for US 95. The station is on the north side of Upland Boulevard.
The pre-emptive emergency traffic signal that stops traffic on Upland during an emergency response vehicle exiting the station only applies to west-bound traffic on Upland. East- bound traffic is not required to stop and has no traffic signal. Any back-up of vehicles stopped by the traffic signal light would occur only on Upland. However, if the emergency vehicle exited the station going eastbound on Upland, traffic would be stopped by the Fire Truck on Jones Blvd siren/flashing lights of the emergency North of Sahara vehicle, which could create a momentary stall of traffic back to the intersection on Jones.
The biggest issue is with fire trucks moving west-bound on Upland and entering the Jones Boulevard stream to points north and south. According to FAST, on certain days preempts occur “every couple of hours” at Upland and Jones. It takes between 10 and15 minutes to get the signal timing cycle back into coordination.
67 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.5 ONE-WAY PREFERENCE COUPLETS
The idea of a one–way preference couplet system in the study area involves adding one lane on Jones Boulevard for one direction of travel and adding one lane on an adjacent north- south arterial in the other direction of travel. The belief is that travelers who live in or drive through the study area on a regular basis would become accustomed to using one arterial when driving northbound and another arterial when driving southbound to effectively leverage the roadway capacity.
Major north-south arterials within the study area that run parallel to Jones Boulevard are:
West of Jones: Buffalo Dr (about 2.0 miles west of Jones), Antelope Way/Tenaya Way (about 1.5 miles west of Jones), Rainbow Blvd (about 1.0 mile west of Jones), Torrey Pines Dr (about 0.5 miles west of Jones).
East of Jones: Lindell Rd (about 0.5 miles east of Jones), Decatur Blvd (about 1.0 mile east of Jones), Arville St (about 1.5 miles east of Jones), Valley View Dr (about 2.0 miles east of Jones).
These parallel north-south arterials are the ones that could be considered for a preference couplet with Jones Blvd. To assess the concept further, the following analysis results are provided in the following pages:
Overall traffic volumes for Jones Blvd and its adjacent major north-south arterials within the study area.
Direction of peak flow for Jones Blvd and its adjacent major north-south arterials in the AM and PM peak hours within the study area. If Jones Blvd and an adjacent arterial differ with respect to the directionality of peak flow by time period, this suggests the two arterials may be a natural couplet. For example, if more travelers are currently using Jones Blvd for southbound travel and Valley View Blvd for northbound travel, then the two arterials would be a good candidate for a couplet.
Description of currently programmed or unfunded transportation projects in the study area.
68 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 3.5 shows the year 2007 estimated average annual daily traffic (AADT) for arterials within the study area.
Exhibit 3.5 – Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), Year 2007
Source: 2007 Annual Traffic Report: Clark County; Nevada Department of Transportation, Aug 2008
Findings from Exhibit 3.5 are as follows:
The year 2007 estimated AADT for Jones Blvd within the study area ranges from 21,000 in the northern segment to 33,000 in the southern segment.
North-south arterials with AADT higher than Jones are Rainbow Blvd (54,000 – 56,000) and Decatur Blvd (46,000 – 57,000).
North-south arterials with AADT similar to Jones are Buffalo Dr (24,000 – 28,000) and Valley View Blvd (25,000 – 28,000).
North-south arterials with AADT lower than Jones are Antelope Way/Tenaya Way (1,600 – 3,700), Torrey Pines Dr (5,100), Lindell Rd (4,300), and Arville St (10,000). These relatively low volume arterials are not believed to be strong candidates to serve as a couplet with Jones Blvd, as travelers are not accustomed to traveling on these arterials.
69 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 3.6 provides peak hour traffic volume data (7-8 am, 5-6 pm) by segment by direction for the five major arterials within the study area. The numbers are based on the average of five days of weekday traffic count station data obtained in 2007 or 2008.
Exhibit 3.6 – Peak Hour Traffic Volume Data, by Segment by Direction (Table)
Segment 1: Between US 95 and Segment 2: Between Charleston Segment 3: Between Sahara Ave Charleston Blvd Blvd and Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound AM Peak (7-8 am) Jones Blvd 415 1,313 604 1,028 1,087 1,098 Buffalo Dr n/a n/a 548 1,229 643 852 Rainbow Blvd 1,199 2,855 1,204 2,143 1,576 1,937 Decatur Blvd 824 1,912 948 1,436 n/a n/a Valley View Blvd 443 1,276 547 1,078 n/a n/a PM Peak (5-6 pm) Jones Blvd 1,465 833 1,255 957 1,504 1,308 Buffalo Dr n/a n/a 1,364 931 1,002 912 Rainbow Blvd 2,587 1,769 2,520 1,787 2,258 1,812 Decatur Blvd 2,252 1,449 1,888 1,416 n/a n/a Valley View Blvd 1,303 619 1,277 826 n/a n/a
n/a: data is not available
Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application; Nevada DOT, http://www.nevadadot.com/trina/
Every arterial for which data were available followed a similar pattern when comparing the two directions of travel by segment. Findings from Exhibit 3.6 are as follows:
For Segment 1 (northern segment between US 95 and Charleston Blvd): • In the AM peak, southbound traffic volumes were higher than northbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 132 to 216 percent). For Jones Blvd, AM southbound traffic was 216 percent higher than AM northbound traffic in this segment. • In the PM peak, northbound traffic volumes were higher than southbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 46 to 111 percent). For Jones Blvd, PM northbound traffic was 76 percent higher than PM southbound traffic in this segment.
For Segment 2 (middle segment between Charleston Blvd and Sahara Ave): • In the AM peak, southbound traffic volumes were higher than northbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 51 to 124 percent). For Jones Blvd, AM southbound traffic was 70 percent higher than AM northbound traffic in this segment. • In the PM peak, northbound traffic volumes were higher than southbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 31 to 55 percent). For Jones Blvd, PM northbound traffic was 31 percent higher than PM southbound traffic in this segment.
For Segment 3 (southern segment between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Road): • In the AM peak, southbound traffic volumes were higher than northbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 1 to 32 percent). For Jones Blvd, AM southbound traffic was 1 percent higher than AM northbound traffic in this segment.
70 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
• In the PM peak, northbound traffic volumes were higher than southbound traffic volumes for every arterial (by 10 to 25 percent). For Jones Blvd, PM northbound traffic was 15 percent higher than PM southbound traffic in this segment.
Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8 displays the peak flow information results graphically for the five north- south arterials in the study area with the highest traffic volumes (from west to east: Buffalo Dr, Rainbow Blvd, Jones Blvd, Decatur Blvd, Valley View Blvd). Exhibit 3.7 is for the AM peak (7-8 am); Exhibit 3.8 is for the PM peak (5-6 pm). A red arrow indicates the southbound direction of travel has heavier peak hour volume; a green arrow indicates the northbound direction has heavier peak hour volume. The percentage difference of traffic flow between the two directions of travel is indicated next to each arrow.
For instance, Jones southbound traffic between US 95 and Charleston is 216 percent higher than in the northbound direction; Jones southbound traffic between Charleston and Sahara is 70 percent higher than in the northbound direction (not 70 percent of the northbound direction traffic).
Exhibit 3.7 – Direction of Peak Flow, by Segment (AM Peak, 7-8 am)
138% 216% 132% 188%
124% 78% 70% 51% 97%
32% 23% 1%
Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application; Nevada DOT, http://www.nevadadot.com/trina/ Data was not available for the following segments: Buffalo Dr between US 95 and Charleston Blvd, Decatur Blvd between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd, Valley View Blvd between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd.
71 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 3.8 – Direction of Peak Flow, by Segment (PM Peak, 5-6 pm)
46% 76% 55% 111%
47% 41% 31% 33% 55%
15% 10% 25%
Source: TRaffic INformation Access (TRINA) application; Nevada DOT, http://www.nevadadot.com/trina/
Data was not available for the following segments: Buffalo Dr between US 95 and Charleston Blvd, Decatur Blvd between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd, Valley View Blvd between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd.
Taking into account information from both Exhibits 3.7 and 3.8, there are no two major arterials in the study area that readily lend themselves as being natural couplets with respect to peak direction of traffic flow. The five major arterials in the study area all follow the same pattern of peak flow by direction (southbound volumes are higher in the AM, northbound volumes are higher in the PM).
Exhibit 3.9 identifies the transportation projects within the study area that are currently programmed in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as well as projects that are currently unfunded needs.
72 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 3.9 – Programmed and Unfunded Projects in the Study Area
LEGEND
Jones Blvd Corridor
Programmed Widening Project
Programmed Intersection Project
Unfunded Widening Project
Source: 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Section 5: Investment Strategy and Appendix 1: Capital Program Project Lists; RTC of Southern Nevada, Nov 2008
Exhibit 3.10 provides more information on the programmed transportation projects in the study area identified in Exhibit 3.9, as provided in the 2030 RTP.
Exhibit 3.10 – Programmed and Unfunded Project Information
Project # Location/Title From To Description Sponsor Entity Year Complete 4117 Arville St Sahara Ave Charleston Blvd Widen to 4 lanes Las Vegas 2013
4086 Decatur Blvd Meadows Ln Sahara Ave Widen to 8 lanes with bus turnouts Las Vegas 2010 Intersection improvements at Desert Inn Rd, 1578 Rainbow Blvd Desert Inn Rd US 95 Las Vegas 2010 Oakey Blvd, Charleston Blvd and Alta Dr. 1579 Rainbow Blvd at Sahara Ave Intersection improvements Las Vegas 2010
1580 Rainbow Blvd Desert Inn Rd US 95 Construct bus turnouts Las Vegas 2012
Feasibility Study and PE for road 747 Rainbow Blvd at US 95 Las Vegas 2015 improvements 4092 Valley View Blvd US 95 Sahara Ave Widen to 6 lanes Las Vegas 2026 Source: 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix 1: Capital Program Project Lists; RTC of Southern Nevada, Nov 2008
The projects in the study area identified as unfunded needs in the 2030 RTP are:
73 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Rainbow Blvd from Sahara Ave to US 95 – Upgrade to super-arterial. Cost range in year 2008 dollars: $60 mil to $150 mil. Following a public meeting in December 2007 and public input received in January 2008, RTC has indicated it will not be moving forward with the super-arterial upgrade in the Rainbow Blvd corridor.
Valley View Blvd from Tropicana Ave to US 95 – Widen roadway and improve traffic flow. Cost range in year 2008 dollars: $30 mil to $50 mil
The RTP does not identify any programmed or unfunded projects on Jones Blvd within the study area.
The Valley View Boulevard Study, prepared for RTC by the Louis Berger Group, was completed in January 2009. The study evaluated four alternatives to improve the existing 4.5 mile Valley View Blvd corridor between Harmon Ave and US 95, which currently has 2 lanes in each direction:
All four alternatives propose one additional northbound lane on Valley View Blvd between Sahara Ave and US 95.
Two of the alternatives also propose one additional northbound lane on Valley View Blvd between Desert Inn Rd and Sahara Ave. The other two alternatives propose one additional lane in each direction on Valley View Blvd between Desert Inn Rd and Sahara Ave.
All four alternatives propose one additional lane in each direction on Valley View Blvd between Desert Inn Rd and Harmon Ave, which is south of the Jones Blvd study area.
Alternatives differ with respect to lane width (standard or narrow) and left turn permission (left turns permitted or restricted left turns).
For the sections of Valley View Blvd that propose one additional lane in the northbound direction, the reason that the northbound direction was selected is because congestion on Valley View Blvd during PM peak hours is higher than during AM peak hours, and northbound traffic on Valley View Blvd is heavier than southbound traffic during the PM peak.
However, as shown previously in Exhibits 3.6 and 3.8, the same logic holds for all four of the other major north-south arterials in the study area (Jones Blvd, Buffalo Dr, Rainbow Blvd, and Decatur Blvd). If each arterial is evaluated separately, one could reasonably conclude that an additional northbound lane makes more sense than an additional southbound lane for every north-south arterial in the study area. This underscores the importance of examining multiple arterials together as a system when considering the merits of transportation improvement alternatives.
74 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
If RTC does plan to add one additional northbound lane on Valley View Blvd between Sahara Ave and US 95 (or between Desert Inn Rd and US 95) and no additional lane in the southbound direction, this does have implications for which alternatives have the most merit for Jones Blvd. When viewing multiple arterials together as a system, if overall northbound capacity is being enhanced more than overall southbound capacity for other north-south arterials, then it makes sense for Jones Blvd alternatives to place a preference on adding southbound capacity in order to balance out overall system capacity by direction.
75 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
3.6 ANALYSIS OF CORRIDOR SAFETY
The final important operational issue in the Study Area is safety. As detailed in Chapter 1, NDOT provided the Consultant Team with full accident data from January 2006 to October 2008. The data cover documented incidents on Jones from US 95 to Desert Inn Road and are the best available source of safety-related data. This section highlights the spatial distribution of accidents and identifies several key risk factors. In analyzing the data, the Consultant Team focused on broad trends for the purpose of conceptual planning for future corridor improvements.
The NDOT accident data identifies accident locations by the nearest intersection and by the nearest mile marker. The distribution of accidents along Jones Boulevard is far from uniform. Exhibit 3.11 shows that accidents are concentrated near major intersections:
Exhibit 3.11 – Study Area Accident Density
Source: NDOT Nevada Traffic Crash Data, January 2006 – October 2008
Foremost in crash frequency among the intersections are the US 95 off ramps at Upland Boulevard, Charleston Boulevard, Sahara Avenue, and Desert Inn Road.
NDOT’s crash data does not detail many of the environmental and other risk factors that make the vicinities of these intersections more dangerous; however, higher turn volumes and cross traffic, along with more traffic in and out of retail driveways may play a role the
76 Chapter 3: Traffic Management and Access Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
significantly different accident rates. From a design perspective, the actions of the vehicles involved in the accident may be more useful for planning purposes than most of the other variables. Corridor improvements can make specific maneuvers less risky for drivers.
A breakout of the vehicle actions at the time of the crash shows a substantial proportion of crashes involve a turning vehicle: 40 percent. Furthermore, 27 percent of all the recorded accidents involved a left turn by at least one vehicle involved in the accident. While fortunately no accident fatalities occurred on the corridor during the data’s time frame, it is also worth noting that the share of accidents involving injuries was 39 percent, highlighting the importance of safety improvements.
Another concern in the analysis of the NDOT accident data is whether the corridor poses a disproportionate nighttime risk to drivers. Exhibit 3.12 shows that accident rates roughly track daily traffic volumes:
Exhibit 3.12 – Accident Distribution by Time of Day
Source: NDOT Nevada Traffic Crash Data, January 2006 – October 2008
Exhibit 3.12 suggests that lighting and other nighttime safety factors are not a primary safety factor on the corridor. The only other safety information available was the informal stakeholder input available from an informal outreach effort by the City of Las Vegas. Stakeholder concerns include the narrowness of sidewalks at bus stops and the condition of sidewalks in some sections of the corridor.
77 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
78 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.0 ROLE OF TRANSIT
4.1 OVERVIEW
The final element of the corridor’s current transportation system is public transit. The purpose of Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit is to assess how public transportation supports travel along the Jones Boulevard Corridor and how it integrates with other transportation along the corridor. Public transit’s role will be based on future demand, the physical characteristics of the corridor, and local and regional service integration issues. This chapter is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2: Current Transit Provision. This section describes existing transit services in the study area, including list of routes, span of service, service frequencies by time of day and day of week, stop locations, and vehicles used.
• Section 3: Transit Demand and Forecasts. This section provides the current ridership of study area transit services and projected future ridership.
• Section 4: Neighborhood/Business Concerns. Section 4 indicates neighborhood and business concerns regarding transit services in the study area.
• Section 5: Capital and Operational Improvements. Finally, Section 5 describes capital and operational improvements that are being planned for transit services in the study area.
Public transit can be an important strategy to address congestion and provide mobility as population density and demand on Jones Boulevard increases. Chapter 4 provides the context and present state of transit systems on the corridor, and therefore it is a necessary task to inform the development of alternatives in Chapter 5.
79 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.2 CURRENT TRANSIT PROVISION
RTC provides extensive transit service within the Jones Blvd corridor study area, as shown in Exhibit 4.1.
Exhibit 4.1 – Study Area Transit System Map
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada website, http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/
80 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.2.1 List of Routes
The RTC transit routes that operate within the study area are as follows:
• Corridor – Route 102: Jones
• Parallel Arterials (from west to east) – Route 101: Rainbow, Route 103: Decatur, Route 104: Valley View/ Torrey Pines
• Crossing Arterials (from north to south) – Route 207: Alta/Stewart, Route 206: Charleston, Route 204: Sahara, Route 213: Desert Inn/Lamb
Route 102: Jones will be the primary focus of this memo. The seven transit routes that operate on parallel and crossing arterials will be considered in the context of transfers and overall system connectivity.
4.2.2 Span of SERVICE
The span of service for Route 102: Jones is as follows:
• Weekdays: Buses run from about 4:30 am to 2:00 am.
• Weekends and Holidays: Buses run from about 5:00 am to 2:00 am.
Route 102’s span of service is fairly similar to Route 104: Valley View/Torrey Pines, Route 207: Alta/Stewart, and Route 213: Desert Inn/Lamb. Route 101: Rainbow, Route 103: Decatur, Route 204: Sahara, and Route 206: Charleston have longer spans of service, running 24 hours a day.
4.2.3 Service Frequencies
The service frequencies of Route 102: Jones is as follows:
• Weekdays: Buses run about every half-hour in both directions (northbound and southbound) from about 4:30 am to about 6:30 pm. After 6:30 pm, buses run about every hour.
• Weekends and Holidays: Buses run about every 35 minutes in both directions from about 5:00 am to about 6:30 pm. After 6:30 pm, buses run about every hour.
81 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 4.2 shows the current Route 102: Jones weekday service schedule.
Exhibit 4.2 – Route 102: Jones Weekday Service Schedule
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada website, http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/
82 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 4.3 shows the current Route 102: Jones Saturday schedule.
Exhibit 4.3 – Route 102: Jones Boulevard Saturday Schedule
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada website, http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/
83 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 4.4 shows the current Route 102: Jones Saturday schedule.
Exhibit 4.4 – Route 102: Jones Boulevard Sunday and Holiday Schedule
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada website, http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/
Route 102 service frequencies are fairly similar to Route 101: Rainbow and Route 213: Desert Inn/Lamb. Routes in the study area with different service frequencies than Route 102 are:
84 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
• More Frequent Service: Route 103: Decatur runs about every 25 minutes until the evening on weekdays and Saturdays. Route 204: Sahara runs about every 17 to 18 minutes until the evening on weekdays and about every 20 minutes until the evening on weekends and holidays. Route 206: Charleston runs about every 15 minutes until the evening on weekdays and about every 20 minutes until the evening on weekends and holidays. All three of these routes (103, 204, & 206) also have more frequent service than Route 102 in the evenings, with about 30 minute service frequencies.
• Less Frequent Service: Route 104: Valley View/Torrey Pines has similar service frequencies as Route 102 on weekdays, but runs less frequently on Saturdays (about every 40 minutes) and on Sundays and holidays (about every 60 minutes). Route 207: Alta/Stewart has similar service frequencies as Route 102 on weekdays, but runs on about an hourly basis on weekends and holidays.
The range of service frequencies among routes operating in the study area by time of day limits the ability for timed transfers to be arranged between route pairs.
4.2.4 Stop Locations
Route 102: Jones has 12 stops within the study area in the northbound direction (stop spacing of about 0.26 miles), and 13 stops within the study area in the southbound direction (stop spacing of about 0.24 miles):
• Northbound (from south to north): Desert Inn Rd, Coley Ave, Tara Ave, Laredo St, Sahara Ave, O’Bannon Dr, Oakey Blvd, Transverse Dr, Charleston Blvd, Evergreen Ave, Alta Dr, Fairwood Ave.
• Southbound (from north to south): Elton Ave, Dayton Ave, Alta Dr, Evergreen Ave, Charleston Blvd, Transverse Dr, Oakey Blvd, O’Bannon Dr, Sahara Ave, Eldora St, Edna Ave, Palmyra Ave, Desert Inn Rd.
There are no bus turnouts along Jones Blvd in the study area. In the northern portion of the study area between US 95 and Charleston Blvd, and in the southern portion of the study area between Sahara Ave and Desert Inn Rd, buses on Jones Blvd block a lane of traffic when making stops. In the middle portion of the study area between Charleston Blvd and Sahara Ave, buses on Jones Blvd benefit from the extra large shoulders and do not block a lane of traffic when making stops.
Exhibit 4.5 shows the entire area served by Route 102: Jones, including locations both north and south of the study area (between US 95 and Desert Inn Road). Exhibit 4.5 identifies by letter the major route timepoints. The major time points within the study area are E: Jones at Charleston and F: Jones at Sahara.
85 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 4.5 – Route 102: Route Alignment and Major Timepoints
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada website, http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/transit/route/
4.2.5 Vehicles Used
RTC runs standard 40 foot buses on Route 102. The vehicle models used include those manufactured by New Flyer and NABI, and include diesel, diesel-electric hybrid, and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses. Seating capacities range from 32 to 40. Average passenger load data from RTC suggest current Route 102 seating capacities to be adequate.
86 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.3 TRANSIT DEMAND AND FORECASTS
4.3.1 Ridership
Exhibit 4.6 shows total ridership of the eight transit routes that serve the study area, based on data for calendar year 2008.
Exhibit 4.6 – Route-Level Ridership, Year 2008
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000 Year 2008 Ridership 2008 Year
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0 102: Jones 101: Rainbow 103: Decatur 104: Valley 204: Sahara 206: Charleston 207: Alta 213: DI View Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
With 765,260 boardings in 2008, Route 102: Jones ranks 6th among the eight routes in terms of total ridership:
• Routes with higher ridership are 206: Charleston (4.04 million boardings), 204: Sahara (3.01 million), 103: Decatur (2.06 million), 213: Desert Inn (1.70 million), and 101: Rainbow (1.20 million).
• Routes with lower ridership are 104: Valley View (749,501) and 207: Alta (634,890).
Among the 38 RTC transit routes that were in operation throughout the year 2008, Route 102: Jones ranks 23rd in terms of total ridership.
87 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.3.2 Service Productivity
Exhibit 4.7 shows service productivity (average passenger boardings per service hour) of the eight transit routes that serve the study area, based on year 2008 data.
Exhibit 4.7 – Route-Level Service Productivity, Year 2008
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0 Passengers per Service Hour Service per Passengers 15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 102: Jones 101: Rainbow 103: Decatur 104: Valley View 204: Sahara 206: Charleston 207: Alta 213: DI
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
RTC routes with high total ridership also tend to have high service productivity. With an average of 30.8 passengers per service hour in 2008, Route 102: Jones ranks 6th among the eight routes in terms of service productivity:
• Routes with higher service productivity are 206: Charleston (47.3 passengers per service hour), 204: Sahara (46.2), 101: Rainbow (41.1), 103: Decatur (38.5), and 213: Desert Inn (35.3).
• Routes with lower service productivity are 207: Alta (24.0) and 104: Valley View (23.2).
Among the 38 RTC transit routes that were in operation throughout the year 2008, Route 102: Jones ranks 24th in terms of service productivity.
88 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.3.3 Stop-Level Activity
Exhibit 4.8 shows average daily stop-level activity (boardings plus alightings) for individual Route 102 stops within the study area, based on year 2006 data. Stops are numbered according to their stop IDs. Northbound activity is on the right-hand side; southbound activity is on the left-hand side.
Exhibit 4.8 – Route 102 Stop-Level Activity, year 2006 data
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
The main findings from Exhibit 4.8 are as follows:
• The stop with the highest activity is Jones at Charleston (transfer point with Route 206: Charleston). In the northbound direction, there are an average of 150 daily boardings and 86 daily deboardings at this stop. In the southbound direction, there are an average of 139 daily boardings and 125 daily deboardings.
• The stop with the second highest activity is Jones at Sahara (transfer point with Route 204: Sahara). In the northbound direction, there are an average of 113 daily boardings and 33 daily deboardings at this stop. In the southbound direction, there are an average of 81 daily boardings and 126 daily deboardings.
• All other stops in the study area have fewer than 100 daily boardings + deboardings.
89 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.3.4 On-Time Performance
RTC establishes the following guidelines regarding route-level on-time performance:
• At least 90 percent of measured time points should be between 0 and 5 minutes late. No more than 10 percent of measured time points should be early arrivals or more than 5 minutes late.
• At least 95 percent of measured time points should be between 0 and 10 minutes late. No more than 5 percent of measured time points should be early arrivals or more than 10 minutes late.
Exhibit 4.9 shows year 2008 on-time performance results on a week by week basis for Route 102: Jones based on the 0-10 minute standard.
Exhibit 4.9 – Route 102 On-Time Performance, Year 2008
100.0%
99.0%
98.0%
97.0%
96.0%
95.0% On-Time Performance (0-10 minutes late) 94.0%
93.0%
92.0% 1/6 2/3 3/2 3/9 4/6 5/4 6/1 6/8 7/6 8/3 9/7 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/16 3/23 3/30 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/11 5/18 5/25 6/15 6/22 6/29 7/13 7/20 7/27 8/10 8/17 8/24 8/31 9/14 9/21 9/28 10/5 11/2 11/9 12/7 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/14 12/21 12/28
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
90 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The average Route 102 on-time performance for the year is about 98 percent, with only seven weeks had an average on-time performance of less than 97 percent. Two weeks during the year did not meet the on-time performance standard of 95 percent (week of March 10: 94.2 percent; week of August 24: 94.7 percent). Route 102 was among RTC’s top ten routes in terms of on-time performance in 2008.
4.3.5 Future Forecasts
RTC prepares transit route ridership projections using its 2004 Regional Travel Demand Model. There are no short-term factors that are expected to result in ridership changes in Route 102: Jones. Between the year 2013 and the year 2020, RTC projects that Route 102 ridership will decline by about 16 percent in the northbound direction and about 20 percent in the southbound direction. This is the result of projected route diversion due to proposed new express bus services running on US 95 and proposed enhanced service frequency improvements on Route 103: Decatur.
4.4 NEIGHBORHOOD/BUSINESS CONCERNS
The City of Las Vegas Neighborhood Services Department collected comments made by neighborhood residents regarding the Route 102 transit service on Jones Boulevard. These concerns expressed by residents are as follows:
The route frequency of one bus each half hour is insufficient.
Passengers transferring to other routes may have to wait 20 minutes or more.
Sidewalks to wait for the bus are narrow – people don’t feel safe (because the sidewalk is close to the street).
There is a lack of bus turnouts. (A bus turnout allows buses to move out of the traffic flow when passengers are being picked up and dropped off, thus speeding up mainline traffic).
There is a lack of bus pads. (A bus pad is a dedicated pad of about 3 feet behind the sidewalk for passengers to wait for the bus.)
In Las Vegas, bus turnouts are now required for new developments that will be served by transit. Construction of bus turnouts for existing developments that do not already have bus turnouts is not common due to the need to obtain additional right-of-way.
91 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
4.5 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
There are currently no transit capital or operational improvements that are being planned specifically for Route 102: Jones.
RTC and NDOT have developed a Park-and-Ride Master Plan which provides a framework for the development of future park-and-ride lots throughout the Las Vegas region. Exhibit 4.10 shows the locations of existing, planned, and potential park-and-ride lots.
Exhibit 4.10 – Park-and-Ride Lot Master Plan
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
92 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
As shown in Exhibit 4.10, there are no existing, planned, or potential park-and-ride lots within or immediately adjacent to the Jones Boulevard Study Area. The closest potential existing shared sites to the study area are located at Decatur Blvd & Washington Ave, Rainbow Blvd & Lake Mead Blvd, and Torrey Pines Dr & Tropicana Ave. The closest potential shared site involving new construction is located at Decatur Blvd & Tropicana Ave. At the present time, there are no immediate plans to develop any of these sites into park-and-ride lots.
There is also a site at a parking lot adjacent to Jones Blvd, just north of US 95 that could potentially be used as a park-and-ride lot. RTC has no current plans to utilize this site as a park-and-ride lot.
As stated in its 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, RTC’s long-term vision is to overlay its existing transit route network with a complementary system of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and express routes. An initial BRT line, the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX), went into service on North Las Vegas Blvd. An initial express bus service will be introduced later this year in the US 95 corridor into downtown Las Vegas. RTC is currently building a rapid transit system ACE that will connect downtown Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Convention Center, the Strip, Henderson, and North Las Vegas.
Potential future BRT and express bus services in the Las Vegas region are as follows:
Funded BRT Investments: Downtown Connector in Downtown Las Vegas, Enhancements to shelters on the Las Vegas Blvd Strip, BRT on Boulder Highway, Dedicated lanes as part of the North 5th St project, BRT stations on North 5th St and on Las Vegas Blvd between SR 146 and the Strip.
Unfunded BRT Needs: Rancho Dr, Maryland Pkwy, Sahara Ave, Flamingo Rd, Las Vegas Blvd between Sloan and SR 146.
Potential Express Bus Services: Summerlin Parkway to downtown Las Vegas, Through operations to the north end of the Las Vegas Strip, Through operations to the City Center development and the south end of the Las Vegas Strip, I-15 south to the Las Vegas Strip, Laughlin & Searchlight with the Las Vegas Valley, Mesquite & Glendale/ Logandale with the Las Vegas Valley.
The proposed BRT route on Sahara Ave would pass through the study area.
Other transit investments being pursued by RTC include a new transit center to serve downtown Las Vegas, replacement and upgrading of transit shelters, improvements to passenger amenities and security, upgrading adjoining sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks, and landscaping or amenity barriers.
93 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
In addition, RTC is currently implementing its Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in 2008. The Jones Blvd study area contains two primary types of bicycle facilities, as defined by RTC and consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) definitions:
Bicycle Route: A bicycle route is a signed shared roadway designated by placing signs along the roadway, indicating it is a preferred route for bicycle use. Bicycle routes are typically designated on roadways that have a wide curb lane of at least 14 feet or greater between the lane line and the lip of the curb, plus a 1.5-footwide gutter pan.
Bicycle Lane: A bicycle lane is a portion of a roadway that has been assigned using striping, signing, and pavement markings for the use of bicyclists. The width of the bicycle lane is set at a 4-foot minimum from the bicycle lane strip to the edge of the pavement, plus a 1.5-foot-wide gutter pan.
RTC has bicycle facility improvements programmed into the Transportation Improvement Program for FY2009-2012. However the facility improvements are not identified by name and are at the discretion of the local public works departments.
Exhibit 4.11 identifies the portion of the Bicycle Master Plan within the Jones Blvd study area. This is followed by a narrative description of the exhibit.
94 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 4.11 – Las Vegas Bicycle Master Plan, 2008
Source: RTC of Southern Nevada
Exhibit 4.11 provides the following information:
Dark green represents existing bicycle routes. In particular, Jones Blvd between Oakey and Desert Inn is a designated bicycle route. Desert Inn west of Jones is also a designated bicycle route.
Light green represents adopted, or planned, bicycle routes. There is an adopted bicycle route on Upland between Jones and Alta and on Desert Inn east of Jones.
Dark blue represents existing bicycle lanes. Alta Dr and Torrey Pines between US 95 and Sahara are the two facilities in the study area with existing bicycle lanes.
Light blue represents adopted, or planned, bicycle lanes. New bicycle lanes have been adopted on Oakey Blvd, Edna Ave, Torrey Pines between Sahara and Desert Inn, and Lindell between Oakey and Desert Inn.
95 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Red represents existing off-street bicycle facilities. The Bonanza Trail, an off-street shared use pathway, currently runs east-west in the northern portion of the study area near US 95. A Bonanza Trail extension has been adopted to connect the Summerlin trail system with downtown Las Vegas.
There are no roadway facilities within the Jones Blvd study area for which bicycle use is prohibited, with the exception of US 95.
The northern segment of Jones Blvd is not an existing or adopted bicycle route due to existing geometric constraints pertaining to curb lanes. However, the planned extension of a bicycle lane on Oakey will provide a clear link from the southern portion of the study area to the Bonanza Trail by following Torrey Pines.
In addition to the role of transit, it is also important to recognize the role of non-motorized transportation including bicycles and pedestrians as the study proceeds.
96 Chapter 4: Role of Public Transit Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
97 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
98 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to carry out Task 3.4: Alternatives Analysis. This chapter consolidates data gathered in previous chapters and through the stakeholder participation through all Technical Working Group (TWG) sessions in order to present roadway and intersection alternatives that warrant further consideration for the short (1-2 years), medium (2-5 years) and long (5-10 years) terms. Up to 15 alternatives are developed as part of this process and then assessed based on a screening methodology.
The Consultant Team developed a screening methodology that was first presented to the TWG in March 2009 and further refined in subsequent discussions. The purpose of the screening is to eliminate options with “fatal flaws”. The task focuses on technical merit of each alternative; financial consideration is noted as part of the alternative assessment but not necessarily considered a “fatal flaw”. Cost estimation of capital and operating expenditures for the alternatives is performed in the subsequent task 4.2 (Cost Estimation) in Chapter 7.
This chapter is organized into the following sections:
Section 5.2: Generation of Alternatives. Presents all the alternatives generated as part of the process, including travel lane configuration, transit treatments, description of intersection improvements (e.g., turning pockets), identification of alternative streets to Jones Boulevard for preferential couplets.
Section 5.3: Screening Methodology. Presents the principles of the screening methodology, as well as the evaluation factors themselves.
Section 5.4: Evaluation of Alternatives. Presents and analyzes each alternative.
Section 5.5: Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis. Presents the conclusions of the alternatives evaluation.
99 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.2 GENERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Generation of transportation alternatives for the Jones Boulevard Corridor study took place on an ongoing basis from January to June 2009. By design, the Consultant Team did not identify specific limitations or sources for the generation of alternatives. Ideas, concepts and refinement of alternatives were welcome from all parties whom the Consultant Team came into contact with during the period, including indirect contacts through the City of Las Vegas to community and business groups. The alternatives generated also built upon the following key chapters: 2 (Road Geometrics); 3 (Traffic Management and Access); and 4 (Role of Transit), from supporting documentation from other regional studies (e.g., Valley View Boulevard Study), and from the many data sources documented in Chapter 1. Consultant Team members also met periodically as a group to generate their own alternatives based on document reviews, corridor drive-throughs and professional judgment.
The three main sources of generation of alternatives can be summarized as follows:
Technical Working Group member stakeholders (e.g., City of Las Vegas, NDOT, Clark County, RTC, FAST, etc.) Community and business groups (outreach via City of Las Vegas) Consultant Team members.
5.2.1 Initial List of Alternatives
The Consultant Team initially organized the first generation of alternatives geographically to fit four major categories:
Northern segment of study area (US 95 to Charleston) Middle segment (Charleston to Sahara) Southern segment (Desert Inn to Charleston) Study area-wide improvements (e.g., bus turnouts).
The eleven alternatives generated as part of this first pass are listed in Exhibit 5.1 on the next page. Note that the last three alternatives (9 through 11) are the most challenging as they require ROW acquisition and in the case of alternative 11 the removal of turning lanes.
100 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 5.1 – Initial Alternatives
Alterative Description13 1 Add 2 lanes (one NB and one SB) to Develop non-standard striping on Jones from Charleston to US95– Charleston Segment, using US95, reconfigure the existing 4 lanes to 6 lanes (Potential non-standard striping but no ROW configuration West to East 5’ sidewalk, 13’, 11’, 11’, median purchase line, 11’, 11’, 13’, 5’). 2 Add 1 SB lane to US95 – Charleston Potential configuration 6’, 11’, 11’, 11’, 12’ median line, 11’, Segment 11’, 2’ shoulder, 5’ sidewalk. Improved side is the SB side (and NB from Alta to US 95). 3 Add 1 NB lane to Charleston-US 95 5’ sidewalk, 2’ shoulder, 11’, 11’, 12’ median, 11’, 11’, 11’, Segment 6’. Improved side is NB side from Charleston to US 95. 4a Add 1 SB lane to Charleston-Sahara. Basically replace the extra-wide shoulder and add a lane, and some re-striping. Potential configuration: 5’, 14’, 11’, 11’, 4’ to 14’ median, 11’, 11’, 14’ shoulder, 5’ sidewalk. Major constraints at Charleston/Jones: light commercial building; ROW in question for this parcel – Parcel 16301101005 (no wide shoulder at this point). 4b Add 1 SB lane on part of Alta- Includes commercial area, potentially with ROW Charleston acquisition. 5 Add 1 SB lane and 1 NB lane to Proposed configuration, 5’ sidewalk, 14’, 11’, 11’, 4’ to 14’ Charleston-Sahara median, 11’, 11’, 14’, 5’ 6 Add 1 NB lane only to Charleston- Basically replace the extra-wide shoulder and add a lane, Sahara and some re-striping. Potential configuration: 5’, 14’ shoulder, 11’, 11’, 4’ to 14’ median, 11’, 11’, 14’, 5’ sidewalk. 7 Left turn pockets Increasing dual left turn pocket at selected signalized intersections (e.g., Northbound at Sahara, Southbound at DI). 8 Bus Pads/Turnouts Bus turnout and pedestrian pad (10x30 – 5 ft behind sidewalk). East side of Jones north of Palmyra (north of DI and Darby). 9 Add 2 lanes (one NB and one SB) to Purchasing ROW between Charleston and US95 (west US95– Charleston Segment, using side of Jones) to widen ROW from 80’ to 100’. Requires standard striping and ROW purchase purchasing property on the Western side of Jones. 10 Acquiring ROW for right only turns Right only turn lanes improve accessibility and circulation (e.g., NB at Sahara, at Charleston). 11 Southern end of corridor Potential to reconfigure Southern end of corridor by reconfiguration – Sahara to Desert Inn. removing median and turn lane and add 11’ through lanes in each direction
13 Potential configuration widths are listed from West to East (e.g., sidewalk, lane, lane, median, lane, lane, sidewalk)
101 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The alternatives generated can be grouped into capacity improvements; circulation; transit; and throughput as shown in Exhibit 5.2 below.
Exhibit 5.2 – Alternatives Grouping
ImprovementImprovement TypeType InitialIInitialnitial AlternativesAlternatives
CapacityCapacity ImprovementsImprovements (1)(1) US95-Charleston,US95-Charleston, 11 NBNB ++ 11 SBSB lanelane // ThroughputThroughput (2)(2) US95-Charleston,US95-Charleston, 11 SBSB lanelane (3) US95-Charleston, 1 NB lane (3) US95-Charleston, 1 NB lane (4a)(4a) Charleston-Sahara,Charleston-Sahara, 11 SBSB lanelane (4b)(4b) Alta-Charleston,Alta-Charleston, 11 SBSB lanelane (5)(5) Charleston-Sahara,Charleston-Sahara, 11 NBNB ++ 11 SBSB lanelane (6)(6) Charleston-Sahara,Charleston-Sahara, 11 NBNB lanelane (9)(9) US95-Charleston,US95-Charleston, ROWROW acquisitionacquisition
(11)(11) SouthernSouthern endend corridorcorridor 11’11’ lanes lanes
CirculationCirculation // AccessibilityAccessibility (7)(7) DualDual leftleft turnturn pocketspockets (10) Right only turns – ROW acquisitions (10) Right only turns – ROW acquisitions
TransitTransit InfrastructureInfrastructure (8)(8) BusBus pads/turnoutspads/turnouts
5.2.2 Correction of Assessors Record
The question surrounding Parcel 163011011005 as listed in alternative 4a above was resolved as part of this task. The issue came up during the March TWG presentation, when a corner of the parcel appeared directly under the roadway.
As a result, the easement and right of way was in question. TWG members from the City of Las Vegas and NDOT helped to address this issue. After a series of exchanges between NDOT and the City of Las Vegas, it was determined that the parcel was City of Las Vegas right of way, dedicated by document 0416:0375169. The assessor’s map was incorrect. Ms. Peace-Almanzan contacted the Assessor’s office and had it corrected.
102 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.3 SCREENING METHODOLOGY
Neither the scope of work nor the TWG members were especially constraining regarding the specific components of the screening methodology for Jones Boulevard. Again, the intent was to weed out alternatives with actual “fatal flaws”, from a technical merit perspective, from those without which could therefore be shortlisted for the Conceptual Design phase. Costs differentiators could be noted but would not necessarily rule out individual options since the cost estimation task was conceived in the Conceptual Design phase.
During the study kick off meeting however, TWG members suggested refining the timeframe horizons for alternative implementation for the short term (1-2 years), the medium term 2-5 years) and the long term (5-10 years), from earlier more extended timeframes.
Based on these discussions and the initial generation of alternatives, the Consultant Team developed a conceptual screening methodology for the Jones corridor alternatives following earlier discussions held with the TWG and the RTC project manager. Exhibit 5.3 provides a conceptual framework that guided the evaluation process.
Exhibit 5.3 – Jones Screening Methodology – Conceptual Framework
Roadway Mobility Improvement Modal Improvement Safety Cost Other Timeframe Major Access / Throughput Ease to Alt. Transit Bike Ped Political Legal Capacity Circulation Optimiz. Implement 1 2 3 4
103 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.4.1 First Round Evaluation – March 2009 TWG
The March 2009 TWG meeting involved discussion of the eleven alternatives to clearly understand the proposed alternatives through detailed examination of the corridor profile, as well as discussion the benefits and drawbacks of each (see table below). One of the alternatives (#11) was considered to have a fatal flaw.
Alternative Descriptions Initial Assessment Fatal # Location Description Advantages Disadvantages Flaw 2 LNs: 1 LN NB and 1 LN Major capacity increase in Non standard, no turning lanes, no 1 US 95-Charleston SB (non standard No both directions deceleration lanes, bus stops in traffic striping) Major SB capacity increase; North of Alta, the entire roadway needs to maintains median for turning; be repaved including the Eastern sidewalk 2 US 95-Charleston 1 LN SB No wider sidewalk possible SB - associated cost. Reduction of shoulder in (helps with transit queues) NB direction
Major NB capacity increase; Cost of repaving sidewalk and street; 3 US 95-Charleston 1 LN NB wider East sidewalk, elimination of shoulder in NB direction No maintain median for turning (safety issue for driveways) Losing SB shoulder to make right turns Major SB capacity increase; (similar to DI-Sahara section); 19 SB 4a Charleston-Sahara 1 LN SB No low cost driveways; might require additional ROW at egress from Charleston. Further helps SB throughput Potentially involves ROW acquisition; Cost 4b Alta-Charleston 1 LN SB Extension to 4a particularly across No of construction Charleston intersection There are 20 commercial driveways NB Major roadway capacity in and 19 SB. Issue of transitioning NB traffic 5 Charleston-Sahara 1 LB NB and 1 LN SB No both directions; low cost onto 2 leftmost lanes to beyond Charleston (100' to 80' ROW) - include tapers. There are 20 commercial driveways NB. Issue of transitioning NB traffic onto 2 6 Charleston-Sahara 1 LN NB Major NB capacity increase leftmost lanes to beyond Charleston (100' No to 80' ROW) - include tapers, right turn lane capture. Transit circulation and 7 Corridor-wide Deeper left turn pockets access, potentially safety None No during peak hours. Bus Pads/Turnouts at Transit circulation and Potential ROW acquisition in some cases; 8 Corridor-wide No selected locations access, pedestrian access insufficient space for tapers. Major cost, and requires the identification 1 LB NB and 1 LN SB Major capacity increase in 9 US 95-Charleston of the properties affected. Not No (ROW purchase) both directions implementable in the short term. Accessibility and circulation. Right-only turns (ROW 10 Corridor-wide Potential location on the S to Cost and feasibility No purchase) E turn at Desert Inn. Section of study area already has 3 lanes in each direction; major accessibility Median Removal and 11' Throughput capacity issues for Southbound Jones traffic onto 11 Sahara-Desert Inn Yes Through Lanes increase DI (typically 10% of traffic); would cause transition issues north and south of section.
104 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The March 2009 meeting resulted in two major changes to the alternatives:
Alternative 11 was deemed to be fatally flawed and therefore dropped from further consideration. The TWG requested that moving forward the Consultant team stitch alternatives together into 2-3 corridor wide alternatives, instead of segment specific alternatives.
Following these recommendations the Consultant Team selectively combined the alternatives generated to date into the four area-wide alternatives below.
Exhibit 5.4 – Summary of Jones Alternatives
Initial
ID Alternatives Objective Direction ROW Acquisition
1 1, 5, 9 Increase Throughput: US 95 to Sahara NB + SB Yes
2 2, 4 Increase Throughput: US 95 to Sahara SB Limited
3 3, 6 Increase Throughput: US 95 to Sahara NB Limited
Other Improvements (left turn pockets, 4 7, 8, 10 NB + SB Limited right turn lanes, bus pads/turnouts)
The four alternatives have overlapping timeframes. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 could all take place in the medium term (2 – 5 year horizon) with sufficient funds and only very limited right-of-way acquisition. Any of the three alternatives would certainly be implemented in the long term (5 – 10 year horizon). If Alternative #1 were to include left turn pockets or a turn lane, it could require substantial construction and right-of-way acquisition and is most likely in the long-term. With left turn pockets or a center turn lane, alternatives #2 and #3 could fit into the existing 80 foot right-of-way but would require significant construction to replace the sidewalk and pave the new shoulder. In this case, their implementation would also likely be in the long term. In the case of Alternative #4, left turn pockets could be extended in the short term (1 – 2 year horizon) as could bus pads. However funding sources would be difficult to identify. Right turn lanes and bus turnouts would require additional right-of-way and may be feasible only in the medium or long term.
105 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.4.2 Second Round Evaluation – May 2009 TWG
Alternative #1 The vision for this alternative is three lanes in
each direction for the entirety of the study area (widening from Sahara north to US 95). The alternative involves non-standard striping on Jones from Charleston to US 95 and elimination of the transition lane as a sub- option.
Because the main alternative discussed for the northern segment involved the purchase of 16 properties on the western side of Jones to widen the ROW from 80’ to 100’, it was rejected by the TWG. Roadway Mobility Impacts: Vis-à-vis the base case, the addition of one lane in each direction would increase the capacity in each direction by 33%. Taking into account lane widths, parking and bus stopping, turning and density of CBD traffic, the flow rate can be estimated at approximately 4,200 vehicles per hour in the green cycle according to Highway Capacity Manual guidelines. The continuous three-lane capacity along the entire study area to US 95 would maximize the corridor’s capacity without impacting access and circulation.
Modal Impacts: The increased roadway capacity is neutral to modal (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) improvement. However, widening the ROW to 100 feet would enable a wider sidewalk on the northern portion of the study area which benefits pedestrians. Bicycle route: no impact (current bicycle route is on Jones between Oakey and Desert Inn; connection to Bonanza trail is recommended via Torrey Pines).
Safety Impacts: There is a potential safety issue involving accessing the commercial driveways in an expanded network, northbound between Charleston and US 95 and in both directions between Sahara and Charleston. The elimination of left turns between Charleston and US 95 could reduce left turn accidents. On the same section, vehicles in the left lanes might be more susceptible to head on collisions.
Costs: Estimated at $11 million for ROW acquisition and another $12-$15 million per mile for construction (source: City of Las Vegas). Acquiring sufficient ROW for the Charleston intersection would be particularly costly.
Other (Political, Legal, etc.): The May 2009 update concerning capital construction funding was dire. The City of Las Vegas has minimal funding for major construction
106 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
projects. On that basis, the City of Las Vegas representative from the Traffic Branch on the TWG concluded that alternative 1 needed to be dropped from further consideration.
Alternative #2 The vision for this alternative is an investment in one additional southbound lane only. Since there isn’t sufficient right of way for both a northbound and a Southbound lane, this alternative favors the Southern direction as the solution for better regional mobility.
The alternative would involve repaving the entire roadway and sidewalk north of Alta, and re-striping the entire segment between US 95 and Charleston. It would provide narrow shoulder only in the northbound direction. Alternative #2 would eliminate the extra-wide shoulder on the west side between Charleston and Sahara.
Roadway Mobility Impacts: The additional lane in the southbound direction would add 33 percent to the capacity and not adversely impact turning movements. A third southbound lane increases accessibility to the corridor from US 95. The increased capacity would help relieve morning peak traffic coming off US 95 as well as right turning traffic from Charleston onto Jones. Northbound movements would be unaffected compared to the base case.
Modal Impacts: The bus stops on Jones Southbound are the ones affected, for example the two between Sahara and Charleston. Bicycle route: no impact.
Safety Impacts: There is a potential safety issue involving accessing the commercial driveways in an expanded network, in the southbound direction between Sahara and Charleston. This area contains 19 commercial driveways. The transformation of the wide shoulder into a through lane means drivers won’t be able to decelerate as much and turn right from the travel lane into the commercial driveway.
Costs: The magnitude of costs is estimated to be small relative to Alternative #1. The majority of the cost will be concentrated in the portion north of Alta for the repaving portion. Additional significant costs would be incurred modifying the Sahara and Charleston intersections to accommodate an additional lane.
Other (Political, Legal, etc.): None noted.
107 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Alternative #3 The vision for this alternative is the investment in one additional lane in the northbound direction only. Since there isn’t sufficient right of way for both a northbound and a Southbound lane, this alternative favors the northern direction as one solution for better regional mobility. This is the inverse of Alternative #2.
The alternative would involve repaving the entire roadway and sidewalk north of Alta, and re-striping. It would also involve taking away the extra-wide shoulder on the east side between Charleston and Sahara, with some re-striping
Roadway Mobility Impacts: The additional lane in the northbound direction will add 33 percent to the capacity and not adversely impact turning movements. While the added capacity will help relieve northbound afternoon peak traffic, the PM peak has less directionality than the AM peak. Southbound movements would not be affected compared to the base case.
Modal Impacts: Here it will be the northbound bus stops that will be affected. There are four between Sahara and US 95. Bicycle route: no impact.
Safety Impacts: There is a potential safety issue involving accessing the commercial driveways in an expanded network, in the northbound direction between Sahara and Charleston. This area contains 20 commercial driveways. The transformation of the wide shoulder into a through lane means drivers won’t be able to decelerate as much and turn right from the travel lane into the commercial driveway. A somewhat bigger issue will be on the east side of Jones Blvd between Charleston and US 95 (34 commercial and 23 residential driveways).
Costs: The magnitude of costs is estimated to be small relative to Alternative #1. The majority of the cost will be concentrated on the portion north of Alta for the repaving required.
Other (Political, Legal, etc.): None noted.
108 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Alternative #4 Jones Blvd The last alternative contains three separate Corridor alternatives which are viewed as options implementable either independently or in conjunction with other alternatives.
A. Deeper left turn pockets – essentially an extension of existing turning pockets which have a tendency to fill up during peak hours.
B. Bus pads/turnouts – Bus pads require B approximately 10’ by 30’. Bus pads are feasible in many locations along the corridor without ROW acquisition. But turnouts, however, all would require ROW acquisition. C C. New right-only turns – These turn lanes improve overall accessibility and increase A average speeds (require ROW acquisition).
Roadway Mobility Impacts: The alternatives listed above affect multiple locations throughout the study area. Mobility impacts for left and right turn lanes are estimated to be very localized. Bus pads would be mobility neutral. Even bus turnouts, if feasible given ROW acquisition, would not have a large mobility impact given the current and forecast service frequency, but they might interfere with 1 or 2 driveways at either side of the turnout. Right-only turn lanes improve mobility by eliminating queuing for through traffic.
Modal Impacts: Bus pads would have a positive impact for both transit and pedestrians along the study area. Demand levels along the corridor do not justify additional frequency in bus service; however the provision of more consistent bus shelter/furniture and bus pads is likely to make transit a more attractive option for riders. These options are bicycle route neutral.
Safety Impacts: Jones corridor feedback from neighborhoods suggested that sidewalks are perceived to be too narrow to wait for the bus; bus pads would help alleviate these concerns. Turning lanes and turning pockets are also expected to have positive safety impacts, reducing rear-end collisions from close following vehicles.
Costs: Costs for these options are all expected to be modest for the alternatives not involving any ROW acquisition. The TWG expressed that acquiring ROW for bus turnouts is typically only accomplished through a mutually agreeable transaction with the seller or
109 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
through a major corridor redevelopment project. Condemnation is not an option used to build bus turnouts.
Other (Political, Legal, etc.): New legislation is being developed pertaining to the development of bus turnouts in the Las Vegas Valley, but it is not available for review yet. Implementation of bus turnouts might be limited if property owners cannot agree to a sale in negotiations.
5.4.3 Alternative Selection
The May 2009 TWG was a watershed meeting where the main corridor-wide alternatives were reduced from three to one. The TWG decided to retain Alternative #4 (viewed as complementary to any of the main corridor-wide alternatives)
As identified above, Alternative #1 was dropped from further consideration. Even though the alternative had some technical merit, the challenges in acquiring 16 properties from a cost and political feasibility perspectives were deemed too great by the City of Las Vegas, in today’s and in the foreseeable fiscal environment.
Alternative #3 (northbound vision) was also dropped from further consideration in favor of Alternative #2 (Southbound vision) in consensus by the TWG. Each major arterial follows the same pattern of peak flow by direction (southbound volumes higher in AM, northbound volumes higher in PM). No two major arterials in the study area are natural couplets with respect to peak direction of traffic flow. Given the fact that the City plans to add one additional northbound lane on Valley View Blvd between Sahara Ave and US 95 (or between Desert Inn Rd and US 95), and no additional lane in the southbound direction, the City expressed a preference on adding southbound capacity in order to balance out overall system capacity by direction.
Alternative #4 (namely three sub alternatives of the bus pads/turnouts, left turning pockets and right turn lanes) are complementary to Alternative #2 and should all be carried forward to Phase 4.
5.4.4 Development of Chosen Alternative
With the selection of Alternative #2, the TWG determined to have the Consultant Team provide more detailed options for the southbound vision. In response, the Consultant Team developed a set of preliminary drawings detailing multiple options for Alternative #2. In preparation for the July 2009 TWG meeting, the team developed a set of eleven sub- alternatives, each of which addresses particular technical issues with the southbound vision for the Jones Corridor. Exhibit 5.5 provides descriptions of the sub-alternatives.
110 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 5.5 – Southbound Vision Sub-Alternatives 14 Sub-Alterative Description Baseline US 95 to Charleston. Add 1 SB lane Develop non-standard striping on Jones from US 95 to and eliminate center turn lane (CTL) Charleston; reconfigure the existing 4 lanes to 5 lanes. Potential configuration West to East: 5’ sidewalk, 12’ (all outside lanes/shoulders widths include 2’ gutter), 11’, 12’, median line, 12’, 11’, 8’ shoulder, 5’ sidewalk, 4’ buffer. Baseline Charleston to Sahara: add 1 SB lane to Standard stripping: 6’ sidewalk, 14’, 11’, 11’, 16’ median, 11’, 13’, segment 12’ shoulder, 6’ sidewalk. 1A Add 1 SB lane to US95 – Charleston Develop non-standard striping on Jones from Charleston to Segment with a hard median US95: 5’ sidewalk, 13’, 11’, 11’, 4’ hard median, 12’, 11’, 8’ shoulder, 5’ sidewalk. 1B Charleston to Sahara: add 1 SB lane Standard stripping: 6’ sidewalk, 14’, 11’, 11’, 16’ median, 11’, 11’, and 1 NB lane to segment 14’, 6’ sidewalk. 1C US 95-Upland-Jones Intersection: Develop non-standard striping on Jones on south side of extend a 3rd SB lane all the way north to intersection: 5’ sidewalk, 13’, 11’, 10’, 2’ hard median, 10’, 10’, the intersection 11’, 13’, 5’ sidewalk. 1D Charleston & Jones intersection: extend Develop non-standard striping on Jones on south side of 3rd SB lane all the way north to the intersection: 6’ sidewalk, 13’, 11’, 12’, 2’ hard median, 10’, 10’, intersection 11’, 11’, 13’, 6’ sidewalk. Requires acquisition of 5’ of ROW, shown on west side. 1E Sahara & Jones: 3 SB through lanes, On the SB side, all three lanes extend through the intersection. NB right turn lane However, on the north side, there is a right turn lane capturing traffic from the 3rd NB lane. 1F Desert Inn & Jones: SB left turn lane Proposed extension of SB left turn lane back to Darby extension 1G Sahara & Jones: extension of NB left Proposed extension of NB left turn lane South to Laredo turn lane to Laredo 1H New bus pads at 4 stops at Sahara and Acquire ROW to create bus pads with canopies at 4 locations. Charleston intersections 1I Desert Inn “& Jones: new bus pad NB Acquire ROW to create a bus pad with a canopy. north of intersection 1J ROW for 3rd SB through lane at Acquire ROW on north side of the intersection to create sufficient Charleston space to extend the 3rd SB lane through the intersection. It is worth noting that besides the 5 bus turnouts mentioned above, there are 19 other bus stops on Jones in the Study Area. Based on the RTC bus stop data, it was determined that resources are best focused on the Charleston and Desert Inn intersections since these two intersections account for the most passengers boarding and descending from Route 102 buses and consequently would provide the greatest safety benefit.
14 Potential configuration widths are listed from West to East (e.g., sidewalk, lane, lane, median, lane, lane, sidewalk)
111 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The July 2009 meeting made further progress in honing final plans for Alternative #1 – the southbound vision. Presented with the preliminary drawings, the TWG once again identified “fatal flaws” and implemented the screening methodology from Exhibit 5.3. The July 2009 TWG not only sought to select the best options for a single plan of recommended improvements; it also tried to reconcile the sub-alternatives to permit a single feasible implementation. Exhibit 5.6 summarizes the results of the assessment.
Exhibit 5.6 – Evaluation of Sub-Alternatives
Sub-Alternative Initial Assessment Fatal # Description Advantages Disadvantages Recommendation Flaw Lower cost – sidewalk and Baseline US 95 to Charleston. Non-standard lanes, unsafe for Use shoulder and buffer to utilities undisturbed; Add 1 SB lane and left-turns or u-turns, limited division maintain the CTL with 3 SB No shoulder allows safer right eliminate center turn lane between oncoming traffic lanes & 2 NB lanes turn driveway access Maintains a NB right turn Baseline Charleston to Sahara: lane; layout of Charleston & NB shoulder is under-utilized; does Drop sub-alternative in add 1 SB lane to Sahara intersections would not address high traffic in NB No favor of 1B segment require no or less ROW direction acquisition; low cost More expensive to replace 1A Add 1 SB lane to US95 – Hard median improves sidewalk and repave; residents Charleston Segment with Drop sub-alternative No safety by restricting left turns and businesses will like oppose a hard median loss of left turn access Charleston to Sahara: Losing shoulder for right turns; 1B Major SB capacity increase; add 1 SB lane and 1 NB decreased bicycle safety on Keep sub-alternative as is No low cost lane to segment designated route US 95-Upland-Jones Alignment of lanes requires curves 1C rd Improves flow & safety from Intersection: extend a 3 in SB lanes; extra cost to expand Keep sub-alternative as is No SB off-ramp to SB Jones SB lane north to off-ramp road on west side Requires ROW acquisition; extra 1D Charleston & Jones Acquire ROW on SE rd Increases intersection cost for sidewalk rd intersection: extend 3 shoulder; add 3 SB right capacity at a major replacement/repaving; alignment No SB lane all the way north through lane/acquire bottleneck problems with north side; no right to the intersection additional ROW; turn lane SB Right turn capture lane diminishes Acquire ROW on SE 1E Low cost improvement to rd Sahara & Jones: 3 SB NB capacity – NB queuing is shoulder to allow 3 NB intersection; intersection through lanes, NB right currently a problem; SB has no through lane; acquire ROW No capacity higher in SB turn lane right turn lane – limits intersection on north side to fit SB right direction N-S capacity turn lane Reduce queuing for E-bound 1F Drop sub-alternative. Desert Inn & Jones: SB Desert Inn on Jones; low Limits accessibility of Darby Ave Consider left turn pocket No left turn lane extension cost option to improve extensions elsewhere. safety, intersection capacity Reduces spillover of left-turn There are already plans to 1G Sahara & Jones: queue into through lanes; close the median on extension of NB left turn Limited access to Laredo Yes low cost option to improve Laredo which will lane to Laredo intersection safety/capacity implement a similar design. Provides a better experience 1H New bus pads at 4 stops Does not address buses stopping Bus turnouts are a for transit riders and better at Sahara and in traffic; requires minor ROW preferred option: do not No accessibility for pedestrians Charleston intersections acquisition impede traffic using sidewalks Provides a better experience 1I Desert Inn “& Jones: new Does not address buses stopping Bus turnouts are a for transit riders and better bus pad NB north of in traffic; requires minor ROW preferred option: do not No accessibility for pedestrians intersection acquisition impede traffic using sidewalks ROW acquisition will be costly; 1J ROW for 3rd SB through Increases SB intersection less room for bus turnouts; no Include right turn lane NB No lane at Charleston capacity separate right turn lanes
112 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
5.5 CONCLUSIONS OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The July 2009 TWG meeting set much more defined parameters for the preferred corridor alternative. Comments on the sub-alternatives helped to define a comprehensive approach to corridor improvements that would improve performance as measured in traffic flow and safety through the entire Study Area. Based on the evaluation and feedback of the TWG, the proposed Jones Boulevard corridor improvements to be presented in the final drawings are presented as a set of seven plan elements.
5.5.1 Northern Study Area
On Jones from US 95 to Charleston, it was determined to have three southbound lanes and two northbound lanes, along with a center turn lane instead of shoulder and buffer regions in the right-of-way. This segment of Jones has the highest density of driveways, both commercial and residential. As more businesses populate this section of the corridor, accessibility will remain an important concern. The preservation of the center turn lane ensures accessibility for residents and businesses along the segment. However, maintaining the center turn lane in the design will require the removal and replacement of the sidewalk and utilities to create space for an additional lane.
5.5.2 Central Study Area
From Charleston Boulevard south to Sahara Avenue, Jones the plans reconfigure Jones to resemble the corridor between Sahara and Desert Inn: three lanes in each direction with no shoulder lane. The preferred option keeps standard striping and could be implemented in the course of a standard milling and overlay maintenance project. Fourteen feet for each right lane provides easier turning into narrow driveways, especially for delivery vehicles. Maintaining the 16 foot median means the left turn pockets are preserved. Three northbound lanes alleviate traffic on the most congest section of the corridor.
5.5.3 Upland Intersection
The additional southbound lane, added from right-of-way on the west side, will permit vehicles exiting from southbound US 95 to turn onto Jones without merging. The extra lane will improve safety and throughput especially as traffic to and from Summerlin and northwest Las Vegas increases. This plan element would require the replacement of the sidewalk, a short two foot retaining wall along the sidewalk, and some movement of utilities. Additionally, although the widening would create a longer crossing for pedestrians, the proposed improvements would not affect the timing cycles in the Study Area, as described in Section 3.2.3. The same signal timing configuration is in place at the widest intersections on Sahara Avenue and there are no concerns about crossing time as far as the
113 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Consultant Team is aware. These same observations apply to the proposed modifications to the Charleston and Sahara intersections.
5.5.4 Charleston Intersection
The Charleston-Jones intersection is a particularly challenging context because of the transition from an 80 foot right-of-way to a 100 foot right-of-way. On the south side of the intersection the preferred alternative would use acquired right-of-way from the east side to add an additional southbound lane. On the north side of the intersection, there is not sufficient space on either side to add both a right turn lane southbound and a third southbound through lane. Therefore, the right turn lane would be dropped in this instance. Right-of-way would have to be acquired from both the east and west sides of Jones to accommodate the third southbound lane.
5.5.5 Sahara Intersection
Since Jones Boulevard is 100 feet wide on both sides of Sahara Avenue, there are no alignment issues at this intersection. The existing shoulder is wide enough to add an additional southbound through lane with a reconfiguration of the other lanes. However, to add right turn lanes northbound and southbound, additional right-of-way would be required. On the south side, sufficient space is available on the east side of Jones; on the north side, right of way would likely have to be acquired from both sides of the intersection.
5.5.6 Bus Turnouts
Bus turnouts offer improved safety and traffic flow compared to simple pads where buses stop in-lane and block traffic. The recommended alternative proposes five bus turnouts: two each at the Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue intersections and northbound at Desert Inn Road, just north of the intersection. Bus pads also remove the waiting passengers from the edge of the roadway, thereby improving their safety and waiting experience.
5.5.7 Left Pocket Extensions
The last element of the recommended improvements plan would lengthen left turn pockets between Charleston and Desert Inn. As discussed in Section 3.6, 27 percent of recorded accidents in the Study Area involve a vehicle turning left. Longer left turn pockets would give vehicles more distance to decelerate inside the lane and could reduce rear-end collisions and prevent backup from the turn lane into traffic. Exhibit 5.7 identifies candidate locations for expansion and prioritizes their need for expansion.
114 Chapter 5: Alternatives Analysis Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 5.7 – Candidate Left Turn Pocket Locations
Left Turn Pocket Location Left Turn Pocket Capacity Priority for Investment (Low, High) Low – Palmyra serves a quiet Palmyra Ave 3 vehicles residential street Low – Coley serves a relatively quiet Coley Ave 3 vehicles street; priority could change based on new construction on Coley Low – turn lanes for Edna are already Edna Ave 7-8 vehicles long enough to provide current traffic a safe deceleration distance Low – Tara serves a quiet residential Tara Ave 3 vehicles street Low – Eldora serves a quiet residential Eldora Ave 3 vehicles street Low – this left turn pocket serves a 2301 S Jones Blvd 3 vehicles small commercial development Low – this left turn pocket serves a 1907 S Jones Blvd 3 vehicles small commercial development High – Oakey is a busy intersection Oakey Blvd 7-8 vehicles where traffic promises to increase High – curve makes location more Transverse Dr 3 vehicles dangerous
The priority criterion is meant to help direct funds under a limited budget to make the most impact.
Under the final concept, Jones Blvd has equal capacity through the majority of the Study Area. From Charleston to Desert Inn, there are three lanes in either direction. This design mitigates concerns about creating a couplet to balance capacity. To the extent that the northern section of Jones still has a southbound preference, the coupling with Valley View Boulevard remains a beneficial idea.
The next two chapters of the final report – “Conceptual Design Layouts and Plans” and “Cost Estimation” – provide a detailed description of the recommended corridor improvements as well as a breakdown of the costs for each of the seven improvement elements.
115 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
116 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
6.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LAYOUTS & PLANS
6.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts and Plans is to present the conceptual design drawings and plans for the recommended improvements for Jones Boulevard. The conceptual design drawings are intended as an illustrative resource for transportation planning in the Study Area. There are seven elements to the comprehensive strategy to upgrade Jones Boulevard into a higher capacity arterial to address congestion, prepare for planned growth, improve safety, and to improve the corridor’s overall performance. The seven recommendations include:
The addition of one southbound lane in the north section of the corridor above Charleston Boulevard The addition of both one southbound and one northbound lanes in the central section of the corridor between Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue Improvements to increase Jones’s capacity at the Upland Boulevard Intersection Improvements to increase the capacity of the Charleston Boulevard Intersection Improvements to increase Jones’s capacity at the Sahara Avenue Intersection The construction of bus turnouts with bus shelter pads at Charleston, Sahara, and Desert Inn Road The lengthening of left turn pockets between Charleston and Desert Inn.
This technical memorandum first presents the plan views showing the full corridor layout. Next, the technical memorandum describes each of the above recommendation elements in greater detail. Each item is presented in its own section with geometrics, drawings, and a discussion of the design issues and challenges. Most drawings include both the existing condition and the proposed plan element to highlight changes. Chapter 7 presents the cost estimation and a rough implementation schedule for each element.
The drawings are based on road geometrics obtained from the City of Las Vegas and Clark County. It should be noted that aerial maps from Clark County do not always align exactly to the CAD drawings. However, the aerial maps provide a valuable context for the more precise drawings.
Where possible, the drawings conform to the Uniform Standard Specifications and Drawings as published and provided by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and available on their website. Instances where the conceptual design uses non-standard configurations have been discussed and approved with the Technical Working Group. Where the conceptual design drawings deviate from these and other applicable standards, it is noted in the report.
117 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
6.2 JONES CORRIDOR PLAN VIEWS
The plan views allow comparison between the existing condition of the corridor and the proposed improved corridor within a wider neighborhood context. They also show where the cross sections are located that provided measurements for the north and central corridor segment improvements. More detailed plan views including the aerial photo layers are included in Appendix C.
Exhibit 6.1 and Exhibit 6.2 show that cross sections A, B, and C lie in the northern segment of the corridor. Throughout this section of Jones, the layout remains the same for the proposed alternative. These two plan views correspond to the northern segment of the Study Area. The drawings juxtapose the proposed alternative with the existing road condition for reference.
118 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.1 – Plan View: Upland Boulevard to Alta Drive
119 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.2 – Plan View: Alta Drive to Charleston Boulevard
Exhibit 6.3 shows the location of the D, E, and F cross sections through the central segment of the Jones corridor. Throughout this segment, the present lane configuration and roadway
120 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study geometry is identical at all three cross sections. The proposed improvements would also implement a single new lane configuration at all three locations.
Exhibit 6.3 – Plan View: Charleston Boulevard to Sahara Avenue
Next the cross sections and drawings for specific locations give enhanced detail for each of the recommendation elements.
121 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
6.3 PRESENTATION OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LAYOUTS AND PLANS
6.3.1 Northern Study Area
The northern segment of Jones Boulevard from US 95 to Charleston Boulevard is the only section with an 80 foot right-of-way. Exhibits 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 are roadway cross sections corresponding to locations A, B, and C, respectively, in the plan views (Exhibits 6.1 and 6.2). The proposed improvements for the northern segment of Jones include a lane configuration that is non-standard. The shoulder lanes are narrower than Regional Transportation Commission standards dictate. However, the speed limit – at 35 miles per hour – on this segment is 10 miles per hour less than on the southern segments.
Maintaining roadway safety and accessibility to local businesses and residents are the priorities for this segment. Southbound, the proposed lane configuration is a minor issue because there are only ten total driveways between Charleston and US 95 on the west side of Jones, and only seven of these are primary driveways that see regular use. The center turn lane ensures accessibility to driveways on the east side of Jones Boulevard without causing queuing southbound. The lane configuration may preclude u-turns at most locations on this segment for most vehicles. In the northbound direction, there will be no shoulder remaining in the proposed design, so vehicles making right turns will back up traffic. However, the narrow shoulder in place currently is not wide enough to be a proper turn lane and so presents the same drawback.
122 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.4 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “A”
123 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.5 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “B”
124 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.6 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “C”
125 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Implementing the new design requires the removal and replacement of long sections of sidewalk and underground utilities. The extra lane space is created by moving the back of the sidewalk to the edge of the right-of-way. One issue peculiar to this segment of Jones is the location of the eastern sidewalk. From Charleston Boulevard to Evergreen Avenue, the sidewalk is adjacent to the gutter and the four foot buffer resides behind the sidewalk. From Evergreen Avenue to Alta Drive, the sidewalk is located in places adjacent to the gutter, in some places behind a utility corridor or as an offset sidewalk, and in some sections the sidewalk is nine feet wide from the curb to the edge of the right-of-way. The planned improvements place the sidewalk at the edge of the right-of-way for the full segment distance.
6.3.2 Central Study Area
From Charleston Boulevard south to Sahara Avenue, the proposal for the central Study Area reconfigures the lanes to match the southern Study Area between Sahara Avenue and Desert Inn Road. The three lanes in both directions between Sahara and Desert Inn would be continued north to Charleston Boulevard. Even with 2 additional lanes, the 100 foot right-of-way still maintains a standard lane configuration with a sixteen foot median. Exhibits 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 below are the cross sections corresponding to locations D, E, F in the plan view in Exhibit 6.3.
126 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.7 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “D”
127 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.8 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “E”
128 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.9 – Proposed Lane Configuration at Location “F”
129 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The recommendation for the central segment of Jones Boulevard has the simplest implementation. The restriping for the new lane configuration could take place in conjunction with the next scheduled pavement overlay. The size of the right-of-way allows for a standard lane configuration which will best maintain corridor safety. However, this section of Jones is a designated bicycle route, and the narrower shoulder could impact bicycle safety.
6.3.3 Upland Intersection
At the Upland Boulevard and southbound US 95 intersection with Jones Boulevard, the TWG has recommended adding another southbound lane at the intersection. The lane will accommodate traffic from the US 95 off ramp and feed it into the third lane that continues on Jones south of Elton Avenue. This additional lane will improve the corridor’s connectivity with the primary area artery: US 95.
The current lane configuration on the south side of the Upland intersection cannot fit a third southbound lane. The intersection was recently improved with the addition of a second northbound left turn lane, and consequently the remaining shoulder areas were used to provide space for this turn lane. However, there remains unused right-of-way that is currently landscaped and lies behind the west sidewalk between the US 95 ramp and Elton as well as the additional four feet of right-of-way behind the east sidewalk. By moving the east sidewalk back to the right-of-way line, reconfiguring the intersection markings, and increasing the US 95 off ramp right turn radius, the third southbound lane will fit in the intersection and connect through beyond Elton. Exhibit 6.10 shows the conceptual layout of the full intersection, and Exhibit 6.11 below gives the lane configuration for the south side of the Upland intersection.
130 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.10 – Proposed Upland Intersection Improvements
131 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.11 – Upland Intersection South Side Cross Section
132 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The additional lane also requires a wider turn radius and transition lane on the west side of Jones. These modifications will result in the moving of utilities as well as the construction of a low retaining wall for a short distance. The retaining wall would not exceed three feet in height at any point along its length and would taper to match the elevation of the neighboring parcel. The table directly below details which utilities will need removal and replacement.
Required Utility Removal & Replacement Item Quantity Unit Relocate Fire Hydrant 0 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet 2 EA Relocate Streetlight 1 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm 2 EA Relocate Utility Box 1 EA Relocate Underground Utilities 295 LF
Since the improvements only affect Jones Boulevard on the south of the intersection and most of the construction is on the west side, the impact on utilities is minimal. This recommendation element requires no right-of-way acquisition.
6.3.4 Charleston Intersection
Upgrading Jones from four to six lanes requires significant improvements at major intersections to increase capacity. Without improvements at Charleston and Sahara, both of which experience significant turn traffic, turning vehicles will incur delay to following vehicles, and the corridor upgrades will not realize their full positive impact in reducing congestion and increasing capacity. Therefore, both intersections are included as important plan elements.
To realize the benefits of adding lanes to the corridor, the Charleston Boulevard intersection requires the addition of a third southbound lane and a southbound right turn pocket. However, on the north side of the intersection, the right-of-way is only 80 feet wide. The commercial parcels on the northwest and northeast corners are relatively small and any right-of-way acquisition beyond six to eight feet has the potential impact parking capacity and the businesses’ operations. On the northwest corner, the additional twelve feet of right- of-way needed for the turn pocket would interfere with an existing underground storage tank, so the acquisition of space from this parcel would involve major costs or be part of an intensive redevelopment of the property. The next parcel north has relatively limited existing parking that a widening would impact, so the proposed plans present a relatively short 90 foot turn pocket. However, the capacity of the turn pocket is sufficient to accommodate the approximately 175 vehicle per hour peak right turn flow measured in the last observations by the City of Las Vegas in July 2009.
133 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
To accommodate the additional southbound lane on the north side of Charleston, the right- of-way acquisition needed would be acquired from the east side. The peculiar matching of the 80 foot right-of-way on one side of Charleston with a 100 foot right-of-way on the other preserves the lane alignment through the intersection despite the additional space taken on either side.
South of Charleston, there is more available land to acquire as right-of-way. To maintain the intersection alignment and minimize impact on adjacent properties, the right-of-way acquisition is all shown on the southeast side of Jones and amounts to only three feet. On the south side of the intersection, the configuration of the northbound lanes remains the same, but all the northbound lanes are shifted east to occupy the additional right-of-way and make room for the third southbound through lane. Exhibit 6.12 provides a schematic drawing of the recommended Charleston intersection improvements.
134 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.12 – Proposed Charleston Intersection Improvements
135 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The proposed improvements will require significant right-of-way acquisition. North of the intersection, Exhibit 6.12 shows eight feet acquired on the east and twelve on the west side; south of the intersection, only three feet would be acquired on the east side. The acquisitions are anticipated to interfere with only the northwest corner business’s current operations, and there could be additional acquisition costs associated with damages for loss of use or parking. The northeast corner business may also claim damages though there is less interference with this property. The taper on the east side of Jones north of Charleston Boulevard is long and will require a very narrow right-of-way acquisition all the way until the first residential complex. The proposed alternative requires the acquisition of approximately 4,300 square feet of right-of-way.
Reconfiguring the intersection on the south side with a narrow ten foot southbound shoulder lane saves additional space, provides space for the one additional southbound through lane, and mitigates right-of-way acquisition. Exhibits 6.13 & 6.14 detail the proposed lane widths on either side of the Charleston intersection. The proposed configuration has a tighter shoulder than standard configurations but maintains acceptable safety standards. Note that that the northbound right turn lane is a capture lane since Jones goes from three to two lanes in this direction. Finally, while the proposed intersection improvements at Charleston as well as at Sahara and Upland will make the pedestrian crossings longer, the new configuration is comparable to intersections in the area, particularly on Sahara. Therefore, the signal timing need not be modified.
136 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.13 – Charleston Intersection North Side Cross Section
137 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.13 corresponds to location 7 in Exhibit 6.12. Exhibit 6.14 is the cross section for location 6. Locations 5 and 8 are detailed in Exhibits 6.18 and 6.19 further on in this report.
Exhibit 6.14 – Charleston Intersection South Side Cross Section
138 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Since right-of-way would need to be acquired and the sidewalk displaced on three of four intersection corners, the recommendations have a significant impact on utilities. The following table shows the impact on utilities:
Required Utility Removal & Replacement Item Quantity Unit Relocate Fire Hydrant 1 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet 2 EA Relocate Streetlight 5 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm 3 EA Relocate Short Signal 3 EA Relocate Utility Box 8 EA Relocate Utility Pole 3 EA Relocate Underground Utilities 1,020 LF
Because of the taper lengths for the new lane, an additional street light is impacted than might be expected. Three corners of the intersection require work, so a total of six intersection signal poles must be moved. The 50 foot mast length of the major signal poles should still work for the new intersection configuration.
It is also worth noting that the even more heavily trafficked cross street, Charleston Boulevard, also does not have right turn lanes for traffic moving onto Jones. The City of Las Vegas turn counts do indicate the need for such lanes, and it is the recommendation of the Consultant Team that these be considered when corridor improvements are made in the future. However, these intersection improvements on Charleston were not studied, reviewed, or approved by the TWG and thus are not included as formal study recommendations.
6.3.5 Sahara Intersection
The Sahara intersection presents many of the same issues as the Charleston intersection. However, because Jones Boulevard has a 100 foot right-of-way both north and south of Sahara Avenue, the space constraints are not quite as severe, but maintaining the alignment across the intersection is more difficult. Both northbound and southbound on Jones, the right turn lanes already exist. The northbound right turn lane is currently a capture turn lane. Right-of-way would need to acquired to shift these turn lanes over to accommodate the third through lane in both directions. With 100 existing feet for the new lane configuration, the necessary right-of-way acquisition is 13 feet on both sides on the intersection.
All corners of the intersection are cramped parcels where taking too much land might impinge on the properties’ functionality. Therefore, the strategy of splitting the acquisition
139 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study between the west and east sides is proposed for both the north and south intersection approaches. One the south side, acquisition would entail taking eight feet on the west side and five feet from the east. On the north side, the recommendation proposes taking two feet on the east side and eleven feet on the west side. This approach limits impact to the northeast corner business and more importantly preserves an acceptable alignment across the intersection.
Since several buildings on both sides of the intersection are in close proximity to the existing right-of-way – within twenty feet, standard right turn lanes would not fit very well. To accommodate the current uses and minimize costs, the right turn pockets both northbound and southbound are relatively short but still match the standard 150 storage length. Exhibit 6.15 provides a drawing of the proposed intersection layout.
140 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.15 – Sahara Intersection Recommendation
141 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The Sahara intersection improvements involve slightly more acquisition of right-of-way than at Charleston because of the modification of all four intersection corners. The estimated acquisition required totals 4,840 square feet. Since Jones Boulevard is 100 feet wide on both sides of Sahara Avenue, acquiring right-of-way from both sides of Jones Boulevard shifts the alignment across the intersection slightly, but not enough to create ambiguity for motorists. The acquisition of right-of-way on the north side mainly from the northwest corner helps mitigate this effect.
The lane configuration at the Sahara intersection with Jones is symmetrical, since both sides have six through lanes, a right turn lane, and two left turn lanes. Exhibits 6.16 and 6.17 below give the precise lane widths for each side of the intersection on Jones. Note that the outside lanes both north and south of the intersection are only 10 feet wide instead of the standard twelve feet to conserve space and minimize right-of-way acquisition.
142 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.16 – Sahara Intersection North Side Cross Section
Exhibit 6.16 shows the cross section marked by location 3 in Exhibit 6.15. Exhibit 6.17 is the cross section for location 2. Locations 1 and 4 in Exhibit 6.15 are detailed in Exhibits 6.20 and 6.21 later on in this report.
143 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.17 – Sahara Intersection South Side Cross Section
144 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Because the right-of-way will be acquired from three corners, there is additional significant interference with utilities. The table below shows the impact of the recommendations on utilities present at the intersection.
Required Utility Removal & Replacement Item Quantity Unit Relocate Fire Hydrant 1 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet 2 EA Relocate Streetlight 11 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm 4 EA Relocate Short Signal 4 EA Relocate Utility Box 6 EA Relocate Utility Pole 2 EA Relocate Underground Utilities 1,420 LF
The recommendation to split right-of-way acquisitions between the east and west sides at the Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue intersections will raise the cost of moving utilities and signals substantially. However, by reducing the impact of the acquisition on neighboring businesses, the plan is more cost-effective and feasible.
6.3.6 Bus Turnouts and Bus Shelter Pads
The sixth element of the proposed improvement plan for the Study Area is the construction of five bus turnouts all with passenger waiting shelters – 2 each at the Charleston and Sahara intersections and the other at Desert Inn. In the case of the northbound bus stop at Charleston, a turnout requires the acquisition and replacement of an existing business. Alternate locations would interfere with turn lanes, too many driveways, a large residential building, or a much larger existing business. The four bus turnouts both at Charleston and at Sahara are non-standard because of the driveways interrupting the taper sections. However, the northbound bus turnout at Sahara has enough room to close the curb in the taper and not interfere with adjacent properties’ functions. The other three locations risk more serious damages if the driveway access did not remain. Exhibits 6.18, 6.20, 6.22, and 6.24 show the bus proposed bus turnouts in the schematic drawings for the Charleston and Sahara intersections. Exhibits 6.19, 6.21, 6.23, and 6.25 show the roadway cross sections for each of those turnouts.
145 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.18 – Charleston Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Schematic
146 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.19 – Charleston Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Cross Section
The northbound bus turnout at the Charleston intersection is labeled as location 8 in Exhibit 6.17.
147 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.20 – Charleston Southbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Schematic
148 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.21 – Charleston Southbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Cross Section
Location 5 marks this cross section in Exhibit 6.20.
149 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.22 – Sahara Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Schematic
150 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.23 – Sahara Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Cross Section
Location 4 in Exhibit 6.22 corresponds to the cross section in Exhibit 6.23.
151 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.24 – Sahara Southbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Schematic
152 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.25 – Sahara Southbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Cross Section
Exhibit 6.25 corresponds to the cross section marked by location 1 in Exhibit 6.24.
153 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The last bus turnout just north of Desert Inn Road conforms to standards specifications. Exhibit 6.26 below is a drawing showing the proposed bus turnout at Desert Inn Boulevard.
Exhibit 6.26 – Desert Inn Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Schematic
154 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.27 provides the cross section that corresponds to location 10 in Exhibit 6.26.
Exhibit 6.27 – Desert Inn Northbound Proposed Bus Turnout: Cross Section
155 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Since bus turnouts require a ten foot lane and a twenty-five by ten foot bus shelter pad and the proposed lane configurations in the Study Area would remove all shoulder areas, the construction of bus turnouts would require additional right-of-way. In total the recommendation calls for the acquisition of approximately 6,900 square feet to for the five bus lanes. The table below shows how much right-of-way must be acquired for each location.
Bus Turnout Location Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisition Northbound Charleston 1,670 square feet Southbound Charleston 1,330 square feet Northbound Sahara 1,350 square feet Southbound Sahara 1,210 square feet Northbound Desert Inn 1,350 square feet
It should be noted that currently right-of-way acquisition for bus turnouts typically takes place only when the property owner participates voluntarily. Several of the proposed bus turnouts also have specific drawbacks related to their context.
The proposed southbound bus turnout location at Sahara is in close proximity to three driveways. These driveways would provide access through the bus turnout taper. However, other locations are either too far from the intersection or would create direct interference with the adjacent business. Northbound at Charleston, there is an emissions check station within 20 feet of the existing curb. A bus turnout in this location will either interfere with the business in its current placement, so the business acquisition is incorporated into the design. Southbound at Charleston, there is sufficient unused property to place a bus turnout very near its current location. However, the turnout would create some interference with adjacent driveways. Still, a bus turnout provides superior visibility for the vehicles using the driveways, and other safety issues can be mitigated through appropriate signage.
6.3.7 Left Pocket Extensions
The seventh and final corridor improvement element is the lengthening of selected left turn pockets, which would allow vehicles more space to decelerate in the turn lane and reduce the deceleration in the left lane. The recommendation provides enough extra space that an average passenger vehicle traveling the speed limit can safely achieve 80 to 90 percent of its deceleration in the turn pocket. For busier intersections, the same criterion is applied with the added requirement that there be sufficient space to decelerate if two to four vehicles are already queuing in the turn lane. Exhibit 6.28 gives the location, current length, and proposed extension for each of the left turn pockets under consideration. Some locations have facing left turn pockets and are noted as having two pockets.
156 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.28 – Left Turn Pocket Extensions
Left Turn Pocket Number of Current Pocket Length Proposed Extension New Total Location Pockets Lane Taper Lane Taper Length Palmyra Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Coley Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Edna Ave 2 200 70 100 0 370 Tara Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Eldora Ave 1 80 50 70 0 200 2301 S Jones Blvd 1 80 50 70 0 200 1907 S Jones Blvd 2 80 50 70 0 200 Oakey Blvd 2 200 60 100 10 370 Transverse Dr North 2 80 50 70 0 200 Transverse Dr South 2 80 50 70 0 200
Exhibit 6.29 below provides a sample schematic drawing of a lengthened turnout, in this case for Palmyra Avenue.
157 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 6.29 – Left Turn Pocket Extensions
158 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
As noted in the Task #3.4 Technical Memorandum, the Consultant Team believes the Oakey Boulevard and Transverse Drive locations have somewhat higher priority for investment. In the case of Oakey, this judgment is based on the turn’s relatively high demand: a March 2007 turn survey measured 273 vehicles used the northbound left turn lane and 163 making the southbound turn during peak hours, enough to justify longer lanes. The Transverse Drive lanes are a priority because the road has significant traffic, and both ends are located on the curve on Jones south of Charleston. The combination of traffic levels, the curvature of Jones, and the proposed widening in Jones indicate to the Consultant Team that this location would benefit from longer turn lanes through improved safety.
159 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
6.4 CONCLUSION
This Technical Memorandum presented the design concepts for planning use and discusses some of the contextual issues surrounding the development of the recommendations. The Charleston and Sahara intersection improvements present the most challenges of all the elements of the corridor plan. Planned land uses allow for more intensive future development at these locations. However, the current retail uses restrict the opportunity for more than very limited right-of-way acquisition.
The first five elements of the proposed corridor plan comprise a single recommended alternative because the two improved corridor segments and three improved intersections would work together to reduce bottlenecks and increase capacity at each segment between Sahara Avenue and Upland Boulevard. It is possible that the improvements from Charleston north to US 95 and Upland could be broken out as a separate investment for the longer term. This segment of the corridor will require more intensive construction to complete the recommended improvements. It is also experiencing less congestion than the segments between the major east-west corridors of Charleston, Sahara, and Desert Inn.
The remaining two plan elements – the bus turnouts with bus shelter pads and lengthened left turns – are items that could be considered separately. The bus turnouts target major intersections to increase their capacity and safety. The lengthened left turns would deliver cost-effective safety benefits.
160 Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts & Plans Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
161 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
162 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.0 COST ESTIMATE
7.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of Chapter 7: Conceptual Design: Cost Estimation is to present the order-of- magnitude capital costs estimated for each element of the proposed corridor improvement plan as well as to provide the additional ongoing operating costs of the proposed improvements.
This chapter provides separate cost estimation for each of the seven elements of the corridor improvement plans present in Chapter 6: Conceptual Design Layouts and Plans. The capital costs for the following plan elements are presented in the order they appear below.
The addition of a southbound lane in the north section of the corridor above Charleston Boulevard The addition of both southbound and northbound lanes in the central section of the corridor between Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue Improvements at the Upland Boulevard intersection Improvements at the Charleston Boulevard intersection Improvements at the Sahara Avenue Intersection The construction of five bus turnouts with bus shelter pads at Charleston, Sahara, and Desert Inn Road The lengthening of left turn pockets between Charleston and Desert Inn
The costs presented in this chapter are order-of-magnitude costs that provide a guideline for planning purposes. The cost estimations make certain assumptions and are based on present and recent cost data. The cost estimation model presents current 2009 dollar costs. The cost model weighted cost data based on Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated inflation rates and Davis-Bacon unit cost adjustment factors to get the approximate 2009 Clark County unit costs. Further details of cost model assumptions are provided throughout the rest of the report.
First the chapter describes the sources of data used for the cost model and the general model structure in section 7.2. The next section details the general assumptions of the cost model. Next, the line item capital costs are presented in section 7.3 for each proposed improvement as well as any assumptions made specifically for a particular plan element. Following the presentation of the capital costs, section 7.4 describes the overall costs of the corridor improvement plan. Finally, section 7.5 describes the additional operating costs imposed by the improvements.
163 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.2 COST DATA AND COST MODEL
The first step in developing the cost model was to identify relevant work items. For the purpose of this cost estimation, many items that might be included in a formal bid sheet were condensed into a smaller subset. For this reason, item costs are more general, and higher unit costs include minor related work. Based on Technical Memorandum 4.1: Conceptual Design Layouts and Plans, the list below provides a summary of the types of work to be performed under the proposed Study Area improvements:
- Pavement construction - Pavement overlay - Pavement marking reconfiguration - Utility work: water, storm drain, drop inlets, streetlights, etc. - Curb/gutter/sidewalk/driveway replacement - Signal installation, movement, replacement
The Consultant Team identified more specific cost items based on similar projects as well as design standards for the Southern Nevada region and national standards. The cost data were compiled from a wide variety of sources. The Consultant Team gave priority to recent local data for similar work completed. Local data included bid abstracts and agency cost databases for roadway work from Clark County, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). The City of Las Vegas provided data for typical right- of-way acquisition costs.
To add robustness to and fill gaps in the local data, the Consultant Team collected additional bid information from jurisdictions similar to Southern Nevada. These included NDOT projects from elsewhere in the state, Colorado Department of Transportation, New Mexico Department of Transportation, Utah Department of Transportation, Denver County, Mesa Arizona, Avondale Arizona, Austin Texas, Sacramento California, Fresno California, as well as other cities. Cost databases from California and Texas also proved useful. For the most rare cost items, the data include points from less similar jurisdictions including Sonoma County, California, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Los Angeles California, and Atlanta Georgia. At least three data points were collected for all cost items, but the average number of data points was more than seven.
Since the cost data include a diversity of regions and projects, some of which are several years old, the cost model used a weighted average for the unit costs. The primary weight is based on the quality and relevance of the bid item. Similar projects, and especially local projects, were given higher weights in this category. The secondary weight is a combined regional and present cost factor to adjust geographically and temporally disparate data to approximately 2009 Clark County values. Over 90 percent of the data are from the last three years and is adjusted in the model using the regional inflation rate calculated by the
164 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Model makes regional adjustments based on Davis-Bacon unit cost adjustment factors compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor. The final weighted averages were rounded to better reflect the real precision of the cost model.
The Consultant Team determined the unit quantities for each work item based on the geometry of the proposed improvements and the existing facilities that would be impacts by relocation or replacement. Comparison with similar projects and applicable design and industry standards also informed the determination of quantities. The final quantity values were rounded where applicable to avoid implying greater precision than actually existed. Likewise, some of the final cost totals were also rounded.
165 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.3 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
In order to construct a relatively simple cost model for a set of somewhat general proposals, the cost estimation model incorporated a number of assumptions. Beyond relying on the proposed geometrics and average unit costs from data, the cost estimation had to address a number of areas of uncertainty. For these aspects of the cost modeling process, the Consultant Team relied on a combination of empirical estimates or industry standards where available to provide reasonable parameters for an approximate construction estimate.
Design and management costs are one important area of uncertainty. The cost model includes construction management and engineering as a factor on the total construction costs. This item reflects the agency, planning, and design costs of the project, which can vary greatly among projects. However, for the purposes of this cost model, there is a fifteen percent markup to account for each plan item’s construction management and engineering costs. The contingency factor on the total cost reflects the uncertainties and risks of planned future projects. In this case, the cost estimation allowed for a twenty percent contingency.
Several other cost elements are also included as fixed percentages. The lump sum cost of dust mitigation is based the typical percentage of the overall cost that dust mitigation made up in similar projects in Nevada and similar regions. Based on the available data, the average value was 0.6 percent. Using the same approach and the bid abstract data collected for the cost estimation, the cost model calculated the lump sum cost of mobilization based on the typical percentage of the overall project cost that mobilization makes up. For purposes of this cost estimation, the value was 4.7 percent. Likewise the average proportions estimated for temporary pollution control measures – mostly stormwater runoff mitigation – and for traffic management were 0.2 percent and 2.6 percent respectively. It should be noted that these four factors do not include the right-of- way acquisition costs.
Since Jones Blvd north of Charleston is an older corridor section, it is uncertain exactly what utilities will be impacted by removing the curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The cost model assumes a cost in the middle range but which does not for instance include high cost items like a storm drain but might allow for replacement of a water main.
While the model assumes that underground utilities including conduits, small pipes, and inlets will have to replaced, it expects that all above ground utilities and improvements including streetlights, signals, fire hydrants, and utility boxes can be salvaged and moved to their new location since this would be the most cost-effective approach. However, if equipment has aged sufficiently, it may make financial sense to update systems and equipment while planned work is progress. The cost model also assumes that the taller signals with mast arms at the major intersections will still be able to serve the intersection.
166 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
The use of mast arms of the same length for the wider cross boulevards suggests that this assumption is reasonable.
The item cost for Plantmix surfacing is slightly higher than existing bid data might suggest because it includes the top layer surfacing cost which is usually an open-graded asphalt layer. Since throughout the Study Area the traffic characteristics in terms of average speed and daily load remain relatively similar, the asphalt pavement design should also be similar. The segments requiring milling and overlay used an additional factor to account for the marginally higher costs.
For the northern and central segments of the Study Area, the cost estimations take into consideration a ¾ inch overlay of the roadway. In the central section, the cost includes the full overlay and restriping. In the case of the northern segment, the cost includes the overlay of all but the two right SB lanes. For the northern segment, the transition lane will require resurfacing because of the removal of type B pavement markers, and a planing and overlay is the best way to implement the restriping for the new lane configuration. Ideally, the corridor improvements will be timed to coincide with the scheduled pavement rehabilitation on the corridor.
The cost estimation includes pavement markings for each plan element as a lump sum. The cost is a function of removing the old markers and striping, temporary markings, and the new markers and striping. At intersections, where the pavement markings are both more complex and variable depending on the median and lane configurations, the estimation value is somewhat less precise. Each lump sum was estimated based on a breakout of removal (where applicable) and replacement costs for lane markings, median markings, crosswalks, and other markings.
These assumptions and details of the cost model create the framework for the estimation. The expected costs of the seven proposed elements of the corridor improvement plan are presented in the next section and use a single cost model based on the data outline in the second section.
167 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.4 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
7.4.1 Street Widening and Restriping
The northern segment of the Study Area has the highest projected cost of improvements. The segment’s length, combined with fact that the sidewalk must be moved and the shoulder repaved to accommodate the widening to five lanes, means that this element of the recommended corridor improvements is the most expensive. However, if improvements can be coordinated with the pavement maintenance and rehabilitation schedule, the paving and restriping costs would be reduced substantially, along with a significant proportion of overhead costs. Exhibit 7.1 details the costs of the proposed improvements.
Exhibit 7.1 – Estimated Costs of Northern Segment Improvements
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 1 LS Mobilization $85,000 $85,000 1 LS Traffic Management $47,000 $47,000 1 LS Dust Mitigation $11,000 $11,000 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $3,600 $3,600 140 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2.00 $290 7990 CY Excavation $14 $110,000 3610 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $120,000 33470 SY Cold Planing $3.40 $110,000 3410 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $290,000 3900 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $47,000 2410 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $91,000 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $65,000 $65,000 7750 SF Driveway Replacement (17 ft/driveway PCC) $9 $69,000 4130 LF Sidewalk Installation $33 $140,000 4980 LF Curb/Gutter Installation $20 $100,000 20 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $3,300 $66,000 16 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet $5,100 $80,000 5120 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $260,000 59 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $170,000 1 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm $29,000 $29,000 1 EA Relocate Short Signal $6,200 $6,200 2 EA Relocate Utility Pole $4,400 $8,800 2 EA Relocate Utility Box $1,300 $2,600 1 EA Bus Shelter (Relocate) $3,400 $3,400 1 LS Relocate Traffic Signs $1,900 $1,900 650 SY Landscaping $38 $25,000 Contingency – 20% $389,000 Subtotal $2,331,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $292,000 Total Cost $2,623,000 Note: Appendix B provides a list of unit abbreviations used.
168 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Through the mile-long segment the only two signals that would require relocation to the new sidewalk are on the northeast corner of the intersection of Alta Drive and Jones Boulevard. The majority of the construction costs falls into the categories of utility replacement and relocation and sidewalk replacement. The fact that no right-of-way acquisition is required for this plan element does help to keep the cost of improvements in check.
The improvements of the central Study Area segment could almost entirely be accomplished as part of the next scheduled pavement rehabilitation. Once the milling and overlay is completed, NDOT could institute the new lane configuration at a very moderate marginal cost. Exhibit 7.2 details the cost of the repaving and reconfiguration in total.
Exhibit 7.2 – Estimated Costs of Central Segment Improvements
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 1 LS Mobilization $21,000 $21,000 1 LS Dust Mitigation $2,700 $2,700 1 LS Traffic Management $12,000 $12,000 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $910 $910 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $89,000 $89,000 43560 SY Cold Planing $3.40 $150,000 2570 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $220,000 Contingency – 20% $98,000 Subtotal $594,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $74,000 Total Cost $668,000
While the costs of widening the northern Study Area segment and reconfiguring the central segment are broken out above, they would not effectively address the traffic and congestion issues on the corridor without also improving the major intersections at Charleston and Sahara. The next three tables detail the costs of increasing capacity at three intersections. The first two plan elements cover the largest area and make up the largest share – 40 percent – of the overall costs of the study recommendations. The intersection improvements make up 38 percent of overall costs but address important bottlenecks in the corridor. Without focusing on the Charleston and Sahara intersections, it would be impossible to appreciably raise Jones’s capacity in the Study Area.
7.4.2 Intersection Improvements
The lowest cost and most minor improvements would be at the intersection of Jones with Upland Boulevard. Since there is no right-of-way acquisition required for this intersection and most of the work is on the shoulder and not in existing lanes, the impact of this option is minimal. Exhibit 7.3 provides a breakout of the construction costs for this plan element.
169 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 7.3 – Estimated Costs of Upland Intersection Improvements
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 1 LS Mobilization $6,100 $6,100 1 LS Traffic Management $3,400 $3,400 1 LS Dust Mitigation $800 $800 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $260 $300 160 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $5,400 300 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $15,000 2 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet $5,100 $10,200 1 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $2,900 2 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm $29,000 $58,000 1 EA Relocate Utility Box $1,300 $1,300 1 LS Relocate Traffic Sign $55 $55 25 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2.00 $50 100 CY Excavation $14 $1,500 29 SY Median Removal $20 $590 29 SY Median Construction $29 $850 300 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $18,000 25 LF Retaining Wall Construction (2') $56 $1,400 150 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $5,800 120 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $1,500 59 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $20 $1,200 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $3,800 $3,800 Contingency – 20% $28,000 Subtotal $169,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $21,000 Total Cost $190,000
The new construction is limited to one side of the intersection and only uses minimal shoulder thereby mitigating construction costs. The additional lane makes Jones a more attractive option for southbound travelers on US 95 traveling southeast to the central area of the City of Las Vegas.
In contrast to those at Upland, the intersection improvements at Charleston Boulevard are much more intensive. In order to fit the improvements – two right turn lanes and an additional southbound through lane, the plan requires acquisition of property on three corners of the intersection. On the northwest corner of Charleston and Jones, the ten foot acquisition of right-of-way for the right turn pocket would require relocation of the service station’s underground storage tanks, which could alone cost $390,000. Right-of-way acquisition costs make up 43 percent of predicted project costs. Once again utilities are also a significant cost item. Exhibit 7.4 details the costs of the proposed improvements at Charleston Boulevard.
170 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 7.4 – Estimated Costs of Charleston Intersection Improvements
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 4320 SF ROW Acquisition $65 $280,000 1 LS Other ROW Acquisition Costs $390,000 $390,000 1 LS Mobilization $21,000 $21,000 1 LS Traffic Management $11,000 $11,000 1 LS Dust Mitigation $2,600 $2,600 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $870 $870 400 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $13,000 1020 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $52,000 1 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $3,300 $3,300 2 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet $5,100 $10,000 5 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $15,000 3 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm $29,000 $87,000 3 EA Relocate Short Signal $6,200 $19,000 8 EA Relocate Utility Box $1,300 $10,000 3 EA Relocate Utility Pole $4,400 $13,000 30 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $60 150 SY Median Removal $20 $3,000 1430 CY Excavation $14 $20,000 820 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $49,000 150 LF Median Construction $29 $4,400 820 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $31,000 860 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $10,000 710 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $61,000 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $22,000 $22,000 1 LS Relocate Traffic Signs $5,2000 $5,200 200 SY Landscaping $38 $7,600 Contingency – 20% $230,000 Subtotal $1,371,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $170,000 Total Cost $1,541,000
The direct interference with businesses at Charleston explains the very high right-of-way acquisition costs. This extra burden makes the Charleston improvements the most expensive of the intersection improvements, despite the fact that work at Sahara would take place on all four intersection corners.
The work at Sahara Avenue would be very similar to the work completed at Charleston. Because Sahara’s improvements require work on all four corners of the intersection, costs are dramatically higher than might otherwise be expected. High expected right-of-way acquisition costs explain the large dollar value on the Sahara intersection improvements in part. The right-of-way acquisition for the northbound through lanes causes significant interference with the adjacent service station and would likely require extra damages. The
171 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Exhibit 7.5 table provides the details of the projected construction costs to expand the intersection’s north-south capacity.
Exhibit 7.5 – Estimated Construction Costs of Sahara Intersection Improvements
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 4840 SF ROW Acquisition $84 $410,000 1 LS Mobilization $27,000 $27,000 1 LS Traffic Management $15,000 $15,000 1 LS Dust Mitigation $3,500 $3,500 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $1,200 $1,200 730 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $24,000 1420 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $72,000 1 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $3,300 $3,300 2 EA Replace/Relocate Drop Inlet $5,100 $10,200 11 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $32,000 4 EA Relocate Signal w/ Mast Arm $29,000 $120,000 4 EA Relocate Short Signal $6,200 $25,000 6 EA Relocate Utility Box $1,300 $7,800 2 EA Relocate Utility Pole $4,400 $8,800 50 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $100 250 SY Median Removal $20 $5,000 1470 CY Excavation $14 $21,000 1110 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $67,000 1100 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $42,000 950 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $11,000 990 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $84,000 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $25,000 $25,000 1 LS Relocate Traffic Signs $6,600 $6,600 180 SY Landscaping $38 $6,800 Contingency – 20% $206,000 Subtotal $1,241,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $154,000 Total Cost $1,395,000
The assumed right-of-way acquisition unit cost is higher at Sahara than at Charleston because expected acquisition-related damages paid to property owners would likely be higher at Sahara. The property acquisitions would have more impact business operations. However, right-of-way acquisition only accounts for 29 percent of costs at Sahara because there is no direct conflict with existing structures such as the problematic underground storage tanks at Charleston. Utility work and pavement construction make up the majority of proposed improvements’ costs.
Together, the first five plan elements provide a cohesive single plan to improve traffic flow and capacity throughout the Study Area. Potentially, the central Study Area segment could be improved before the northern segment. In this scenario, only the central segment
172 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study improvements and the Sahara intersections improvements would be instituted to begin with. The northern Study Area segment and two major intersections would see improvements when the City of Las Vegas is ready to move forward.
7.4.3 Other Improvements
The remaining two plan elements constitute functionally independent efforts to further improve traffic flow and safety in the Study Area. Their implementation cost is lower, and the options will not make the same contributions to congestion reduction and travel time improvement as the addition of travel lanes. However, both options would make significant improvements in safety along the corridor as well as help to further improve corridor mobility. The bus turnouts with passenger shelters and the left turn pocket extensions also respond positively to public concerns identified during the stakeholder outreach process.
Bus turnouts’ primary benefit is the elimination of delaying due to queuing behind halted buses. Since the buses stop on the egress side of the intersection, queuing behind them can reduce the intersection’s capacity and exacerbate delays. Turnouts also offer some safety benefits and a nicer waiting environment for transit riders. Exhibit 7.6 details the costs associated with adding five bus turnouts at key locations. To permit comparison, the table breaks out costs for each proposed bus turnout location.
Exhibit 7.6 – Estimated Construction Costs of Bus Turnouts at Major Intersections
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost Charleston NB 1670 SF ROW Acquisition $78 $130,000 1 LS Other ROW Acquisition Costs $91,000 $91,000 51 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $1,700 150 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $7,900 1 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $2,900 33 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $70 170 CY Excavation $14 $2,400 130 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $7,900 28 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $2,300 120 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $4,600 190 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $2,300 110 SY Cement Concrete Pavement $78 $8,700 20 SY Landscaping $38 $760 1 EA Bus Shelter (Relocate) $3,400 $3,400 Charleston SB 1330 SF ROW Acquisition $78 $100,000 60 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $2,000 170 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $8,400 1 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $3,300 $3,300 2 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $5,800 15 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $30
173 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 170 CY Excavation $14 $2,400 110 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $6,500 55 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $4,700 110 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $4,200 180 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $2,100 180 SY Cement Concrete Pavement $78 $14,000 15 SY Landscaping $38 $570 1 EA Bus Shelter (Relocate) $3,400 $3,400 Sahara NB 1350 SF ROW Acquisition $78 $110,000 82 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $2,700 180 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $9,300 1 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $2,900 15 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $30 150 CY Excavation $14 $2,100 190 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $11,000 84 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $3,200 140 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $1,600 140 SY Cement Concrete Pavement $78 $11,000 8 SY Landscaping $38 $300 1 EA Bus Shelter (Relocate) $3,400 $3,400 Sahara SB 1210 SF ROW Acquisition $78 $94,000 46 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $1,500 170 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $8,500 1 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $2,900 15 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $30 150 CY Excavation $14 $2,100 82 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $4,900 13 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $1,100 110 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $4,100 180 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $2,100 120 SY Cement Concrete Pavement $78 $9,100 6 SY Landscaping $38 $230 1 EA Bus Shelter (Relocate) $3,400 $3,400 Desert Inn 1350 SF ROW Acquisition $78 $110,000 82 SY Sidewalk Removal $33 $2,700 180 LF Relocate Underground Utilities $51 $9,100 1 EA Relocate Streetlight $2,900 $2,900 2 EA Relocate Utility Pole $4,400 $8,800 15 SY Clearing and Grubbing $2 $30 150 CY Excavation $14 $2,100 190 LF Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Construction $60 $11,000 84 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $3,200 140 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $1,600 140 SY Cement Concrete Pavement $78 $11,000
174 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 10 SY Landscaping $38 $380 1 EA Bus Shelter (New) $12,000 $12,000
1 LS Mobilization $12,000 1 LS Traffic Management $6,600 1 LS Dust Mitigation $1,500 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $510
Contingency – 20% $181,000 Subtotal $1,091,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $136,000 Total Cost $1,227,000
The unit right-of-way acquisition cost is again higher than at Charleston because of the higher level of direct interference with neighboring businesses. As with other proposed improvements, right-of-way costs are the biggest single cost item, comprising 52 percent of the overall estimated improvement costs, totaling $635,000.
The estimated cost is high in particular for the northbound Charleston stop where adding the bus turnout and pad would require the acquisition and demolition of an existing business. Since the right-of-way cost has such a large impact on the cost of a bus turnout and pad, the cost-effectiveness of each individual bus turnout could vary greatly according to the actual negotiated price of the right-of-way purchase. If the level of transit service increases on the corridor, buses will have more of an impact on traffic. Since bus turnouts can be required as part of redevelopment, another option could just be to await development opportunities.
Exhibit 7.7 – Estimated Individual Cost of Bus Turnouts
Location Estimated Cost Charleston Intersection Northbound Bus Turnout $364,000 Charleston Intersection Southbound Bus Turnout $219,000 Sahara Intersection Northbound Bus Turnout $218,000 Sahara Intersection Southbound Bus Turnout $185,000 Desert Inn Intersection Northbound Bus Turnout $243,000
As mentioned in Section 5.4.4, the Consultant Team also considered the addition or relocation of bus shelters behind the sidewalk at all bus stops on Jones. The total cost including engineering, management, contingency, and right-of-way acquisition is estimated to be $496,000. Given the relatively low number of boardings at these stops, the investment was considered to have insufficient impact to be included as a recommendation.
175 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
In contrast to the bus turnouts, extending left turn pockets at the ten locations identified in the Exhibit 7.8 table requires no right-of-way purchase and therefore presents a more feasible alternative that could be implemented in the shorter term, separately from all other proposed Study Area improvements.
Exhibit 7.8 – Left Turn Pocket Extensions
Left Turn Pocket Number of Current Pocket Length Proposed Extension New Total Location Pockets Lane Taper Lane Taper Length Palmyra Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Coley Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Edna Ave 2 200 70 100 0 370 Tara Ave 2 80 50 70 0 200 Eldora Ave 1 80 50 70 0 200 2301 S Jones Blvd 1 80 50 70 0 200 1907 S Jones Blvd 2 80 50 70 0 200 Oakey Blvd 2 200 60 100 10 370 Transverse Dr North 2 80 50 70 0 200 Transverse Dr South 2 80 50 70 0 200
Oakey Boulevard and Transverse Drive are priority locations that would benefit most from the additional turn lane space. On average, each extension costs 29,000 dollars, and it would be possible to only select a subset of the recommended locations. Exhibit 7.9 provides the estimated construction costs for all ten locations.
Exhibit 7.9 – Estimated Construction Costs Left Turn Pocket Extensions
Quantity Unit Item Unit Cost Total Cost 1 LS Mobilization $16,983 $17,000 1 LS Dust Mitigation $2,168 $2,200 1 LS Traffic Management $9,395 $9,400 1 LS Temporary Pollution Control $723 $720 7290 CY Median Removal $20 $150,000 1 LS Pavement Marking Removal & Replacement $19,281 $19,000 2840 SY Subgrade Preparation $12 $34,000 1750 TON Type II Aggregate $38 $67,000 1130 TON Plantmix Bituminous Surface $85 $96,000 Contingency – 20% $78,000 Subtotal $473,000 Construction Management and Engineering – 15% $59,000 Total Cost $532,000
The impact of extending left turn pockets is more difficult to measure than for the other proposed corridor improvements. However, below Charleston, the relatively high speeds on Jones which can often exceed the posted 45 mile per hour speed limit make turning safety an important concern. The costs would likely be limited significantly if these extensions were coordinated with a pavement maintenance or rehabilitation along the corridor.
176 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.5 TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
To put each plan element’s cost into perspective, this section provides an overview of the total project costs. Exhibit 7.10 shows the contribution of each recommendation to the overall cost of corridor improvements. The widening in the northern Study Area is the most cost intensive element of the proposed corridor improvements. The other improvements limit costs by limiting right-of-way acquisition and leveraging equipment and utilities already in place to minimize construction costs.
Exhibit 7.10 – Contribution of Proposed Improvements to Total Cost Percent of Proposed Improvement Total Cost Total Northern Study Area Widening & Restriping $2,623,000 32% Central Study Area Restriping $668,000 8% Upland Intersection Improvements $190,000 2% Charleston Intersection Improvements $1,541,000 19% Sahara Intersection Improvements $1,395,000 17% Bus Turnouts Construction $1,227,000 15% Left Turn Lane Extensions $532,000 7% Total Cost of Proposed Improvements $8,176,000 100%
The northern Study Area improvements make up the greatest proportion of the total costs of corridor improvements because of the relocation of the sidewalk down the entire mile length of the segment. However, the two major intersections with Charleston and Sahara are also both significant contributors to the total cost. The right-of-way acquisition necessary at these locations along with the extensive relocation of utilities and signals makes each an expensive if crucial plan element.
The total cost of right-of-way acquisition is one of the single most important contributors to overall estimated costs. Right-of-way acquisition makes up 21 percent of the total costs. Asphalt pavement is another big item making up 9 percent of the total costs. One strategy already mentioned that could reduce total costs would be to coordinate the construction of the proposed improvements with pavement rehabilitation. The final two plan elements which have more flexible timetables for implementation make up 22 percent of the total cost of proposed improvements and would not necessarily need to be included with the main corridor upgrades.
177 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
7.6 OPERATING COSTS
The marginal operating costs due to the proposed corridor improvements are mild. There will be no change to most infrastructure elements on the corridor: lighting, signals, and sidewalk length remain close to their original levels or quantities. The most substantial change by far is in roadway maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
The addition of a third southbound lane between Upland Boulevard and Charleston Boulevard adds approximately 5,020 new lane feet. The two converted shoulder lanes between Charleston and Sahara Avenue add 11,200 new lane feet. However, as shoulder lanes, these pavement areas received the same maintenance treatments as the main road. Making them vehicle lanes will only add an estimated 15 percent to the maintenance costs for this segment. The turn lane extensions add another 1,400 new lane feet of pavement.
With 15 percent of 11,200 of the central Study Area lane feet plus the 5,020 on the northern Study Area segment and 1,400 for left turn pockets, there would be an effective total of 1.53 new lane miles of pavement. In similar jurisdictions like Sacramento and Denver, annual pavement maintenance costs can run from $8,000 to $15,000 per lane mile. Assuming a $10,500 cost per lane mile, the marginal operating cost of the corridor pavement improvements in the Study Area would be $16,000.
Changes in corridor safety, enforcement needs, and new utilities can also impact operating costs. Improved safety can reduce the need for traffic enforcement on the corridor and the costs of emergency response, but higher volumes may drive safety down overall. Likewise, newly replaced utilities may require less maintenance. However, the impact of these changes is likely to very mild – less than $5,000 – and spread among a number of agencies. The direct costs are also unpredictable and depend on the quality of construction, the construction methods, the construction design, and other variables.
178 Chapter 7: Cost Estimate Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
179 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
180 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 IMPLEMENTATION CONTEXT
The population of Southern Nevada nearly doubled between 1998 and 2008, reaching over two million residents. This massive growth has been an ongoing challenge for Southern Nevada transportation agencies. As the region continues to grow, leaders expect more development to occur in central Exhibit 8.1 - Evening Congestion on Jones Blvd areas where residents can take advantage of closer proximity to major employment centers and higher level of transit service. The segment of Jones Boulevard in the Study Area is a key arterial that links the major east-west corridors that flow towards Las Vegas Boulevard. It provides important access to US 95 from to the major commercial corridors of Charleston Boulevard and Sahara Avenue. As the region grows and redevelopment continues along these two corridors, Jones will face more serious congestion.
The proposed improvements would dramatically improve mobility and accessibility in the vicinity of the Study Area. The proposed corridor improvement plan furthers many of the other major goals of RTC’s 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The additional lanes added between Sahara Avenue and Upland Boulevard provide congestion relief and improved mobility which would reinforce the economic vitality of the Study Area. Improved intersections, additional bus turnouts, and left turn pockets would all work to improve safety issues along the corridor. Bus turnouts would help improve transit riders’ experience and create important infrastructure for future higher levels of transit service. Finally, the proposed improvements would also improve Jones Boulevard’s integration with the rest of the area’s transportation systems.
The Southern Nevada TIP does not currently include any funding for improvements on Jones Boulevard in the Study Area. The economic downturn has also impacted regional transportation revenues, so the opportunity to implement most improvements is pushed out at least to the medium term and perhaps later.
181 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
8.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
An investment program to implement the improvements proposed in this report benefits from a high degree of flexibility. None of the proposed plan elements would take more than a year to complete construction, but the planning process is much less certain since funding must be established as part of a capital expenditure program published in the TIP. There are numerous options available to prioritize and implement the improvements as funding becomes available, but some approaches delivery improvements’ benefits earlier and a lower total cost.
Exhibit 8.2 shows on a conceptual timeline how the improvements can be grouped into several phases. The first group of improvements, in blue, could be completed at any point over the time horizon. The second group of improvements, in red, should be completed before the second phase improvements. Construction of the third group of improvements would begin at the same time or after the second group. The figure offers a very rough timeline of feasibility from the date of the report.
Exhibit 8.2 – Conceptual Implementation Timeline Year Proposed Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Grouping Lengthening Left Turn Pockets between Charleston & Desert Inn Group 1 Construction of Northbound Bus Turnout at Desert Inn Shoulder Conversion - Charleston Blvd to Sahara Ave Charleston Blvd Intersection Improvements Group 2 Sahara Ave Intersection Improvements Construction of Bus Turnouts at Charleston & Sahara Intersections Corridor Widening - Upland Blvd to Charleston Blvd Group 3 Upland Blvd/US 95 Intersection Improvements
As an example of the flexibility for implementation, each of the left turn pocket extensions could be constructed at any time because they are functionally independent from the other proposed plan elements. Exhibit 5.7 provides a qualitative ranking of the priority of the left turn pocket extension candidate locations. The final implementation might not include all ten locations.
Bus turnouts should be implemented at the same time as intersection improvements or later. Making these improvements before the shoulder conversion between Charleston and Sahara would cause redundant expenditures later on when the bus turnouts would need to
182 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study be moved. The widening of Jones in the central segment of the Study Area between Charleston and Sahara would be most cost effective to complete at the same time as that NDOT conducts the next resurfacing. The reconfiguration would cost only marginally more than a regular resurfacing. It would require new drawings and some extra engineering as well as additional lane markings.
Widening the northern section of Jones in the Study Area presents the highest costs and requires the most construction of the proposed plan elements. However, the improvements to the Charleston and Sahara intersections and the shoulder conversion south of Charleston can stand alone and may be constructed sooner. They would deliver important benefits to the Study Area and provide continuity with the lane configuration south of Sahara Avenue even without any modification of the northern segment between Charleston and Upland.
Redevelopment opportunities, especially at the Charleston and Sahara intersections, could impact the investment timeline. The City of Las Vegas often requires new developments to include bus turnouts. New development can also provide useful opportunities to negotiate right-of-way acquisitions and to improve pedestrian facilities and landscaping.
8.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS’ BENEFITS & REMAINING CHALLENGES
The major benefits of the proposed improvements consist of higher traffic capacity and improved peak hour level of service in the Study Area. Between Charleston and Sahara where the road capacity is now about 2,250 vehicles per hour, the new capacity should reach the same level as the segment between Sahara and Desert Inn: approximately 3,000 vehicles per hour. Eliminating the shoulder will slow right lane traffic since vehicles no longer have a separate lane for acceleration and deceleration and must use the traffic lanes for acceleration and deceleration. As a result, the new capacity will not be a full third larger as might be expected. One drawback to the elimination of shoulder lanes is that more delivery trucks will have to pull in and out of driveways since they will no longer be able to use the shoulder to stop. Based on peak hour average speed measurements from FAST Operations data (Exhibit 3.3), the current peak hour level of service on Jones between Charleston and Sahara is D southbound and C northbound. The proposed improvements could improve the street’s performance to level of service A or B in the short term.
Charleston and Sahara are major commercial corridors and employment areas and would benefit from improved access. Major institutional buildings in and around the Study Area include a large high school and a community college campus on nearby Charleston Boulevard, the Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, and several medical facilities. There are also several large shopping centers in the Study Area’s vicinity. Furthermore, relatively older commercial and residential properties are facing redevelopment. As the property market recovers over the next few years, infill development promises to bring both more
183 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study jobs and more housing units to the Study Area. The proposed improvements to Jones Boulevard promises to provide substantial benefits by improving accessibility to and mobility within the Study Area and sustaining vitality in an increasingly dense corridor.
Safety is another important RTC goal, and the proposed corridor improvements bring important safety benefits. However, there are a couple of obstacles to improving safety and simultaneously increasing Jones Boulevard’s capacity. With the widening of Jones in the Study Area, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County may need future accident data to establish where left turns from driveways have become a safety problem. The additional lane to cross can make these turns more difficult for drivers in some cases. Also, the reconfiguration of Jones north of Charleston could make u-turns difficult for vehicles with wider turning radii. The City of Las Vegas may need to consider restricting u-turns from the transition lane between Charleston and Upland. Fortunately, these remedies if necessary would have minimal costs: mainly the installation of new signage. Intersections improvements like dedicated right turn lanes in all directions and bus turnouts will also reduce intersection collisions which predominate in the accident numbers. Extending left turn pockets will further improve safety and flow along the corridor.
Besides mitigating the delay caused by stopping buses and providing bus drivers with a safe waypoint waiting area to remain on schedule, bus turnouts and bus shelter pads will improve pedestrian safety and the pedestrian environment in the immediate vicinity of bus stops. However, the proposed improvements do not address the need for general improvements in sidewalk condition along the corridor. At this time, the TWG deemed a full rehabilitation and improvement of the corridor’s pedestrian facilities not to be cost effective. Nevertheless, as redevelopment opportunities arise, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County should examine opportunities to rehabilitate sidewalks and install landscaped buffers along the curb. These measures, along with the proposed improvements, would likely ensure pedestrian investment in the corridor areas where they will make the most impact: near major intersections. The final issue presented by the proposed corridor improvements is the impact on the designated bicycle route on Jones south from Charleston Boulevard. The proposed shoulder conversion means that Jones would no longer meet criteria for the RTC’s bicycle route designation – a minimum 14 foot shoulder lane. The central Study Area segment of Jones would now match the southern segment between Sahara Avenue and Desert Inn Road with only a 12 foot shoulder lane. Although the southern segment remains part of the Jones designated bicycle route, the narrow shoulder and high speed on this section of Jones mean that bicyclists are at substantially more risk on this busy arterial than on minor streets that benefit from some traffic calming. As RTC’s 2008 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan points out, streets over 20 miles per hour rapidly become more dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians.
184 Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
Fortunately, calmer parallel streets offer a variety of easy options for alternate bicycle routes. For example, the series of contiguous streets made up by Community College Drive, Verdinal Drive, and Chuck Lenzie Court would offer cyclists a much calmer traffic environment running closely parallel to Jones. In the future, Duneville or one of the other residential streets to east of Jones could be widened sufficiently to include bicycle lanes. For Jones Boulevard’s status to be changed, the change in designation must be explicitly included in the public review process for the corridor improvements.
8.4 FINAL REMARKS
Metropolitan Las Vegas must continue investing in infrastructure to sustain its growth and support a more diversified local economy. For central urban areas that are experiencing renewal and redevelopment in many locations, infrastructure investment can be an important catalyst for private investment. RTC’s initiative to complete corridor studies of arterials in key growth areas is an excellent strategy to identify elements of the transportation network which provide the maximum benefits from investment.
Jones Boulevard is one of a set of arterials that run north-south through west-central Las Vegas. These north-south arterials are important routes for commuters traveling from the employment centers of the Strip and southern unincorporated areas. Jones lies in the middle in terms of capacity and is currently experiencing significant levels of congestion. Generally, the north-south arterials between Jones and US 15 have higher congestion levels and will likely require higher levels of capital investment to improve network performance. This report outlines a relatively conservative approach to capacity improvement on Jones Boulevard which requires a relatively modest capital investment and complements planned improvements on Valley View Boulevard. The recommended improvements also provide for a flexible implementation plan and schedule to maximize the utility of recommendations and the likelihood of their implementation.
185 Appendices Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
186 Appendix A Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
APPENDIX A – TURN COUNT DATA
Peak Period Turning Movement Data (City of Las Vegas)
City of Las Vegas - Traffic Engineering - Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Total Intersection of Jones Northbound Southbound DATE & 24 HR Volume L T R P Total L T R P Total Direction CONVERSION 53,438 Oakey Jones Jones March 7, 2007 AM 163 524 64 751 136 1150 73 1359 E-W 21,100 PM 273 1288 78 1639 79 773 96 948 N-S 32,338 86,425 Sahara Jones Jones June 29, 2006 AM 203 510 203 916 227 817 115 1159 E-W 52,588 PM 338 1040 280 1658 191 717 141 1049 N-S 33,838 44,838 US95 Westbound Jones Jones April 2, 2008 AM 189 442 0 0 631 1 1346 90 0 1437 E-W 10,688 PM 545 1347 0 0 1892 0 746 94 0 840 N-S 34,150 43,975 US95 Eastbound Jones Jones April 2, 2008 AM 159 422 40 17 621 99 1269 373 0 1741 E-W 10,725 PM 202 1344 16 11 1562 94 771 233 0 1098 N-S 33,250 75,700 Charleston Jones Jones June 20, 2007 AM 108 405 119 632 211 1114 174 1499 E-W 43,775 PM 199 1175 165 1539 172 667 176 1015 N-S 31,925 46,463 Alta Jones Jones August 8, 2007 AM 31 502 48 581 103 1360 66 1529 E-W 13,875 PM 153 1394 58 1605 104 773 125 1002 N-S 32,588 36,775 Evergreen Jones Jones September 16, 2004 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E-W 1,138 PM 35 1675 36 1746 30 1044 31 1105 N-S 35,638
187 Appendix B Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
APPENDIX B – INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
Table of Cost Unit Abbreviations Abbreviation Cost Unit CY Cubic Yard EA Each Unit LF Linear Foot LS Lump Sum SF Square Foot SY Square Yard TON Ton (U.S.)
Table of Other Report Abbreviations Abbreviation Abbreviated Term AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic BRT Bus Rapid Transit CCTV Closed Circuit Television CTL Center Turn Lane (Transition Lane) FAST Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation PPSH Passengers per Service Hour ROW Right-of-way RTC Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada RTP Regional Transportation Plan TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TIP Transportation Improvement Plan TRINA Traffic Information Access application TWG Technical Working Group
188 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
APPENDIX C – COMPLETE CORRIDOR PLAN VIEWS
Plan View Number Description Page # Sheet 1 US 95 to Fairview Circle 179 Sheet 2 Fairview Circle to Cromwell Circle 180 Sheet 3 Cromwell Circle to Jones Circle 181 Sheet 4 Alta Drive 182 Sheet 5 Evergreen Avenue 183 Sheet 6 Cory Place 184 Sheet 7 Charleston Boulevard 185 Sheet 8 Transverse Drive (Northern Intersection) 186 Sheet 9 Transverse Drive (Southern Intersection) 187 Sheet 10 Doe Avenue 188 Sheet 11 Oakey Boulevard 189 Sheet 12 O’Bannon Drive 190 Sheet 13 Fountains Shopping Center 191 Sheet 14 Sahara Avenue 192 Sheet 15 Laredo Avenue 193 Sheet 16 Eldora Avenue 194 Sheet 17 Tara Avenue 195 Sheet 18 Edna Avenue 196 Sheet 19 Coley Avenue to Palmyra Avenue 197 Sheet 20 Palmyra Avenue to Darby Avenue 198 Sheet 21 Desert Inn Road 199
189 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
190 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
191 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
192 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
193 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
194 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
195 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
196 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
197 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
198 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
199 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
200 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
201 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
202 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
203 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
204 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
205 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
206 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
207 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
208 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
209 Appendix C – Complete Corridor Plan Views Jones Boulevard Corridor Study
210