dag traffic primer meeting

7/31/2019 DAG Traffic Primer Meeting

1/69

DAG Traffic Primer

May 24, 2012

CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT


2/69

1. Previous Traffic Analysis Summary

2. Updates Post Planning Phase

3. Signal Coordination

4. Parking Supply

5. Transit Service and Accommodations

6. DAG #3: Mobility, Monday, June 18, 2012

Todays Agenda


3/69

Key Assumptions in Traffic AnalysisTraffic Calming

Level of Service (LOS) & Queue Results

Right Turn TreatmentsTraffic Operations

Pedestrian Crossings

Transit Accommodations

Emergency Response Times

Alternative Routes


4/69


5/69

How to calm traffic with wide median DAG #3

Rights on Red Allowed Design allows but

requires further

discussion on DAG #3

Level of Service (LOS) Presentation today

LOS with 2-lanes in each direction DAG #3

Location of Pedestrian and bike paths DAG #3

Path Analysis for all modes Experience

of Corridor

Presentation today


6/69

North/south and east/west traffic flows Clarify

Alternative Regional Routes - Walk Hill? Clarify Design or

Construction Phase?

Parking loss of off-street impacts on

design

Presentation today

Emergency Response during Construction DAG #4

24 hour review of traffic volumes (peak and

non-peak)

Presentation today


7/69

Previous Traffic Analysis

Summary

A Look Back


8/69


9/69

Key Assumptions inTraffic Analysis


10/69

Top 5 Areas of Concern Today


11/69


12/69


13/69

:

Casey Overpass (Regional): + 5%

Surface Roads (Regional & Local): + 12%

+ 13%

+ 10%


14/69

Overall volumes

Travel times

Air Quality


15/69

Traffic Calming


16/69


17/69

Level of Service &Queue Analysis Results


18/69


19/69


20/69


21/69

Regional AnalysisCentral Transportation Planning

Staff Analysis


22/69

CTPS Regional Traffic Model

Model runs for At-Grade and Bridge

Alternatives

Initial results show no significant changes to:

Traffic Volumes

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)

Air Quality/Emissions


23/69


24/69

Traffic Operations Improved for both

alternatives over existing conditions (see

Technical Memoranda)

Acceptable traffic operations provided forboth alternatives

Queues managed within available

storage area

Operations comparable for at-grade and

bridge alternatives


25/69

Travel Time Comparison

Travel times for existing based oncurrent volumes and presented forcomparison only

Travel times for alternatives basedon 2035 volumes and analysis

Travel times are for peak hours


26/69

Peak Hour Travel Time Results

Both alternatives improve overall travel times within

the project limits

Overall travel times for the alternatives are

comparable

At-grade improves travel time for many moves,

particularly north-south

At-grade increases travel time for affected left-turns

and east-west regional traffic (30-90 seconds)

Regional delays offset local travel time increases


27/69

Future Operations with Modified

Lane Configurations

1. Pros and Cons of different lane

configurations

2. Queues and signalization

3. Right sizing roadway 2016 versus 2035


28/69

Right-Turn Treatments


29/69

Traffic Operations


30/69

Future Traffic Conditions: Summary


31/69

East West

Regional Travel

Regional travel times relatively unchanged for

overall trip Any in-bound delays at grade on New Washington

are offset by existing delays at Murray Circle

In fact, the new design of New Washington maymeter the travel times, providing more

systematic processing of traffic


32/69

Bar chart of traffic by time of day

Discussion


33/69



34/69



35/69

Transit Accommodations


36/69

Transit Signalization


37/69

School Bus Coordination


38/69

Compiling data on busvolumes by peak hour,

including deadhead buses

Coordination on bus priorities


39/69

Emergency ResponseTime


40/69


41/69

Alternative Routes


42/69


43/69

Local Diversions (cut-through)


44/69


45/69

Casey Project Web Site Documentshttp://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/


46/69

Traffic

Documents


47/69

Meetings

Notices

Presentations Graphics

Minutes


48/69


49/69

Updates Post Planning Phase


50/69

Conducted by CDM Smith

Dec. 11Jan 12


51/69

Summary:

, the traffic analysis provided for the Casey overpass

Project has been performed in a professional manner

consistent with standard traffic engineering practices and

the guidelines of the MassDOT 2006 Project Development

and Design Guidebook.

traffic operations will be more efficient in the future year

with either alternative than the existing conditions or no

build conditions.


52/69

Report on Evaluation of Two DesignOptions for Casey Overpass


53/69

Traffic count data for Cemetery Road

Bus left-turn volumes

Minor graphic clarifications

Adjusted volumes at Orchardhill Road


54/69

Ongoing/Future Traffic

Analysis Summary

A Look Ahead


55/69

Signal Coordination


56/69

:

Casey Arborway (E-W)

Washington Street (N-S)

Hyde Park Avenue (N-S)


57/69

Parking Supply

On and Off-Street


58/69

Existing Parking Supply


59/69

Proposed Parking Supply


60/69

Parking changes

were reflected in

the future traffic

volumes

(i.e. -LAZparking lot)


61/69

Next Steps:

DAG #3: Mobility Topics


62/69

:

Off-Peak Design Options

Build Year LOS, queues, delays

Turn Treatments

Signal Details

Bus Operations

Cut-Thru Traffic


63/69


64/69

End of Presentation

Extra Slides


65/69

Conceptual AlternativesTRAFFIC


66/69

Traffic Simulations

Bridge Alternative

At-Grade Alternative


67/69

How can traffic operations be similar?

North-south traffic volumes unchanged betweenalternatives

At-grade offers additional improvements to critical north-

south link on South Street Removal of Bridge only adds east-west through traffic to

surface streets (additional thru lanes provided at-grade)

All turning movements happen at grade regardless


68/69

At-Grade Conceptual Alternative

DESIGNER GENERALS WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWNHERE IS PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL, DESPITE THE

HARD LINE FINISHED STYLE RESULTING FROM THESOFTWARE PROGRAMS USED


69/69

Bridge Conceptual Alternative

DESIGNER GENERALS WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWN