McKinney/ Cole Two Way Conversion T A N Y A B R O O K S A S S I S T A N T D I R E C T O R M O B I L I T Y P L A N N I N G P L A N N I N G A N D U R B A N D E S I G N
Presentation Overview Introductions Project Scope and Goals Project Area Overview Existing Traffic Volumes Accident Data Tw0-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary Parking Impacts Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Process 2
Introductions Council Member Philip T. Kingston, City Council District 14 Planning and Urban Design, Mobility Planning Team Tanya Brooks, Assistant Director Jared White, Manager Bicycle & Trails Program Kimberly Smith, Senior Planner Mark Brown, Senior Planner Sherman Livingston, Project Coordinator 3
Project Scope and Goals Uptown Dallas, Inc. submitted a Thoroughfare Plan application to convert McKinney & Cole Avenue from one-way to two-way operation; Project Limits: Allen St. to Harvard Ave. ~2 miles project area Project Goals To restore the two-way operations Slow vehicle speeds Simplify navigation for local residents and business patrons 4
Project Area 5
Existing Operations Thoroughfare Plan Designation - the following roads are designated as ‘Existing Couplets’ 1. McKinney – 3-lanes northbound , 2. Cole/ Carlisle/ Allen – 3-lanes southbound 6
Proposed Operations Proposed Thoroughfare Plan Designation 1. McKinney – 2-lanes northbound and 1-lane southbound, 2. Cole/ Carlisle/ Allen – 2-lane southbound and 1-lane northbound 7
Two-Way Conversion Traffic Traffic Data McKinney Cole/ Carlisle/ Allen Vehicles Vehicles Traffic Counts Lim its Year per Day Year per Day ~ Total 1993 to 2014 Allen to Bowen 200 7,062 2009 7,326 14,388 2 Traffic counts Bowen to Hall 200 9,435 2001 5,712 15,147 ~7,000 - 20,000 4 vehicles per day Hall to 2005 12,693 2001 5,712 18,405 throughout Lemmon project area Lemmon to 200 10,183 2004 9,563 19,746 Blackburn 4 Blackburn to 200 7,336 2009 4,441 11,777 Fitzhugh 9 Fitzhugh to 200 5,554 2004 5,350 10,904 Knox 9 Knox to 200 3,592 2003 3,563 7,155 Monticello 2 8
Accident Data January 2013 to May 2016 464 crashes within the Study Area 2 fatalities McKinney and Elizabeth Carlisle and Hall High Crash locations McKinney • @ Lemmon (WB) 43 accidents • @ East Lemmon 22 accidents • @ Fitzhugh 22 accidents Cole/ Carlisle • @ Lemmon (WB) 54 accidents Cole • @ Blackburn 21 accidents • @ East Lemmon 21 accidents 9
Two-Way Conversion Traffic Accident Data Crash Types Total Fixed Headon Left Ped or Right Rear Right Side U- Trolley Road Crashes Object Turn Cyclist Angle End Turn Swipe Turn McKinney 246 13 1 9 16 89 51 3 58 1 6 Carlisle & 200 10 4 7 9 54 39 0 73 0 3 Cole Allen 18 3 1 0 1 9 3 0 1 0 2 Study 464 26 6 16 26 152 93 3 132 1 11 Area Total 10
Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience. (LOS) Average Delay per Vehicle General Description (seconds per vehicle) A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Free Flow B 10-20 seconds Stable flow (slight delays) C 20-35 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 35-55 seconds Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E 55-80 seconds Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F Greater than 80 seconds Forced flow (jammed) 11
Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary (AM Peak Traffic Period) Intersection Existing Tra ffic Cond itions 2 W a y conv ersion Yea r 20 35 Lev el of Serv ice Av era g e Dela y p er Lev el of Serv ice Av era g e Dela y p er Vehicle (Second s) Vehicle (Second s) McKinney @ Oak Grove B 14.0 C 21 McKinney @ Bowen B 13.2 B 14 McKinney @ Hall B 10.6 B 10.3 McKinney @ Lemmon A 9.9 A 9.5 McKinney @ Cityplace D 37.1 C 23.5 McKinney @ Blackburn C 22.3 C 34.6 McKinney @ Fitzhugh B 11.8 B 1.6 McKinney @ Knox B 14.6 B 11.0 Carlisle @ Hall A 8.9 B 10.9 Cole @ Lemmon C 21.7 C 25.7 Cole @ Lemmon East B 16.1 C 29.4 Cole @ Blackburn B 16.2 C 31.2 Cole @ Fitzhugh B 11.7 B 13.4 Cole @ Knox B 11.0 A 9.8 12
Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary (PM Peak Traffic Period) Intersection Existing Tra ffic Cond itions 2 W a y conv ersion Yea r 20 35 Lev el of Serv ice Av era g e Dela y p er Lev el of Serv ice Av era g e Dela y p er Vehicle (Second s) Vehicle (Second s) McKinney @ Oak Grove B 16.0 C 27.2 McKinney @ Bowen C 20.3 B 10.3 McKinney @ Hall C 20.6 B 17.0 McKinney @ Lemmon D 39.4 C 20.3 McKinney @ Cityplace D 47.5 B 14.6 McKinney @ Blackburn B 15..0 D 51.6 McKinney @ Fitzhugh B 17.6 B 16.9 McKinney @ Knox C 29.7 C 23.8 Carlisle @ Hall B 12.3 B 16.0 Cole @ Lemmon B 19.2 D 35.1 Cole @ Lemmon East C 24.1 C 25.4 Cole @ Blackburn B 19.8 C 31.4 Cole @ Fitzhugh B 14.3 C 29.6 Cole @ Knox B 10.5 B 13.5 13
Parallel Parking Impact Block Existing Proposed (2 way Net Gain/ Loss with (Approx) conversion only) only 2 way conversion McKinney (Hall to Lemmon) 8 0 -8 McKinney (Haskell to Elizabeth) 50 50 0 McKinney (Elizabeth to Fitzhugh) 20 20 0 McKinney (Fitzhugh to Lee) 12 12 0 McKinney (Lee to Oliver) 20 20 0 McKinney (Oliver to Armstrong) 20 20 0 McKinney (Armstrong to Knox) 10 10 0 McKinney (Knox to Hester) 25 25 0 McKinney (Hester to Monticello) 30 30 0 Harvard/ Cole loop north of 15 25 +10 Monticello 14
Parallel Parking Impact Block Existing Proposed (2 way Net Gain/ Loss with only 2 (Approx) conversion only) way conversion Cole (Monticello to Hester) 30 30 0 Cole (Hester to Knox) 25 25 0 Cole (Knox to Armstrong) 7 7 0 Cole (Armstrong to Oliver) 20 20 0 Cole (Oliver to Lee) 20 20 0 Cole (Lee to Fitzhugh) 20 20 0 Cole (Fitzhugh to Elizabeth) 30 30 0 Cole (Elizabeth to Haskell) 60 60 0 Carlisle (Bowen to Hall) 15 spaces 0 -15 Carlisle (Hall to Lemmon) 20 20 0 15
Operations Option 3 Lane 3 Lane Cole 4 Lane Cole McKinney Segm ents Segm ents Segm ents Existing 2 NB traffic lanes, 1 2 SB traffic lanes, 1 3 SB traffic lanes, 1 off-peak parking off-peak parking full time parking lane lane lane 2 way only 2 bi-directional 2 bi-directional 1 SB lanes, 1 NB traffic lanes, 1 traffic lanes, 1 lane, 2 full time parking lane parking lane parking lane 2 way 1 shared 1 shared 1 shared streetcar/ w/ MATA streetcar/ NB traffic streetcar/ SB traffic SB lanes, 1 SB lane, streetcar lane, 1 NB lane, 1 lane, 1 SB lane, 1 1 NB lane, full time SB lane NB lane parking lane 16
Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Process ~Three month process Interdepartmental staff review to gather information from various City departments and other agencies Community meeting with the property owners to discuss amendment and address concerns when necessary May August 8 Item considered and voted on by three bodies: 1) City Plan Commission Transportation Committee; 2) City Plan Commission (Public Hearing); and 3) City Council (Public Hearing) 17
McKinney/ Cole Two-Way Conversion Possible MATA extension Proposed concept does not preclude MATA streetcar extension Streetcar will use shared travel lane with vehicles in order to accommodate vehicular traffic flow Parking will be impacted 18
4-Lane Segments 12’ 12’ 12’ 19 Streetcar+Auto
3-Lane Segments 12’ 12’ 12’ 20 Streetcar+Auto
12’ 12’ 12’ 21 Streetcar+Auto
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Recommend
More recommend
