HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-045 Eagle Drive Rd. DietDate: June 23, 2017
Report No. 2017-045
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Eagle Drive Road Diet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City adopted its Bicycle Plan in February 2012 which
included bicycle lanes along Eagle Drive between North Texas Boulevard and Carroll
Boulevard. Subsequently, this segment of Eagle Drive was scheduled for pavement rehabilitation
(reconstruction) in the summer of 2016. As part of this project, Eagle Drive between North
Texas Boulevard and Carroll Drive was converted from a four lane (two lanes each direction)
facility to a two lane facility with a median left turn lane and bicycle lanes. Traffic conditions
were assessed before (Apri12016) and after (Apri12017) the conversion of Eagle Drive. Based
on the traffic assessment, the road diet has resulted in providing a safer environment for all
modes of tra�el while maintaining acceptable vehicular levels of service.
BACKGROUND:
In Apri12016, the City engaged the services of Kimley Horn (consultant) to conduct an
independent analysis to assess the feasibility of a road diet along Eagle Drive between North
Texas Boulevard and Carroll Boulevard. As such, the consultant collected the traffic (vehicle),
pedestrian and bicycle data along Eagle Drive and evaluated the operational impacts of the road
diet. The approximate length of the segment was one mile and included six signalized
intersections.
___ ��� _.
_._
�ecwwM'it¢5 p �Ptf;�9 � ���m�% ......
_ I �
�� lllelva x't)'GM@� �,
a, . �� l�wnrrki CpE�e�,�
i� �
��
Cl,�,sn 0.�nkdep
� 1���£
I OP6�W ���� �n'F'k
.:,
Study Intersection
Q$1L6��G �Lo�AU
•. M>>I� .i 1 rl� �^r '' �
� f9ixiA St
c,o� � i �& ,.,
Q�LM 23
1 �J4 (a01n,Dr
c, 9ua .. AP ir.nitt�4W
..�niii SI I'�annin „^.1
��
It �rMli'i Kotlau
J� 3ie S[
4"�µ
� nle5'l
�
I au�m I�r � � p� �
F�lvyhm4 kA�vmrimmnta�
W (:o ii'i.,..t
c�
u
tiY
��
�ssr
The operational impacts of the road diet included a review of the following measures of
effectiveness at intersections along Eagle Drive between North Texas Boulevard and Carroll
Boulevard.
• Intersection Level of Service
• Intersection Delay
• Vehicle Queue Lengths
• Arterial Speed
• Travel Time
Date: June 23, 2017 Report No. 2017-045
Based on the traffic study, it was determined that Eagle Drive was a good candidate for
implementing a road diet and the changed configuration would not have a significant impact on
the operational characteristics of the roadway segment.
The City implemented the road diet (changed configuration) in November 2016 which included
bike lanes in both directions. Kimley Horn was hired by the City to conduct an after study to
assess the impacts of the road diet. The study concludes that the overall operational
characteristics of Eagle Drive are consistent with the projected changes in the before study. The
intersections along Eagle Drive are operating at acceptable levels of service which are at or
below the projected levels discussed in the before study. As expected, the overall vehicle delay,
queue lengths and travel time along the corridor have slightly increased but the a�erage arterial
speed has reduced.
Table A shows the comparison of traffic volume between before and after road diet conditions
along Eagle Drive. The overall vehicular traffic along the corridor has reduced by 7% during the
peak hour which may or may not be a direct result of the road diet and is within a reasonable
range that can be attributed to monthly/seasonal variations in traffic. The pedestrian activity
along the corridor has increased considerably during the peak hour as the road diet provides a
safer environment for pedestrians. After the implementation of the road diet which included the
bike lanes, this segment of Eagle Drive has now transformed into a bicycle corridor and will
continue to see increased usage with the passage of time.
Table A: Mid-day Volume Comparison at Intersections
Traffic (Vehicle) — Peak hour
Pedestrians — Peak hour
Bicycles (along Eagle Dr.)i -
►1 .
. .
.
�
�
2017
gl%2
374
50
-7%
302%
N/A
� Data collected by City staff
* Bike lanes did not exist
Table B shows the comparison between the projected and actual measures of effectiveness along
the Eagle Drive corridor. The average observed speeds along the Eagle Drive corridor were
slower than the projected speeds prior to the road diet while the travel time was slightly higher
than proj ected.
Table B: Mid-day Measures of Effectiveness Comparison
2016 2017 Change
�EB�wB� �EB�wB� �EB�wB�
Arterial Speed 18/18 17.6/18.4 -2%/2%
Travel Time 193.6/189 203.4/194.8 5%/3%
Number of Stops 2.51/2.28 2/3 N/A
Date: June 23, 2017
Report No. 2017-045
CONCLUSION:
Based on the review of the before and after analysis conducted by the consultant, it can be
concluded that the implementation of the road diet along Eagle Drive between North Texas
Boulevard and Carroll Boulevard has resulted in providing a safer environment for all modes of
tra�el while maintaining acceptable vehicular levels of service. The road diet has resulted in
increased pedestrian and bicycle usage with minimal impact on the vehicular operation along
Eagle Drive which is consistent with the overall goal and vision for this roadway segment.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Eagle Drive — Road Diet After Study
Eagle Drive — Bike Count from Mobile Units
STAFF CONTACT:
Pritam Deshmukh
Traffic Engineer
(940) 349-7710
P�i��m.I�esl�m���l�%��,ci�yc�fdei��c�i�.cc�m
f ` �
•�� �
To: John Davis, P.E.
Pritam Deshmukh, P.E.
Engineering Services
City of Denton
From: Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP
Pete Kelly, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
TBPE Registered Firm Number F-928
Date: April 28, 2017
Subject: Eagle Drive Road Diet After Study
Denton, Texas
I I'ii�'�:T [I.'C"*1i'�'[:7'i1
The purpose of this evaluation is to analyze the impact of a recently completed road diet on
Eagle Drive from North Texas Boulevard to Carroll Boulevard. This segment of Eagle Drive
was converted from a four-lane, undivided roadway (before) to a three-lane undivided
roadway with bike lanes (after). Prior to the road diet conversion, a road diet study was
submitted to analyze the potential impact of the conversion. This study will provide analysis
using traffic data collected after the conversion to provide a before and after comparison.
f r ft r r ffi lu
Turning movement counts were collected on April 28, 2016 (before) and on February 2, 2017
(after) for the Noon and PM peak periods (12:00-2:OOPM and 4:00-6:OOPM, respectively) at
the following locations:
• Eagle Drive and North Texas Boulevard
• Eagle Drive and Avenue C
• Eagle Drive and Avenue A
• Eagle Drive and Welch Street
• Eagle Drive and Bernard Street
• Eagle Drive and Carroll Boulevard
The 2016 peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections are illustrated in Exhibits 1 and
2. The 2017 peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections are illustrated in Exhibits 3
and 4.
� . �, � � . . I� . 2
A comparison of the 2016 and 2017 total vehicular volumes by intersection is provided in
Table 1. Most of the intersections experienced a decrease in vehicular traffic, while some
experienced an increase. Overall, the combined total volumes at all intersections in the study
area experienced a decrease of 7% in the Noon peak hour and 5% in the PM peak hour.
,! �I . / / � ,! / � / /
N Texas Blvd
Avenue C
Avenue A
Welch St
Bernard St
Carroll Blvd
Total
1014
1004
1304
1206
1130
3120
8778
1236
1236
1733
1613
1538
3863
11219
929
934
1048
1202
1130
2929
8172
1257
1515
1297
1469
1353
3787
10678
-8 %
-7 %
-20%
0%
0%
-6 %
-7 %
2%
23 %
-25 %
-9 %
-12%
-2 %
-5 %
The number of pedestrians and bicycles in the crosswalks was also documented during data
collection. One of the objectives of the road diet conversion was to provide a safer
environment for pedestrians and cyclists. A pedestrian volume comparison is provided in
Table 2. These volumes represent the total number of pedestrians at all crosswalks in each
intersection in the study area. As seen in the table, most intersections experienced an
increase in pedestrian traffic. This increase was most prominent in the Noon peak hour, with
302% more pedestrians along the corridor in 2017 compared to 2016. The PM peak hour also
saw an increase of 42%.
Bicycle volume in the crosswalks ranged from one to six per intersection during the peak hours
for both the 2016 and 2017 data collection periods. Based on the data collected, there was
not a substantial change in bicycles in the crosswalks. These data did not include cyclists
using the road or the bike lanes.
� ' � I 3
Traffic Analysis
Kimley-Horn used Synchro and SimTraffic software to simulate progression along the Eagle
Drive corridor during the Noon and PM peak hours. The three scenarios analyzed in SimTraffic
are as follows:
• 2016: Previous four lane configuration with 2016 traffic counts
• Future: Current three lane configuration with 2016 traffic counts
• 2017: Current three lane configuration with 2017 traffic counts
The 2016, Future and 2017 traffic operations were then compared using selected Measures
of Effectiveness (MOEs) obtained in the SimTraffic output report. In addition, video-recorded
Travel Time Runs (TTR) were performed to obtain actual field data on the traffic conditions in
the corridor. Table 3 shows which MOEs were reported in SimTraffic and in the TTRs.
SimTraffic Analysis Results
For use in simulating 2016 and 2017 traffic operations, signal timing data was obtained from
the City of Denton for the Eagle Drive intersections at Avenue C, Avenue A, Welch Street,
and Bernard Street. For the Eagle Drive intersections at Carroll Boulevard and at North Texas
Boulevard, signal timing data could not be obtained and were therefore developed based on
field observations.
The resulting MOEs for 2016 and 2017 conditions are presented in Tables 4 through 8 for
comparison. Note that the queue lengths provided in Table 5 are the largest Maximum Queue
value on each approach based on SimTraffic outputs. Results for Travel Time, Number of
Stops, and Average Speed are only provided for Eagle Drive and not for the intersecting cross-
streets, since these parameters relate to the driver's experience along the length of the
corridor and not at one single intersection.
f ` �
Tabl� 4. ,Sirr�Traffic tvl�asur�s c�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss - D�lay
'. '
Noon Peak PM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak Noon Peak PM Peak
• ' r r •�I Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec/ LOS (sec/ LOS (sec/ LOS (sec/ LOS (sec/ LOS (sec/ LOS
veh) veh) veh) veh) veh) veh)
Northbound 4.5 A 6.2 A 4.6 A 6.9 A 5.2 A 8.7 A
Eagle Drive Southbound 4.7 A 5.2 A 4.9 A 6.1 A 5.1 A 8.5 A
at North .... . .... ....
Texas Blvd Westbound 21.2 C 21.7 C 19.6 B 22.2 C 17.7 B 19.5 B
Overall 9.3 A 9.9 A 8.9 A 10.5 B 9.3 A 12.3 B
Northbound 13.4 B 17.0 B 15.2 B 30.8 C 12.6 B 15.3 B
Southbound 15.0 B 16.3 B 16.2 B 45.6 D 14.9 B 17.7 B
Eagle Drive Eastbound 8.1 A 10.5 B 9.2 A 9.1 A 7.6 A 12.9 B
at Avenue C
Westbound 7.8 A 8.5 A 10.2 B 7.8 A 7.8 A 14.8 B
Overall 10.4 B 12.0 B 12.1 B 19.6 B 9.9 A 14.9 B
Northbound 13.7 B 14.2 B 11.7 B 19.2 B 12.0 B 13.3 B
Southbound 23.4 C 24.0 C 18.7 B 29.9 C 15.2 B 13.2 B
Eagle Drive Eastbound 7.5 A 18.1 B 17.6 B 23.5 C 10.2 B 16.9 B
at Avenue A .... . .... ....
Westbound 8.6 A 14.3 B 11.6 B 9.8 A 6.1 A 10.3 B
Overall 11.0 B 16.8 B 14.4 B 18.8 B 9.5 A 13.6 B
Northbound 22.2 C 15.8 B 17.1 B 20.5 C 17.7 B 16.2 B
Southbound 15.6 B 18.5 B 12.9 B 21.9 C 15.3 B 19.9 B
Eagle Drive .... .... . .... ....
at Welch Eastbound 7.0 A 8.1 A 11.2 B 8.9 A 7.1 A 11.4 B
Street
Westbound 6.4 A 10.3 B 15.1 B 21.7 C 9.3 A 20.6 C
Overall 9.2 A 11.3 B 13.0 B 16.1 B 10.1 B 16.8 B
Northbound 14.8 B 15.3 B 21.9 C 23.0 C 17.9 B 21.9 C
Southbound 16.5 B 20A C 26A C 34A C 19.7 B 23.2 C
Eagle Drive .... ....
at Bernard Eastbound 7.8 A 10.1 B 9.2 A 9.4 A 4.9 A 10.8 B
Street .... . .... ....
Westbound 12.3 B 9.2 A 11.0 B 7.1 A 6.4 A 11.5 B
Overall 11.1 B 11.5 B 13.0 B 13.1 B 8.5 A 13.3 B
Northbound 22.6 C 27.2 C 23.3 C 28.5 C 17.1 B 33.9 C
Southbound 16.8 B 21.2 C 17.3 B 22.9 C 12.9 B 23.9 C
Eagle Drive .... .... . .... ....
at Carroll Eastbound 29.8 C 27.4 C 28.3 C 34.7 C 23.2 C 29.9 C
Blvd
Westbound 20.3 C 23.5 C 22.8 C 41.7 D 17.3 B 27.3 C
Overall 21.4 C 24.5 C 21.8 C 29.6 C 16.7 B 28.1 C
f ` �
Tabl� 5. ,Sirr►Traffic tvl�asur�s c�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss —�u�u� L�n�th
'. '
• ''' •� Noon PM Noon PM Noon PM
Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
Northbound 100' 151' 96' 148' 97' 141'
Eagle Drive .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
at North Southbound 112' 114' 107' 126' 116' 118'
Texas Blvd
Westbound 228' 260' 180' 281' 298' 366'
Northbound 96' 120' 109' 154' 97' 75'
Eagle Drive Southbound 115' 165' 139' 398' 113' 306'
at Avenue C Eastbound 94' 118' 167' 234' 164' 224'
Westbound 106' 118' 127' 169' 126' 172'
Northbound 132' 139' 112' 148' 74' 139'
Eagle Drive Southbound 130' 163' 124' 147' 156' 109'
at Avenue A Eastbound 122' 208' 262' 451' 93' 361'
Westbound 136' 198' 138' 161' 147' 166'
Northbound 65' 79' 67' 76' 132' 74'
Eagle Drive Southbound 235' 256' 165' 291' 200' 247'
at Welch .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Street Eastbound 102' 149' 178' 161' 190' 247'
Westbound 96' 115' 232' 306' 200' 393'
Northbound 125' 147' 148' 167' 172' 198'
Eagle Drive Southbound 112' 188' 135' 223' 140' 120'
at Bernard .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Street Eastbound 120' 143' 205' 253' 227' 222'
Westbound 174' 126' 225' 147' 179' 258'
Northbound 300' 320' 274' 325' 280' 400'
Eagle Drive Southbound 323' 371' 286' 358' 305' 461'
at Carroll .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Blvd Eastbound 235' 240' 222' 401' 301' 239'
Westbound 118' 154' 225' 462' 161' 292'
f ` �
Tabl� 6. ,Sirr►Traffic tvl�asur�s c�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss — Ea�l� Driv� A�t�rial ,Sp��d (tv/Pl�)
'. '
" � " �" ' � � •� Noon PM Noon PM Noon PM
Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
North Texas Blvd Eastbound 20 19 19 21 20 18
and Avenue C Westbound 11 12 12 11 13 14
Avenue C and Eastbound 30 24 19 20 21 20
Avenue A Westbound 28 28 26 28 26 22
Avenue A and Eastbound 22 22 19 22 21 17
Welch Street Westbound 19 15 20 20 20 19
Welch Street and Eastbound 22 20 22 20 21 20
Bernard Street Westbound 23 20 16 14 17 14
Bernard Street and Eastbound 16 18 16 17 17 16
Carroll Blvd Westbound 22 26 22 27 25 23
East of Carroll Blvd Westbound 15 15 14 11 14 14
Eastbound 21 20 18 19 19 18
Total .... ............
Westbound 19 18 18 16 18 17
� . �, � � . . I� . 7
Tabl� 7. ,Sirr►Traffic tvl�asur�s r�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss - Tr�ta/ Trav�l Tirr►� (,S�cr�n�s)
'. '
" � " �" ' � � •� Noon PM Noon PM Noon PM
Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
North Texas Blvd Eastbound 30.5 33.1 31.8 29.8 30.6 33.5
and Avenue C Westbound 53.9 53.5 50.2 57.2 47.2 43.7
Avenue C and Eastbound 33 41.5 51.1 49.9 46.9 49
Avenue A Westbound 35.6 35.5 38.8 35.5 38.5 45.8
Avenue A and Eastbound 15.3 15.7 18.3 15.3 17.7 20.2
Welch Street Westbound 17.6 23.2 17.2 16.9 17.1 17.9
Welch Street and Eastbound 27.9 30.2 27.9 29.7 28.4 30.6
Bernard Street Westbound 26.8 29.9 37.1 43.4 35.9 43.9
Bernard Street and Eastbound 63.9 55.9 64.5 60.9 61.7 62.5
Carroll Blvd Westbound 47.4 39.3 45.7 38.4 40.8 44.4
Eastbound 170.7 176.5 193.6 185.6 185.3 195.9
Total' .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Westbound 181.3 181.4 189 191.4 179.5 195.7
'Rounding error may exist in the total travel time values output from SimTraffic.
� . �, � � . . I� . C)
Tabl� �. ,Sirr►Traffic tvl�asur�s r�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss -(Vurr►b�r r�f ,Str�ps p�r V�hicl�
, , ,
�� 9qiP�'�'�'II
=,- •• ' � � •� Noon PM Noon PM Noon PM
Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
Eagle Drive at Westbound 0.66 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.64
North Texas Blvd
Eagle Drive at Eastbound 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.35 0.40 0.44
Avenue C Westbound 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.27 0.33 0.42
Eagle Drive at Eastbound 0.32 0.62 0.6 0.62 0.56 0.58
Avenue A Westbound 0.35 0.43 0.39 0.33 0.25 0.30
Eagle Drive at Eastbound 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.35 0.34
Welch Street Westbound 0.26 0.28 0.46 0.54 0.47 0.51
Eagle Drive at Eastbound 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.30 0.34
Bernard Street Westbound 0.46 0.31 0.38 0.21 0.39 0.37
Eagle Drive at Eastbound 0.8 0.73 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.76
Carroll Blvd
Eastbound 2.18 2.43 2.51 2.37 2.42 2.46
Total.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Westbound 2.12 2.14 2.28 2.06 2.15 2.24
Based on the SimTraffic results, the Eagle Drive corridor and each of its study intersections
are operating at an acceptable level of service after implementation of the road diet. The
following observations were made:
De1av: Overall, the corridor is shown to be experiencing slightly increased delay,
except for a few approaches which are showing a decrease in delay. In general, the
2017 delay is similar to or less than what was projected prior to the road diet (future
scenario).
Queues: In general, longer queues were shown in 2017 compared to the 2016
(before) scenario. The queues in 2017 are also similar to or less than what was
projected prior to the road diet (future scenario). Approaches with the largest
increases in queues include:
o Eastbound Eagle Drive at Avenue A and Welch Street;
o Westbound Eagle Drive at Welch Street, Bernard Street, and Carroll
Boulevard.
f ` �
�
In a review of the TTR videos, these approaches appear to clear in one cycle length.
• Speeds: Slower average speeds were found as a result of the new lane geometry.
This outcome is consistent with the goal of providing a safer environment for
pedestrians and cyclists along the study corridor. Eastbound Eagle Drive at Avenue
A and westbound Eagle Drive at Welch Street are also shown to have the largest
decrease in average speed.
• Travel Time: Travel time along the corridor experienced a slight increase in both
directions. This result correlates with the lower average speed and is also consistent
with the goal of providing a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
• StOps: Stops per vehicle, saw a slight increase in both directions in the 2017
scenario. This increase was less than previously projected for the Noon peak hour.
Travel Time Runs (TTRs) Results
The video-recorded TTRs provided results for Arterial Speed, Total Travel Time, and Stops
per Vehicle. These results are presented in Tables 9-11.
�
�� 9. TT� tvl�asur� c�f Eff�ctiv�n�ss � A�t�rial ,Sp��� (t�
`r r` 'rr •yl Noon PM
Peak Peak
North Texas Blvd Eastbound 15.0 13.7
and Avenue C Westbound 16.4 17.6
Avenue C and Eastbound 15.9 18.4
Avenue A Westbound 21.2 19.3
Avenue A and Eastbound 18.6 21.2
Welch Street Westbound 12.6 11.9
Welch Street and Eastbound 25.0 16.6
Bernard Street Westbound 19.3 19.7
Bernard Street and Eastbound 17.9 14.0
Carroll Blvd Westbound 19.6 25.6
East of Carroll Blvd Westbound - -
Eastbound 17.6 15.9
Total .... ..............
Westbound 18.4 19.3
�
f ` �
� ,: � � / ,.. , r ,.. ,: r
North Texas Blvd
and Avenue C
Avenue C and
Avenue A
Avenue A and Welch
Street
Welch Street and
Bernard Street
Bernard Street and
Carroll Blvd
East of Carroll Blvd
Total'
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Noon
Peak
42.4
38.6
62.2
46.4
18.2
26.2
23.6
30.8
57
52.9
203.4
194.8
PM
Peak
45.4
36.2..
54
50.6
16.2
28 ....
36
30.6
71.8
39..6..
223.4
185
f
,� ' ,�
Eagle Drive at
North Texas Blvd
Eagle Drive at
Avenue C
Eagle Drive at
Avenue A
Eagle Drive at
Welch Street
Eagle Drive at
Bernard Street
Eagle Drive at
Carroll Blvd
Total
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Noon
Peak
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.80
0.60
0.20
0.40
0.00
0.80
0.40
2.00
3.00
PM
Peak
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.00
0.60
0.80
0.00
0.80
2.80
2.20
*�
�
10
f ` �
Based on the TTRs, the following observations were made:
• Speeds: Consistent with the SimTraffic results, slower average speeds were
observed along the corridor in both directions.
• Travel Time: Travel time along the corridor was observed as slightly longer than
shown in the SimTraffic results except for the westbound direction in the PM peak.
11
StOps: Stops per vehicle are shown to be similar to 2017 SimTraffic conditions, with
a slight increase in the westbound direction during the Noon peak hour.
. .
One of the original goals of the road diet conversion was to provide a safer environment for
pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor. Based on the pedestrian counts, considerably
more pedestrians are using routes along the corridor than prior to the road diet. This
increase suggests that the road diet may be a contributing factor to the increase of
pedestrian traffic. Based on data counting bicycles in the crosswalk, the number of bicycles
remained steady from 2016 to 2017. These data do not include the number of cyclists in the
bike lanes.
Eagle Drive after the road diet conversion is operating at a similar level of service compared
to 2016 conditions before the conversion. Some increases were found in queue lengths,
travel times, and stops per vehicle. Average speeds were also shown to have decreased,
which is consistent with the goal of providing a safer environment for pedestrians and
cyclists. In general, the 2017 simulated and observed impacts are in most cases less than
projected in the before study. It is our conclusion based on the results of the analysis that
the road diet conversion is meeting the original goal of providing a safer environment for all
modes, while also maintaining acceptable vehicular levels of service.
.
1. Exhibit 1— 2016 Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
2. Exhibit 2— 2016 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
3. Exhibit 3— 2017 Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
4. Exhibit 4— 2017 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
�
�
N
N
�
7
O
i
U
R
F
7
O
2
Y
R
N
a
c
0
0
z
�
#1 '
N
N
�
7
O
i
U
R
F
7
O
2
Y
R
N
a
�
a
�
0
N
�
�
N
N
�
7
O
i
U
'�
R
F
7
O
2
Y
R
N
a
c
0
0
z
�
#1 '
N
N
�
7
O
i
U
w
R
F
7
O
2
Y
R
N
a
�
a
�
0
N
Q�
�
C6
W`'
i
�
�
i
�
0
�
��
�^ '
W
�
�
�--�
�
�
O
U
N
U
�
U
W
Q�
�
.�
�
Q�
�/.�RA/
� V
W
�
N
�
N
t
a-+
C
N
7
C
�
Q
�
L
�
�
U
+�
ro
N
>
�L
�
�
�
�
L.I..�
C
0
�
N
U
�
Q
�
�
3
c
�
a-+
c
�
O
U
N
U
�
U
�
N
�
0
�
Q
�
�
U
C
t
U
t
�
vi
Y
N
N
�
L
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
X
O
L
Q
Q
�
0
�
N
U
(6
Q
.�
�
r�
3
a�
c
�
O
U
N
�
H
N
C
(6
N
Y
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
c�
�
t
U
L
(6
�
Y
(6
N
m
hA
C
�L
Q
�
�
a�
�
Q
�-L+
m
�
�
�
c
�
O
U
�
C
N
Y
N
N
�
N
hA
ro
N
i
(�
�
�
H
a�
�
N
t
H
e��r� e�m u���'u M,� u�'� u;a �a
�a'� rr� �r ��, e,u �
W
�/��
� V
W`'
i
�
�
�
�
O
�
��
�/��
� V
�.�..�
�
��
�
�
O
U
N
U
�
U
W
W
%
.�
�
Q�
�/.�RA/
� V
W
�
(6
N
N
t
a-+
C
�
�
�
�
Q
�
L
�
�
�
U
(6
�
i
�L
�
�
�
�
L.I..�
C
0
�
�
U
(6
Q
�
�
3
c
�
a-+
c
�
O
U
�
U
�
U
�
N
�
0
�
Q
�
�
U
C
t
U
t
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
+�
(6
�
X
0
Q
Q
�
0
�
N
U
�
Q
.�
�
�
�
a�
c
�
O
U
N
�
H
�
C
(6
N
Y
�
�
�
�
0
�
.�
hA
C
�
7
�
N
L
�
L
0
L
�
�
�
�
�
�
U
C
N
�L
�
Q
x
�
�
�
�
N
a-+
�
�
0
U
�
�
�
�
�
c�
�
t
U
L
(6
�
Y
(6
N
m
hA
C
�L
Q
�
�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
L
�
�
t
�
�
�
�L
�
�
c
O
�
U
N
0
U
(�
(6
�
C
N
U
�
�
�
�
�
Q
�L
�
�
�
�
c
�
O
U
�
C
N
Y
N
�
�
N
hA
ro
N
i
(�
�
�
H
a�
�
N
t
H
t� � �v � t� a:��� rcwu
!L"k �d'D '�" �gw�",� V"^�F