T YL E R ST RE E T AND POL K ST RE E T (CANT Y ST RE E - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
t yl e r st re e t and pol k st re e t
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

T YL E R ST RE E T AND POL K ST RE E T (CANT Y ST RE E - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 25, 2022 112 likes •454 views

T YL E R ST RE E T AND POL K ST RE E T (CANT Y ST RE E T T O PE MBROKE AVE NUE ) PROPOSE D T WO- WAY CONVE RSION PROJE CT Pre pa re d b y City o f Da lla s Pub lic Wo rks De pa rtme nt City o f Da lla s Pla nning

slide-1
SLIDE 1

T YL E R ST RE E T AND POL K ST RE E T

(CANT Y ST RE E T T O PE MBROKE AVE NUE )

PROPOSE D T WO- WAY CONVE RSION PROJE CT

Pre pa re d b y

City o f Da lla s Pub lic Wo rks De pa rtme nt City o f Da lla s Pla nning & Urb a n De sig n De pa rtme nt City o f Da lla s De pa rtme nt o f Stre e t Se rvic e s

Ha yde n Co nsulta nts, Inc . June 16, 2016

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Pr e se ntation Ove r vie w

 Project Scope  Project Goals  Project Overview  Roundabout at northern Tyler/Polk junction  Southern Tyler/Polk junction reconfiguration  Two-way Conversion Traffic Study Summary  Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Process

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Pr

  • je c t Sc ope

 Convert the existing Tyler/Polk couplet into dual two-way traffic

streets

Replace existing traffic signals with new state-of-the-art traffic

signals to improve efficiency and traffic flow

Striping/signage improvements

 Provide roundabout on the north end of the existing couplet  Provide new traffic signal on the south end of the existing couplet  Provide Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) or new traffic

signal at the intersection of W. 9th Street and Tyler

 Estimated cost: $3.25 million

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Pr

  • je c t Goals

 Promote economic development:

Improved access and circulation

 Improved quality of life:

Traffic calming Provide healthier/more walkable neighborhood

 Create gateways into the neighborhood:

Provide landscaped roundabout at north end of existing couplet Provide landscaping at south end of existing couplet

 Improved emergency response times

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Pr

  • je c t Ove r

vie w

 Project location  Existing traffic conditions  Proposed two-way conversion traffic conditions  Tyler/Polk northern junction – roundabout  Tyler/Polk southern junction – new traffic signal  Tyler-Polk proposed roadway cross-sections &

markings/striping layouts

Plan A - Polk with Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation) Plan B – Polk without Bike Lanes

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Pr

  • je c t L
  • c ation

Tyler Street Polk Street 12th Street Jefferson Blvd Davis Street 10th Street

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

E xisting T r affic Conditions

Tyler Street Polk Street 12th Street Jefferson Blvd Davis Street 10th Street Tyler Street One-way Northbound Polk Street One-way Southbound

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Pr

  • pose d T

wo- Way Conve r sion

Tyler Street Polk Street 12th Street Jefferson Blvd Davis Street 10th Street

New Traffic Signal at Southern Tyler/Polk Junction New Roundabout at Northern Tyler/Polk Junction Modify/Replace existing traffic signals

Tyler Street Two-way traffic Polk Street Two-way traffic

8

9th Street

Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) or New Traffic Signal

slide-9
SLIDE 9

T yle r / Polk Nor the r n Junc tion - Roundabout

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

BENEFITS

Roundabouts are becoming more common in the United States and the state of Texas due to their many benefits.

 How to get around

Safer

Efficient

  • Observe all standard road rules, including

yielding for pedestrians in crosswalks Roundabouts reduce delay by allowing motorists to yield rather than stop at a red light. They can also handle higher traffic volumes, which helps vehicles get through quicker.

  • To safely and efficiently drive a roundabout:

Roundabouts are safer than other intersections because severe head-on and left-turn crashes do not occur. Other safety benefits include slower speeds and the one-way circulating traffic.

  • Slow down
  • Read advance signing and choose

correct lane

  • Yield to traffic in all lanes on your left

before entering

  • Stay in your lane to your exit

Economical

Accident reduction at roundabouts

Reducing driver delay saves time and fuel. Eliminating signals also saves approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per year in maintenance and energy costs. 52%

Green

9 % Roundabouts are proven to reduce overall accident rates in Wisconsin by approximately 9%, and reduce severe crashes by 52%. The 2011 Study by the UW Traffic Operations & Safety Laboratory reported zero fatal crashes. Roundabouts reduce fuel consumption and vehicle pollution ALL because vehicles are not idling at a red light. INJURY and bicyclists at roundabouts as compared to signalized intersections. The center island of a roundabout provides an opportunity to beautify the location with landscaping. Flowers, trees, or even simple green space can be placed in the center

  • f

a roundabout, making the intersection aesthetically pleasing.

Roundabout Myths vs. Facts

Yield ►

Myth: Roundabouts are not

The “Golden Rule”

pedestrian and bicyclist friendly.

  • f driving roundabouts.

Fact: Traffic circles have high-speed entries, variable yield rules, low capacity, and many high-speed

  • crashes. They are dangerous and

confusing to drive. When you enter the roundabout, you Fact: There are statistically fewer pedestrian and bicycle crashes at roundabouts than at signalized

  • intersections. Drivers are required to

yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks, while refuge islands provide a space for pedestrians in the middle of each crossing so pedestrians only cross one direction

  • f traffic at a time.

must yield to circulating traffic. Roundabouts require motorists to yield

  • n entry, speeds are low, capacity is

high, and crashes are few and minor. They are designed to be easy to use and provide a higher level of driver safety. Yield means the other drivers in the circle have the right of way. A motorist approaching a roundabout should wait for a safe gap in traffic before entering.

In addition, studies show fewer accidents involving pedestrians

roundabouts are the same thing.

Myth: Traffic circles/ rotaries and

slide-11
SLIDE 11

T yle r / Polk Southe r n Junc tion - Signal

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

T yle r and Polk Pr

  • pose d Cr
  • ss- Se c tions

Plan A – Polk with Bike L ane s (Staff Re c omme ndation)

12

On-Street Parallel Parking On-Street Parallel Parking

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Pr

  • pose d T

wo- Way Conve r sion Mar kings/ Str iping L ayout Plan A – Polk with Bike L ane s (Staff Re c omme ndation)

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Propose d T wo- Wa y Conve rsion Ma rking s/ Striping L a yout Continue d

Plan A – Polk with Bike L ane s (Staff Re c omme ndation)

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

T yle r and Polk Pr

  • pose d Cr
  • ss- Se c tions

Plan B – Polk without Bike L ane s

15

On-Street Parallel Parking On-Street Parallel Parking

POLK STREET

On-Street Parallel Parking On-Street Parallel Parking

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Pr

  • pose d T

wo- Way Conve r sion Mar kings/ Str iping L ayout Plan B – Polk without Bike L ane s

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Propose d T wo- Wa y Conve rsion Ma rking s/ Striping L a yout Continue d

Plan B – Polk without Bike L ane s

17

Still working ongraphic which wil be added soon.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Two-way Conversion Traffic Study

 Existing Conditions

 Tyler – 3 lanes northbound  Polk – 3 lanes southbound

 Plan A – Polk with Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation)

 Tyler – 2 lane undivided roadway (one lane each direction) w/ parallel parking  Polk – 2 lane undivided roadway (one lane each direction) w/ bike lanes and

parallel parking on the west side  Plan B – Polk without Bike Lanes

 Tyler – 2 lane undivided roadway (one lane each direction) w/ parallel parking  Polk – 4 lane undivided roadway (two lanes each direction) w/ parking

prohibited for the peak hour peak direction

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Motor Vehicle Level of Service at Signalized Intersections

 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.

19

(LOS) Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds per vehicle) General Description 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)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary – (AM Peak Traffic Period)

20

Intersection Existing Traffic Conditions Plan A – Polk w/ Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation) Plan B – Polk w/o Bike Lanes Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Tyler at Davis C 29.4 C 25.2 B 19.8 Tyler at Tenth A 5.1 A 6.9 A 8.5 Tyler at Jefferson B 11.3 C 23.8 B 15.3 Tyler at Twelfth B 14.3 B 17.1 B 11.8 Tyler at Polk (southern junction) N/A N/A A 9.3 A 7.8 Polk at Kings Hwy B 12.3 A 8.1 A 7.3 Polk at Davis B 13.0 C 21.6 B 16.4 Polk at Tenth B 11.1 A 5.1 A 3.9 Polk at Jefferson B 14.1 C 26.1 B 19.5 Polk at Twelfth B 10.1 B 18.0 B 19.9

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary – (PM Peak Traffic Period)

21

Intersection Existing Traffic Conditions Plan A – Polk w/ Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation) Plan B – Polk w/o Bike Lanes Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Tyler at Davis B 13.4 C 20.5 B 18.8 Tyler at Tenth A 7.1 A 5.9 A 6.4 Tyler at Jefferson B 14.9 C 34.9 B 14.5 Tyler at Twelfth B 12.7 C 33.6 B 16.3 Tyler at Polk (southern junction) N/A N/A B 14.9 B 15.1 Polk at Kings Hwy A 5.3 A 8.4 A 6.7 Polk at Davis B 14.5 C 20.6 B 13.1 Polk at Tenth A 5.2 A 9.0 A 7.6 Polk at Jefferson B 13.6 B 17.3 B 15.0 Polk at Twelfth B 14.2 B 18.3 B 17.4

slide-22
SLIDE 22

T yle r- Polk T wo- Wa y T ra ffic Study

  • Two-way conversion of Tyler/Polk is feasible from a traffic operation

standpoint

  • Plan A (dedicated bike lanes on Polk) – traffic delays will increase

slightly throughout the corridor but still remain within an acceptable/comfortable level of service

  • Plan B (no dedicated bike lanes on Polk) - traffic flow/operational

impacts throughout the corridor will be negligible

  • Plans A and B will accommodate DART bus operations; designated bus

stop locations will allow buses to pull to the side of the road, thus leaving

  • ne lane of traffic open to vehicles so as to not impede traffic flow

Conc lusions

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Thoroughfare Plan (TP) 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

 Item considered and voted on by three bodies: 1) City Plan Commission

Transportation Committee (CPCTC); 2) City Plan Commission (CPC); and 3) City Council has final authority to approve or deny

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

T P Ame ndme nt Pr

  • c e ss (Co ntinue d)

 City Plan Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit citizen

input before the CPC forwards a recommendation to City Council

 City Council will hold a public hearing and take into consideration

the recommendations of the CPC and make the final determination whether the thoroughfare plan is amended

 If City Council approves the amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan,

the map and text will be changed to reflect the amendment

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

TP Amendment Proposed Timeline

1st Public Meeting – April 7, 2015, TECO/Bishop Arts Theatre Center

2nd Public Meeting – April 21, 2016, Tyler Street United Methodist Church

3rd Public Meeting – June 16, 2016, Kidd Springs Recreation Center

4th Public Meeting – June 21, 2016, Cliff Temple Baptist Church

5th Public Meeting – July 12, 2016, Elmwood-El Buen Samaritano United Methodist Church

CPC Transportation Committee – May 5, 2016; July 21, 2016, City Council Chambers

City Plan Commission – August 18, 2016, 1:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, Public Hearing

City Council – *September 14, 2016, 1:00 p.m. City Council Chamber, Public Hearing

Contact for any questions or comments: Kimberly Smith, 214.671.8171, Kimberly.Smith@DallasCityHall.com

25

*Tentative Date

slide-26
SLIDE 26

T yle r / Polk Pr

  • je c t Sc he dule

 Thoroughfare Amendment Plan Process: June 2016 – September 2016  Tyler/Polk Engineering Design: Fall 2016 - Spring 2017  Tyler/Polk Construction: Summer 2017 - Summer 2018

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Que stions or Comme nts?

 Staff and consulting teams will be available at the

various subject matter stations to address questions

 Staff Contacts: Tanya Brooks, Assistant Director Planning and Urban Design City of Dallas 214-670-4038 Tanya.Brooks@dallascityhall.com

27

Tim Starr, P.E., Assistant Director Public Works Department City of Dallas 214-948-4250 Timothy.Starr@dallascityhall.com

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Appendix – Traffic Study

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

T yle r-Po lk T wo -Wa y T ra ffic Study

T r affic Volume s

E xisting AM Pe ak

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

T yle r-Po lk T wo -Wa y T ra ffic Study

T r affic Volume s

E xisting PM Pe ak

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

T yle r-Po lk T wo -Wa y T ra ffic Study

 Plan A traffic modeling assumed a 60/40 traffic split

between Tyler/Polk respectively

 Plan B traffic modeling assumed a 40/60 traffic split

between Tyler/Polk respectively

 Detailed traffic modeling results available upon request

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary – (AM Peak Traffic Period)

32

Intersection Existing Traffic Conditions Plan A – Polk w/ Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation) Plan B – Polk w/o Bike Lanes Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Tyler at Davis C 29.4 C 25.2 B 19.8 Tyler at Tenth A 5.1 A 6.9 A 8.5 Tyler at Jefferson B 11.3 C 23.8 B 15.3 Tyler at Twelfth B 14.3 B 17.1 B 11.8 Tyler at Polk (southern junction) N/A N/A A 9.3 A 7.8 Polk at Kings Hwy B 12.3 A 8.1 A 7.3 Polk at Davis B 13.0 C 21.6 B 16.4 Polk at Tenth B 11.1 A 5.1 A 3.9 Polk at Jefferson B 14.1 C 26.1 B 19.5 Polk at Twelfth B 10.1 B 18.0 B 19.9

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Two-Way Conversion Traffic Study Summary – (PM Peak Traffic Period)

33

Intersection Existing Traffic Conditions Plan A – Polk w/ Bike Lanes (Staff Recommendation) Plan B – Polk w/o Bike Lanes Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Tyler at Davis B 13.4 C 20.5 B 18.8 Tyler at Tenth A 7.1 A 5.9 A 6.4 Tyler at Jefferson B 14.9 C 34.9 B 14.5 Tyler at Twelfth B 12.7 C 33.6 B 16.3 Tyler at Polk (southern junction) N/A N/A B 14.9 B 15.1 Polk at Kings Hwy A 5.3 A 8.4 A 6.7 Polk at Davis B 14.5 C 20.6 B 13.1 Polk at Tenth A 5.2 A 9.0 A 7.6 Polk at Jefferson B 13.6 B 17.3 B 15.0 Polk at Twelfth B 14.2 B 18.3 B 17.4