Case Study 5 Museum Road Educational and Training Presentation

1. Case Study 5Museum RoadEducational and Training Presentation

2. This presentation format is designed for adaptation of the HCMAG for academic programs or training courses. It provides the vehicle by which the HCMAG material could be used in the classroom. • This HCMAG problem has been adapted to support lectures with handouts. The slides present the material with paraphrased versions of the narrative and animated “builds” to facilitate delivery. The handouts include the relevant portions of the narrative taken verbatim from the HCMAG. • The material herein is faithful to the HCMAG. No additional concepts or results are introduced .

3. Run Observations? • This icon denotes a point in the presentation for general observations and discussion • This icon identifies specific questions to be addressed • This icon denotes a point in the presentation at which a run will be made using the given data. Instructors may add hyperlinks to perform the run with a specific data set.

4. Museum Road • Gainesville, Florida • 100,000 population • University of Florida • 46,000 students • 11,000 employees

5. Observations? Location of the case study area on the University of Florida campus Museum Road • Analyze the impact of a new parking structure on campus • Increased traffic • Impacts on two-way stop-controlled intersection • Alternatives toward a workable solution • Three HCM problems

6. Museum Road • Case Study Objectives • Both signalized and unsignalized analyses • Considerations in a multimodal environment • Impacts of pedestrians, bicycles and buses • Input data and common assumptions • Limitations of HCM procedures • Interpret analysis results • Support transportation system decisions

7. UF Campus • Center of campus • Two-lane roadway • 20-mph speed limit • Bicycles • Buses • Pedestrians Unique peaking characteristics?

8. Museum Road - Urban Street Considerations • Four closely-spaced intersections • Signalized • Two actuated • One pretimed • Unsignalized • Two-way stop control North-South Drive Reitz Union Drive Center Drive Newell Drive

9. Center Dr. Newell Dr. N-S Dr. Reitz U. Crosswalk Parking Center Dr. Newell Dr. N-S Dr. Reitz U. Museum Rd. Bus stops Bus stops with pullovers Museum Road Characteristics • Buses and pedestrians • Bus Stops • Bus Pullovers • Crosswalks • Parking Lots

10. Observations? Museum Road • Consider the situation just described • Who are the affected stakeholders? • What do you see as potential issues here? • Issues to consider: _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________

11. Stakeholders Who are the stakeholders? • University students • University employees • University administration • Pedestrian advocates • Bicycle advocates • Public transit agencies • Campus police

12. Museum Road • Signalized urban street • Signals and TWSC • Multimodal purposes • Vehicle mobility not primary • Pedestrians • Substantial mid-block activity • Controlled and uncontrolled • Bicycles • Bicycle lanes on both sides

13. North-South Drive • Signalized intersection • Actuated control • Protected-permitted left turns • Pedestrian signals • High traffic demand • Could exceed capacity • Queues are issues • Could block adjacent intersections

14. Reitz Union Drive • Unsignalized intersection • Two-way stop control • High demand • Could exceed capacity • Signalizing difficult • Near North-South Drive • Restrictive geometry • Heavy LT into new structure

15. Center Drive • Signalized intersection • Pretimed control • Two-phase • Pedestrian signals • Unusual approach configuration • One-way approaches • Turn restrictions • Bus staging area

16. Newell Drive • Signalized intersection • Actuated control • Protected LT on Museum Road • Pedestrian signals • Requests pending • Protected LT on Newell Drive • Exclusive pedestrian phase • Lower vehicle volumes

17. Observations? Museum Road • After seeing some specifics about the area … • How does this compare with a typical impact study? • What are some unique characteristics here? • Characteristics for focus: _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________

18. Museum Road Issues

19. Reitz Union Drive Into Parking Structure • Focus of the case study • New parking structure • Intersection control • Whether to signalize • Affects entire Museum Road Can you see some of the issues to be addressed?

20. Reitz Union Drive • Problem 1: Existing and projected operations • TWSC versus signal • Pedestrian effects • Lane configuration • Problem 2: Signalized intersection • Phasing and timing alternatives • Exclusive pedestrian phasing • Actuated versus coordinated timing • Problem 3: Actuated phasing • Delay versus v/c ratio • Pedestrian level of service

21. Problem 1 1a. TWSC analysis - Existing conditions - Pedestrian effects - Projected conditions 1b. Signalized analysis - Actuated control - Compare with TWSC - Total delay comparison 1c. Pedestrians and bicycles - Signalized comparison - Geometry modifications - Queues, delays and LOS

22. Problem 1a TWSC Analysis • Data required • Existing delay and LOS • Projected delay and LOS • Pedestrian effects • TWSC limitations TWSC data requirements • Lane configuration • Turning movement volumes • Pedestrian volumes • Peak-hour factors • Approach grades • Heavy vehicle percentages

23. Problem 1a Right-turn lanes • Shared • Right turns share a lane with other (thru or left) movements • Flared • Shared lane where right turns can slip by queued vehicle(s) • Exclusive • Right turns have their own adjacent lane • Channelized • Exclusive lane with a triangular island where right turns must comply with a stop or yield sign

24. Problem 1a Peak-Hour Factor (PHF) • Converts hourly volume to peak 15-minute flow rate PHF = (average flow rate) (4 * Peak 15-minute flow rate) = 2220 + 4220 + 2895 + 3305 4 * 4220     = 12,640/16,880 = 0.75

25. Run Problem 1a Volume data • Existing turning movement volumes • Future turning movement volumes Shows: • Level of demand at this intersection and • Projected growth generated by the new structure

26. Problem 1a Results • Initial analysis of existing conditions • SB delay at LOS F even before adding the traffic that will be generated by the new parking structure • NB delay shows LOS F at "999 sec" • Even though very little traffic – delay in "sec/vehicle" • Illustrates practical limits imposed by some software

27. Problem 1a Pedestrian effects • 250 pedestrians per hour to EB, WB and SB approaches • 150 pedestrians per hour to NB approach • Without pedestrians • Delays high and queues acceptable • With pedestrians • Delays skyrocket and queues triple

28. Problem 1a Projected traffic • Projected traffic volumes reflecting new parking structure • Compared with volume levels before the generated traffic • Projected queues and delay • Southbound queues show marked increase • Compared with existing queues and delay • Delays are very high under both scenarios

29. Problem 1b Signalized analysis • TWSC analysis shows substantial delays and queues • Investigate signalization for operational improvements MUTCD warrants • Warrant analysis is normally necessary • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • Millennium Edition (2003 Update) • Eight signal warrants • Traffic, delays, pedestrians, schools, crashes, network • Establish thresholds for potential signalization  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

30. Problem 1b Signalized Analysis • Data required • Existing delay and LOS • Projected delay and LOS • Compare results with TWSC • Total delay comparison Signal data requirements • Signal phasing • Signal timing • Arrival type • Unit extension • Lost time data • Parking and maneuvers • Bus stop data • Lane utilization

31. Run Problem 1b Signalized analysis • Results from existing conditions • Queues • Signal creates Museum queues, but reduces Reitz queues • Delay • Signal increases Museum delays, but reduces Reitz delays

32. Problem 1b Signalized analysis • Results from projected conditions • EB left and SB right still have significant delay How can this comparison really be made?

33. Problem 1b Signal versus TWSC • Total delay comparison • Total Reitz Union Drive delay reduction • Exceeds Museum Road delay increase • Total delay reduced by adding the signal

34. Run Problem 1c • Signalized analysis • Considering pedestrian and bicycle effects • Especially affecting the SB right turning vehicles What alternatives might be considered here?

35. Run Problem 1c • Signalized analysis • Restricting pedestrians on two approaches • Pedestrians allowed on east and south legs only What else might be considered?

36. Run Problem 1c • Signalized analysis • Convert to a T intersection • Dual SB right turn lanes • Delays and queues are reduced • Especially the EB left turns and SB right turns • Intersection from LOS F to LOS D

37. Run Problem 1c • Signal versus TWSC • Total delay comparison • With improved T intersection  86% reduction in total delay