DOCSLIB.ORG

Concept Report STATE STREET-VMP-36TH STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Concept Report STATE STREET-VMP-36TH STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO Concept Report STATE STREET-VMP-36TH STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO. 611026 Ada County Highway District SIX MILE ENGINEERING, PA APRIL 8, 2013 TH STATE STREET-VMP-36 STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT REPORT CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO. 611026 Report Summary The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) retained Six Mile Engineering, PA, to evaluate the existing conditions at the State Street-VMP-36th Street intersection and propose potential improvements to enhance the functionality for all users – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motorists. The proposed improvements incorporate the future widening of State Street to include a transit and high-occupancy vehicle lane, designated by the Transit and Traffic Operations Plan (TTOP) recently adopted by ACHD and partner jurisdictions. The Project Team considered almost two dozen proposed innovative intersection alternatives and evaluated their suitability and compatibility with the needs of the different users. Through multiple evaluation stages with increasing levels of refinement, a preferred intersection alternative was identified. Stakeholder and public input were a key component throughout the evaluation process. Their input was utilized to identify key issues, refine intersection alternatives and help select a preferred alternative. The preferred intersection alternative identified by the Project Team, a Partial Median U-turn intersection, most effectively balanced the needs of all users while also minimizing construction cost and property impacts. The Partial Median U-Turn intersection re-routes left turns on State Street through the intersection and downstream to signalized median U-turn locations. This innovative treatment of left- turns results in more efficient intersection operations, improving mobility on State Street and reducing delays for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the intersection. On March 27, 2013, the ACHD Commission adopted the Partial Median U-Turn intersection as the preferred alternative for improvements at the State Street-VMP-36th Street intersection. SIX MILE ENGINEERING, PA APRIL 8, 2013 PAGE I TH STATE STREET-VMP-36 STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT REPORT CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO. 611026 Table of Contents Report Summary ......................................................................................................................................... I Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 1 Preferred Alternative – Partial Median U-Turn ........................................................................................ 3 Project Team and Stakeholder Team ...................................................................................................... 4 Roadway Cross Sections ......................................................................................................................... 4 Intersection Turn Lanes ........................................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................. 5 Transit Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Construction Cost and Right-of-Way Impacts .......................................................................................... 7 How Was the Preferred Alternative Developed?..................................................................................... 8 Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Key Design Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 9 Previous Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 10 How was the Public Involved?................................................................................................................ 11 Interactive Website Survey .................................................................................................................... 11 Stakeholder Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 12 Public Involvement Meeting ................................................................................................................... 12 What are the Intersection Challenges, Constraints and Design Criteria?.......................................... 14 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Pedestrians ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Bicyclists ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Transit .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Drainage ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Environmental ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Right-of-Way .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Taft Elementary School ......................................................................................................................... 21 Veterans Memorial Park ........................................................................................................................ 22 Albertsons .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Access ................................................................................................................................................... 22 How Were the Intersection Alternatives Analyzed? ............................................................................. 23 22 Initial Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 23 Alternative Development .................................................................................................................... 23 Screening-Level Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 23 Ten Preliminary Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 25 Five Final Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 26 Alternative Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 26 SIX MILE ENGINEERING, PA APRIL 8, 2013 PAGE II TH STATE STREET-VMP-36 STREET INTERSECTION CONCEPT REPORT CONCEPT DESIGN ACHD PROJECT NO. 611026 Preferred Alternative Evaluation and Ranking ................................................................................... 27 Appendix A – Final Alternative Concept Design Layouts ..................................................................... A Appendix B – 22 Initial Alternatives ........................................................................................................ B Appendix C – Screening Matrix for Determining Preliminary Intersection Alternatives.................... C Appendix D – Screening Matrix for Determining Final Intersection Alternatives ............................... D Appendix E – Rating and Ranking of Final Intersection Alternatives.................................................. E Appendix F – Traffic Analysis Summary ................................................................................................. F Appendix G – Triple Northbound Left-Turn Analysis Memo ................................................................ G Appendix H – Summary of Interactive Website Survey Comments ..................................................... H Appendix I – Public Comment Summary .................................................................................................. I Appendix J – Land Use and Transit Analysis and Evaluation............................................................... J Appendix
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Technical Report Documentation Page Z2
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. MDOT Project Manager RC-1554 Jason Firman, P.E. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Developing a Congestion Mitigation Toolbox September 30, 2011 6. Performing Organization Code Texas Transportation Institute 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Org. Report No. Jason A. Crawford, P.E.; Todd B. Carlson, AICP; William L. 1554 Eisele, Ph.D., P.E.; and Beverly T. Kuhn, Ph.D., P.E. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract No. TAMU 3135 2009-0661 College Station, TX 77843-3135 11(a). Authorization No. Z2 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Michigan Department of Transportation Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Increased traffic congestion is a result of many sources including increasing demand and lagging supply. Responding to increasing congestion, agencies from the federal government to local townships have turned to congestion management, or mitigation. Congestion mitigation is delivered through a variety of techniques. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recognized a need to assist state and local agency partners to identify potential congestion mitigation strategies and improve collaboration. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) researchers developed “A Michigan Toolbox for Mitigating Congestion.” The team conducted several tasks in development of the Toolbox. The TTI team reviewed and consulted previous congestion toolboxes for strategy identification, toolbox elements, and toolbox style. The research team implemented a survey of metropolitan planning organizations throughout the country to gather agency experiences with congestion mitigation strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Meeting for Mary Avenue Grade Separation, Aug. 10, 2017
    Caltrain Grade Separation Feasibility Study Mary Avenue Railroad Crossing Community Meeting August 10, 2017 Agenda • Meeting format review • Goals and context • Mary Avenue options Feedback • Q and A • Next steps • Adjourn 2 Caltrain Grade Separations Project Goals Improve Safety (LUTE Policy 24, 36, 40, 41, 42, 46) Enhance Reduce Ped/Bike Traffic Delay Access (LUTE Policy 32, 42) (LUTE Policy 24, 33, 36, 41) 4 Project Context 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Average Daily Ridership Daily Average 20,000 76 trains 92 trains 114 trains (2003) (2016) +80-106 HSR (2040) Caltrain Grade Separation – VTA Program Description Sunnyvale has 2 of the 8 at grade crossings VTA criteria include cost efficiency and Complete Streets 6 Screening Alternatives Screening • Establish rail and road criteria Alternatives • Identify existing conditions • Develop cursory design of alternatives • Identify impacts and constraints Impacts • Bring results to community Variants of • Identify feasible alternatives Screening • Develop variants to minimize impacts Alternatives • Engage community for input 7 Initial Screening Alternatives 8 At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Overpass At-grade Railroad Crossing Grade Separated Crossing - Underpass Design Criteria Roadway Railroad Grades 4.75% 1.2% max Design speed 30 - 45 mph 79 mph for shoofly (temp rail) Based on posted speed 110 mph for final condition plus 5 mph Bridge depth 5’ 6.75’ Supporting roadway Supporting railroad Vertical clearance Underpass Overpass 15.5’ over roadway 27’ over railroad Roadway
    [Show full text]
  • MN MUTCD Chapter 2H
    Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs ..........................................................................................2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs ..................................................................................................2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs ......................................................................................................2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections ...............................................................................................2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) ...............................................................2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications .......................................................................................................2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications ...............................................................................................2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) ..............................................................................................................2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications .....................................................................................................2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement .................................................................................2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs (R1-5 Series) ....................................................................2B-11 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian
    [Show full text]
  • Median U-Turn Intersections Cost
    System Modification Innovative Intersections MEDIAN U-TURN INTERSECTIONS COST TIME MODERATE STATE MINOR STREET MINOR STREET O REGI NAL IMPACT LOCAL RID OR OR MAJOR STREET MAJOR STREET C PT HO HURDES MAJOR STREET MOVEMENTS MINOR STREET MOVEMENTS CITSTATE RIHT-O-A PUIC ACCEPTANCE More Information: tti.tamu.edu/policy/how-to-fix-congestion SUCCESS STORIES Description How Will This Help? Plano, Texas. In 2011, the City Median U-turn intersections (also called • Costs less and is faster to of Plano installed the state’s only a thruturn or Michigan left) guide all traf- deploy than other innovative median U-turn intersection at fic, except left-turning vehicles, through intersection designs. Legacy Drive and Preston Road. the main intersection. Left-turning vehi- • Simplifies the traffic signal cles turn through U-turn openings in the The intersection timings for the intersection and dramatically improved median beyond the main intersection. whole corridor by eliminating the congestion by reducing Eliminating the left turn at the main need for a left-turn arrow. intersection wait intersection simplifies signal timings and times by 65%. provides more green time and less con- • Increases safety at the gestion to the major direction. intersection by eliminating traffic However, the design conflicts caused by left turns. was abandoned in 2014 Median U-turn intersections are similar due to a lack of public to superstreets but differ in that medi- Implementation Issues understanding and an U-turns allow minor street traffic to This intersection design can require acceptance. pass straight through the intersection. additional right-of-way to accommodate Superstreet intersections require all the U-turn turning radius in the median.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Purpose Trails Plan
    CITY OF COSTA MESA MULTI-PURPOSE TRAILS PLAN JUNE 2016 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Costa Mesa Multi-Purpose Trails Plan was prepared under the guidance of: Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Services Manager This plan was prepared by KTU+A Planning + Landscape Architecture: John Holloway, Principal, PLA, ASLA, LCI Joe Punsalan, Senior Associate, GISP, PTP, LCI Alison Moss, Associate Mobility Planner, AICP Beth Chamberlin, Associate Planner Juan Alberto Bonilla, Planner Diana Smith, GISP, GIS Manager Kristin Bleile, GIS Analyst This is a project for the City of Costs Mesa with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainability Program. The Sustainability Program is a key SCAG initiative for implementing the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS), combining Compass Blueprint assistance for integrated land use and transportation planning with new Green Region Initiative assistance aimed at local sustainability and Active Transportation assistance for bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts. Sustainability Projects are intended to provide SCAG-member jurisdictions the resources to implement regional policies at the local level, focusing on voluntary efforts that will meet local needs and contribute to implementing the SCS, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing the range of local and regional benefits outlined in the SCS. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provisions under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.
    [Show full text]
  • PBOT Traffic Design Manual Volume 1
    Traffic Design Manual Volume 1: Permanent Traffic Control and Design CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON January 2020 Updated June 2021 0 of 135 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1 Permanent Traffic Control Signs ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory Signs ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Warning Signs .................................................................................................................................. 17 1.3 Guide Signs....................................................................................................................................... 21 2 Pavement Markings ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.1 Centerlines ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Lane Widths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3 Turn
    [Show full text]
  • TAC 2003 Jughandle Final
    UNCONVENTIONAL ARTERIAL DESIGN Jughandle Intersection Concept for McKnight Boulevard in Calgary G. FurtadoA, G. TenchaA and, H. DevosB A McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Surrey, BC B McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., Edmonton, AB ABSTRACT: A functional planning study was initiated along McKnight Boulevard by the City of Calgary in response to the growing traffic and peak hour congestion routinely experienced along the corridor. The objective of the study was to identify and define, the most suitable improvements for medium term (2015 horizon) and long-term (2038 horizon) traffic demands, while conforming to a large number of independent constraints. Numerous alternatives were identified, and in due course rejected, due to their inability to adequately address the project requirements or satisfactorily meet stakeholder needs. Ultimately, a conventional intersection design involving widening along the south side of the corridor and the jughandle intersection concept were short listed for further evaluation and comparison. These design alternatives were subjected to a relatively rigorous appraisal that included performance, signing, laning and signalization requirements, property impacts, access and transit requirements, safety considerations, human factors and environmental impacts to name a few. It was found that operationally, the jughandle intersection design has compelling application potential in high volume corridors where local access is required and full grade separation is impractical or too costly. However, the jughandle property acquisition requirements and resulting costs along highly urbanized corridors, combined with their limited implementation experience in North America, can preclude their use in less than optimum circumstances. 1. INTRODUCTION Arterial roadways are typically designed and built with the intention of providing superior traffic service over collector and local roads (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
    What Why How CFI - SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Intersection Control Evaluation A performance-based approach to objectively screen alternatives by focusing on the safety related benefits of each. Traditional Intersections SR 11 @ SR 124, Jackson County, GA Johnson Rd @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Dogwood Trail @ SR 74, Fayette County, GA Roundabout SR 138 @ Hembree Rd, Fulton County, GA Roundabout • 215+ Existing • 50+ On System/or GDOT $$ • 165+ Off System • 20+ Currently Under Construction • 155+ Planned/programmed RBTs 6 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) I-95 @ SR 21, Port Wentworth, Chatham County, GA Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) • 6 Existing • 2 Design/under construction • 10+ Under consideration Total: 18+ Continuous Green T SR 120 @ John Ward Rd SW, Cobb County, GA Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) SR 400 @ Lenox Rd NE, Fulton County, GA Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) SR 20 @ Nail Rd, Henry County, GA Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) SR 400 @ SR 53, Dawson County, GA Unsignalized Signalized • Minor Stop • Signal • All-Way Stop • Median U-Turn • Mini Roundabout • RCUT • Single Lane Roundabout • Displaced Left Turn (CFI) • Multilane Roundabout • Continuous Green-T • RCUT • Jughandle • RIRO w/Downstream U-Turn • Diamond Interchange (signal) • High-T (unsignalized) • Quadrant Roadway • Offset-T Intersections • Diverging Diamond • Diamond Interchange (Stop) • Single Point Interchange • Diamond Interchange (RAB) • Turn Lane Improvements • Turn Lane Improvements • Other Intersection Control Evaluation Deliver a transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Transportation
    Sturbridge Master Plan 2010 (DRAFT) February 2011 7 Transportation Introduction Positioned at the junction of two major Interstate highways, I-84 and I-90, Sturbridge has excellent regional access to major urban areas. This regional interstate proximity brings benefits in terms of convenient access but also brings high traffic volumes and speeds, which compromises pedestrian, bicyclist and driver safety. For this reason, the location of Sturbridge at the junction of I-84 and I-90 is considered to be both a strength and weakness in terms of transportation and land use balance. In addition, Sturbridge’s Main Street, Route 20, is a state-owned roadway. The 1988 Sturbridge Master Plan identified traffic as one of Sturbridge’s most pressing issues. During the public outreach efforts for this Master Plan, Sturbridge residents reiterated similar transportation-related themes from the 1988 Master Plan including: Develop an identity and sense of arrival into Sturbridge through the creation of distinct gateways and streetscaping, especially given the number of tourists coming to the area; Balance the need to facilitate traffic flow with desires to make the roadways more walkable and bikeable; calm vehicle traffic speeds where appropriate (especially through the Commercial Tourist District (CTD) along Route 20); Eliminate sign clutter and improve wayfinding to the key destinations; Ensure that paratransit service meets the expanding needs for elderly and disabled residents; and Make public transportation more available. Over the last 30 years, Sturbridge has experienced rapid residential growth. The population is expected to continue to increase due to the availability of land, the relatively low cost of house lots, and the proximity and access to major highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual
    Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Manual FHWA Safety Program http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. ii TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-SA-18-026 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) Tool User Guide October 2018 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jenior, P., Butsick, A., Haas, P. and Ray, B. 20447 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor
    Transportation Improvements for the US 130-Bridgeboro Road Corridor JUNE 2017 The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is dedicated to uniting the region’s elected officials, planning professionals, and the public with a common vision of making a great region even greater. Shaping the way we live, work, and play, DVRPC builds consensus on improving transportation, promoting smart growth, protecting the environment, and enhancing the economy. We serve a diverse region of nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future. The symbol in our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan September 2009
    Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan September 2009 prepared for Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) in conjunction with Michigan Department of Transportation Macomb County Planning & Economic Development Road Commission of Macomb County prepared by Gratiot Avenue Corridor Improvement Plan The vision for access management along the Components of the Gratiot Avenue corridor is to restore and pre- Gratiot Avenue Corridor serve road capacity, improve safety condi- Improvement Plan tions, and support the long-term vision for 1. An access management plan with expanded regional transit, non-motorized guidelines and site-specific recom- mendations. systems and community sustainability. 2. Accompanying guidelines for coor- Spanning 26 miles in Macomb congestion along several seg- dinating improved transit, non-moro- County, the Gratiot Ave corridor is ments and there are locations tized and community sustainability. flush with opportunities to im- with a relatively high number of prove safety along this key artery crashes. Some of the crashes and 3. Zoning ordinance amendments by retrofitting the existing access, congestion along Gratiot are due to for corridor communities to adopt and redesign of key intersections and conflicts created where vehicles are apply for consistent standards. improving the interaction between entering or exiting access points, motorists, non-motorized users, disruptions to the flow of traffic 4. Consistent protocol for inter-agen- and transit users. Together, the and pedestrians traveling along the
    [Show full text]