HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-11 - Agendas •
Committee Committee
Members Tayve re,
1 le
Members
Matthew Petty-Chairman ARKANSAS Adella Gray
Rhonda Adams Justin Tennant
Agenda
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Transportation Committee Meeting
February 11, 2014
A meeting of the Fayetteville Transportation Committee will be held on February 11, 2014
at 6:15 pm or after the Equipment Committee in Room 111 of the City Administration
Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville Arkansas.
AGENDA:
1. Call meeting to order by Chairman Matthew Petty.
2. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 2014 WORKPLAN: Presentation of the 2014
Transportation Division Sidewalk and Street Maintenance Workplan. (Staff
requests a recommendation from the Committee on this item.)
3. TRAFFIC CALMING: Request from Boardwalk Subdivision POA for traffic
calming on Meandering Way.
4. RUPPLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD.
TO WEDINGTON DRIVE: Review of traffic study report and discussion of
improvements to be constructed on Rupple Road, between Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blvd. and Wedington Drive.
5. RUPPLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-STARRY NIGHT VIEW TO MOUNT
COMFORT ROAD: Review of proposed contract with Garver Engineers for
design of improvements to Rupple Road, between Starry Night View and Mount
Comfort Road. (Staff requests a recommendation from the Committee on this
item.)
6. VAN ASCHE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS: Review of proposed changes to the
design of Van Asche Drive, to better accommodate potential commercial
development in the project area. (Staff requests a recommendation from the
Committee on this item.)
7. General Update of the Transportation Bond Program.
8. Other Business
9. Adjourn-Next Meeting March 11, 2014 following City Council Agenda
Session/Equipment Committee Meeting
Proposed Sidewalk Improvement Projects 2014
Draft Revised 1123/2014
Sidewalk SW Curb Ramps Drives Pipe Boxes Const. Est.Material
Pri Year* Ward Street From To Placement Type Feet Width Feet Each Each Length Each Time Cost
1 Under const 1 Armstrong Ave. 15th St. I Borick Dr. I East side INew 1 3,5501 61 2,5501 21 121 1,6001 11 134.01 $134,875
5 2013 1 Dickson St. Washington Ave. Fletcher Ave. Southside Replacement 1,750 5 1,370 4 61 1,0001 4 65.2 $184,140
2 under const 1 Huntsville Rd. Mornin side Dc Ha Hollow Rd. South side New 2350 5 2350 6 7 960 9 102.6 $114,400
6 2014 1 Maintenance Repairs Various Locations An side Re lacement 250 5 250 0 0 0 0 5.0 $6,750
3 2014 1 School Ave. MILK Blvd. 9th Street East side New 530 5 0 2 3 0 0 9.3 $13,025
4 R2013 1 School Ave. 9th St. 15th St. East side New 2,000 5 0 3 16 0 0 37.5 $53,850
*R in front=Requested(Has not been on approved work list) Ward 1 Totals 10,430 6,520 17 44 3,560 24 354 $507,040
2.0 1.2 0.7 (Days)
(Miles) (Mlles) (Miles) 71
(Weeks)
Sidewalk SW Curb Ramps Drives Pipe Boxes Const. Est.Material
Year* Ward Street From To Placement Type Feet Width Feet Each Each Length Each Time Cost
1 Under const. 2 Davidson St. College Ave. Willow Ave. North side New 900 5 1800 9 15 220 2 56.7 $60,950
3 R2012 2 Leverett Ave. North St. Cleveland St. Both sides Replacement 2,670 6 2,670 16 22 0 0 83.4 $99,790
8 2014 2 Maintenance Repairs Various Locations An side Replacement 250 5 250 0 0 0 0 5.0 $6,750
4 R2013 2 Porter Rd. 540 Ramp Existingsidewalk West side New 575 5 575 0 3 250 3 29.0 $31,225
2 2014 2 South St. West Ave. Archibald Yell Blvd. Both sides Replacement 1,200 5 2,400 19 18 350 6 91.0 $88,100
5 2014 2 UniversityAve. Dickson St. Whiteside Dr. East side Replacement 350 5 350 1 2 0 0 9.5 $11,900
6 R2012 2 Washington Ave. Lafayette St. Dickson St. Both sides Replacement 1,570 5 1,570 10 12 0 0 48.4 $57,690
7 R2012 2 Willow Ave. Maple St. Lafayette St. Both sides Replacement 970 5 970 0 10 0 0 29.4 $37,690
*R in front=Requested(Has not been on approved work list) Ward 2 Totals 8,485 10,585 55 82 820 11 352 $394,095
1.6 2.0 0.2 (Days)
(Miles) (Mlles) (Miles) 70
(Weeks)
Page 1 of 4
Proposed Sidewalk Improvement Projects 2014
Draft Revised 1123/2014
Sidewalk SW Curb Ramps Drives Pipe Boxes Const. Est.Material
Year* Ward Street From To Placement Type Feet Width Feet Each Each Length Each Time Cost
5 R2012 3 Apple dry Dr. Lundsford Ave. jApplebury PI. I North I East IReplacement 1 1,080 51 1,0801 2 101 01 01 32.61 $40,960
6 R2013 3 Azalea terrace Robin Rd. T
ownship . East side Replacement 465 5 0 3 3 0 0 9.2 $12,038
7 2014 3 Maintenance Repairs Various An side Replacement 250 5 250 0 0 0 0 5.0 $6,750
2 R2013 3 Mission Blvd. Veiw oint Dr. Dr. South side New 2,235 5 2,235 7 8 2,000 10 116.2 $165,595
1 R2012 3 Old Missouri Rd. Zion Rd. West side New Gaps 2,100 5 2,100 4 1 1,500 5 80.0 $105,950
4 R2013 3 Overcrest St. Old Wire Rd. . South side New 980 5 980 2 5 980 4 51.4 $65,010
3 R2013 3 Sha bark Bend Mockernut Crossind. North side New 110 5 0 1 0 0 0 1.6 $2,075
*R in front=Requested(Has not been on approved work list) Ward 3 Totals 7,220 6,645 19 27 4,480 19 296 $398,378
1.4 1.3 0.8 (Days)
(Miles) (Miles) (Miles) 59
(Weeks)
Sidewalk SW Curb Ramps Drives Pipe Boxes Const. Est.Material
Year* Ward Street From To Placement Type Feet Width Feet Each Each Length Each Time Cost
3 R2014 4 Forty-sixth Ave. Wedin ton Dr. Existing Sidewalk East side New 1,250 5 1,250 3 5 750 39.0 $58,700
1 under Const 4 Halsell Rd. Sang Ave. Cross Ave. South side New 725 6 725 1 1 340 4 35.4 $39,913
7 2014 4 Maintenance Repairs Various Locations Any side Replacement 250 5 250 0 0 0 0 5.0 $6,750
4 R2014 4 Markham Rd. Cross Ave. Palmer Ave. South side New 985 5 985 2 4 985 34.6 $56,120
5 R2014 4Palmer Ave. Markham Rd. Center St. Eastside New 1,277 5 1,277 6 7 750 43.0 $62,179
8 2013 4 Salem Rd. Old Town Ln. Earnhart Dr. West side New 460 5 0 1 0 0 3 17.1 $14,200
6 2013 4 Salem Rd. Bentgrass Rd. Clabber Creek Blvd. West side New 317 5 0 0 1 0 0 4.2 $6,698
2 under const 4 Sang Ave. Maple St. Halsell Rd. West side New 650 6 650 1 0 1250 9 62.0 $81,725
*R in front=Requested(Has not been on approved work list) Ward 4 Totals 5,914 5,137 14 18 4,075 16 240 $326,284
1.1 1.0 0.8 (Days)
(Mlles) (Mlles) (Mlles) 48
(Weeks)
Grand Totals 32,049 28,887 105 171 12,935 70 1,242 $1,625,797
6.1 5.5 2.4 (Days)
(Miles) (Mlles) (Each) (Each) (Miles) (Each) 248
(Weeks)
Page 2 of 4
Proposed 2014 Street Improvement Project List
12/2/2013
Street From To Length
1 Missouri Way Oklahoma Way Dogwood Lane 1,012
1 Morningside Huntsville 15th 2,637
1 Oklahoma Way Missouri Way Texas Way 1,200
1 Texas Way Oklahoma Way Skyline Dr. 1,025
1 Rodgers Lighton Trail 600 ft.to the west 600
2 South St. West Ave. Archibald Yell Blvd. 1,282
2 Leverett Ave. Cleveland North St. 1250
2 Edgehill Dr. Cul-de-sac Lakeridge Dr. 1,052
2 Meadow St. Gregg Ave. West Ave. 354
2 Davidson College Ave. Willow Ave. 825
3 Nottingham Masonic Cul de sac 419
4 Sang Cleveland Halsall 1937
4 Maple Sang Ave Dead End 1245
4 Halsall Sang Ave Cross 1425
4 Cross Halsall Markham 661
1&2 Dickson St. College Ave. Fetcher Ave. 2220
3.63 Miles
4 Meadowlands Dr. Wedington Dr. Mallard 730
4 Mallard Plum Tree Dr. Pine Creek 188
4 Pine Creek Mallard Beaver Ln 641
4 Plum Tree Dr. Mallard Patrick St. 1690
4 Patrick St. Plum Tree Dr. Lonesome Dove Dr. 1745
4 Chaparral Ln. Plum Tree Dr. Lonesome Dove Dr. 1165
4 Beaver Ln. Plum Tree Dr. Lonesome Dove Dr. 1171
4 Lonesome Dove Dr Beaver Ln. Patrick St. 488
4 Carriage Way Wedington Dr. Beaver Ln 1406
4 Thrasher Dr. Carriage Way 943
4 Blue Bird Carriage Way 448
4 Acoma Carriage Way Carlsbad Trace 384
4 Franciscan Trail Carriage Way Fieldstone Ave. 1154
4 Carlsbad Trace Wedington Dr. Cul de sac 2170
4 Renee Carlsbad Trace Cul de sac 80
2.7 Miles
3 Cambridge Rd. Mission Blvd 150FT. Past Lensfield 650
3 Cambridge Rd. Mission Blvd 150FT. Past Lensfield 650
3 Bristol PI. Cambridge Rd. CUL DE SAC 660
3 Lensfield Pl. Cambridge Rd. CUL DE SAC 300
3 Camelot PI. Cambridge Rd. CUL DE SAC 1130
3 Ball Ave. Mission Blvd Kantz Ln. 1300
3 Kantz Ln. Ball Ave. East Oaks 2770
3 Kantz CV CUL de sac Kantz Ln. 237
3 Lisa Ln. Mission Blvd CUL DE SAC 1380
3 Flint Creek Dr. Old Missouri Wolf Creek Dr. 340
3 Wolf Creek Dr. Flint Creek Dr. Deer Creek Dr. 592
3 Deer Creek Dr. Flint Creek Dr. Wolf Creek Dr. 518
2 Miles
Alternate Micro Seal
n Trinity Dr. Franciscan Trail Dead End 540
n Boxley Ave. Cul de sac Dover St. 2204
n Desarc Way Boxley Ave Dover St. 664
n Ponca St. Boxley Ave Cannondale Dr. 1288
n Fieldstone Ave. Wedington Dr. Genoa Ave. 2578
n Caddo Ave. Prescott Ponca St. 1234
n Prescott Caddo Ave Genoa Ave. 307
n Genoa Ave. Prescott Ave. Ponca St. 1657
Alternate Asphalt Overlays Streets
Ward Street From To Length
1 Dunn Ave. National St. Eleventh St. 452
1 Ellis Ave. Hill St. Dunn Ave. 1,453
1 Storer Ave. Cleveland St. North St. 1,270
1 Wyman Rd. Stonebridge Rd. City Limits 3,104
2 McConnell Ave. Knapp Dr. Drake St. 2,671
2 University Ave. Dickson St. Center St. 1,259
3 Pembroke Rd. Shrewsbury Ln. Rockwood Tr. 1,417
3 Shrewsbury Ln. Ridgeway Dr. Pembroke Rd. 1,217
3 Sheryl Oaks Manor Cul de sac 1,028
3 Rosewood Sheryl Cul de sac 300
4 Markham Razorback Cross
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
-------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEMO Meeting of February 11 , 2014
To : City of Fayetteville Transportation Committee
From : Chris Brown, City Engineer
Date: February 5 , 2014
Subject: Rupple Road Traffic Study Discussion — MLK Jr. Boulevard to Wedington Drive
BACKGROUND :
Jacobs Engineering Group was hired to perform a traffic impact analysis of both existing and future sections
Rupple Road from MLK Jr. Blvd. to Wedington Drive. The results of the traffic analysis have been compiled in
a report along with observations and recommendations. Roadway cross section recommedations have been made
based on the corridor users and proposed land use and densities. The study has also analyzed each intersection
and made recommendations for geometry and configuration e.g. traffic signal vs roundabout and has advised of
construction phasing options based on project growth in this area. This study will give the City a technical
document to develop conceptual road plans to present to the Transportion Committee for approval to move into
the design phase.
DISCUSSION:
A summary of the traffic study inputs and analysis is as follows :
• Rupple Road is designated as a Principal Arterial Parkway on the Master Street Plan (City Plan 2030).
• Future traffic was generated in the study area by using densities similar to Rupple Row (Traditional/New
Urbanism Development Pattern) of 6 .24 units per acre or 1997 units which equates to a 24-hour two-way
volume of 19, 111 vehicles at build out.
Based on historical traffic volumes, a growth rate of 12% was applied to historic traffic counts outside of
the Rupple corridor, but would be utilizing the new Rupple Road.
The intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street was evaluated using the year 2033 volumes to
determine whether a signalized intersection or a roundabout would operate the more efficiently and safely.
In regards to the Level Of Service, the roundabout barely nudged out the signal by 2 seconds which is
considered negligible. Therefore, Jacobs decided to recommend and use a signalized intersection in the
model in favor of the improved safety conditions for pedestrians, especially within a school zone.
• Two future intersections on Rupple south of Persimmon were modeled as roundabouts.
• The study analyzed 3 Build Alternatives .
o 2-Lane Build from MLK Jr. to south of Persimmon
o 4-Lane Build from MLK Jr. to south of Persimmon
o 4-Lane Build from MLK Jr. to Wedington Drive
THE CITE` OF FAYETTEVILLE,, ARKANSAS
Preliminary Study results are as follows :
• The 2-Lane Build will operate are very acceptable levels of service the opening year of this facility to
traffic.
• The first section which will fail operationally or have unacceptable levels of service will be the 2-lane
section from Persimmon to Wedington with the Wedington intersection the most problematic due to the
significant traffic volumes on Wedington.
• The study shows that in the design year 2033 , Rupple Road needs to be a 4-lane facility to provide
acceptable levels of service at each intersection/roundabout and acceptable travel times from MLK Jr. to
Wedington Drive.
RECOMMENDATION :
Staff is waiting on the final analysis from Jacobs which will determine how many years from now will the four
lane facility need to be constructed. Based on this answer, staff would either recommend to build 4 lanes now or
wait and only build a two lane roadway at this time.
If a two lane roadway is recommended, then we need to look at how to build the two lane roadway with expansion
in mind as well as access management. Staff has drafted two typical sections, Option 1 and Option 2 (attached)
to review and discuss with the Transportation Committee.
................ .............. ....... ............ ................
.......................
............................................. .......................................................:.......<........................ ................................................
gas .5' C&G 1.5" C&G
12
10 lit 10
............... .................... ............................... ............. .......... ......
TRAIL GREEN LANE LANE
SPACE
24' B.C. 15"
Ron —DEPRESSED MEDIAN . ...................... ------- --------- - .. ..... ..............
671 B.C.
100" RIGHT OF WAY
. STREET SECTION
OPTION 1
IL
..............
now 04
1 #
.5" C&G 8 8 .5" C&G
GRAVEL GRAVEL
12" Ill LANE- SHOULDER DEPRESSED MEDIAN SHOULDER 11' LANE lo" 50
TRAIL GREEN GREENSPACE SW
SPACE
67' B.C.
-am 100" RIGHT OF WAY OWN
STREET SECTION
OPTION 2
PPLE ROAD IMPRO" VEMENT "
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD . TO PERSIMMON :0301%
PHASING OPTIONS
RUPPLE ROAD
Corridor from MLK
(Hwy 62) to
Wedington Drive
(Hwy 16)
Traffic Impact Analysis
Date: January 31, 2014
11Page
Introduction
JACOBS was hired by the City of Fayetteville to conduct a traffic impact analysis forth e
extension of Rupple Road from MILK (Hwy 62) to just south of Persimmon Street. The study
area also included the existing section from Persimmon Street to Wedington Drive. The study
area is shown in Figure 1.
+i
■
Figure 1. Study Area
Currently Rupple Road in the study area extends south from Wedington Drive to just south of
the Owl Creek Elementary/Middle School. There is a traffic signal at the intersection with
Wedington Drive and a 4-way stop at the Persimmon Street intersection. Rupple Road does not
exist between the school and MLK (Hwy 62). The Master Street Plan (City Plan 2030) designates
Rupple Road as a principal arterial parkway. The typical section for principal arterials obtained
from the Master Street Plan is shown in Figure 2. For the study, parking was not included in the
analysis.
21 Page
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS WITH ON-STREET PARKING are intended to be used in compact urban environments that are highly
walkable and where building entries front the street. This street section is not intended to be used where traffic speeds
exceed 30 MPH,
7 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BOl1LEVARD
(WITH PARKING):
Design Service Volume: <17,600 vpd 7
Desired Operating Speed: 25-10 mph .
Travel Lanes: Pour 11'lanes
Bicycle lanes: Sharedvnth outer
°,«-.L
auto travel lanes
Median/Tum Lane: 10'median,
12tum lane
Parking: lane,both
sides
sides of street o a
Paved Width; 30'frau face
of curb with
median
42'from face -of curb with
turn Lane
70'entire width
including median
Right of Way: U, J \
Sidewalks: Both sides of
street, min.
8' wide with ® a
grated tree wells
against curb
Greenspaces None
Figure 2. Master Street Plan —Street Section
Study Process:
The step by step study process that we have used in this study is:
1. Collected the existing information in and around the study area.
2. The turning movement counts were collected from two (2) intersections(Rupple
Road/Wedington Drive and Rupple Road/Persimmon Street). Turning movement counts
were collected on a Tuesday and a Wednesday in October and November, 2013.
3. Radar counters were used to collect 24 hour counts at strategic points on the road
network around the campus as shown in Figure 3.
4. The City of Fayetteville provided the future zoning information for the study area (see
Table 4).
31 Page
ow ., LEGEND
WEDIPATON DRIVE 7 r* . t .'I'vr ,'e
24 HOUR COUNT LOCATIONS
AIM r
RUPPLE
ROAD
PERSIMMON STREET '
A 1-540
�k v
STV
15
F ..
a.r.:
ir
* r
RJ �.
■ L ]LIM
LL
JW
MLK BOULEVARD
� 4
I
5. Jacobs has collected some information from other sources:
a. Signal timings from City of Fayetteville.
b. Average Daily Traffic (ADT's) from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department (AHTD) website.
6. Development of VISSIM and Synchro base models for the study area.
7. Development of future traffic numbers based on the historical traffic counts in the area
as well as future development of the area along the corridor using the future zoning
information provided by the City.
8. Analysis and calibration of the existing traffic in the base models.
9. Analysis of the future alternatives.
10. Summary of results and findings.
After collecting the data a base traffic model was developedfor the analysis. The modeling
software that is used on this project is VISSIM. VISSIM is microscopic time step driver behavior
traffic simulation software, developed to model urban traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) and
public transit operations. The program analyzes traffic and transit operations under constraints
such as lane configuration, traffic composition, traffic signals, transit stops, etc.,thus making it a
useful tool for the evaluation of various alternatives based on transportation engineering and
planning measures of effectiveness (MOE's) such as vehicle delay, travel times and queue
lengths. This program is capable of implicitly modeling passenger vehicle, light rail transit (LRT)
vehicle and pedestrians simultaneously and also offers great visualization from simple to
complex traffic conditions to provide a realistic picture of the traffic operations.
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a term defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to describe the
operating performance of an intersection or roadway. The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative
measure of capacity and operating conditions and is directly related to vehicle delay. LOS
results range from "A" (minimal delay and conflicts) to "F" (significant delays and congestion),
with LOS A representing very short delays and LOS F representing very long delays. As a
practical consideration, LOS D is considered the limit of acceptable operation in an urban
environment. LOS C is the desirable condition. LOS conditions for signalized intersections are
shown in Table 1. For unsignalized intersections, the levels of service are shown in Table 2. The
graphical representation of each intersect on LOS category is displayed in the below Figure 4.
51 Page
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level-of-Service Average Control Delay
(LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Description
A <_ 10.0 Very low vehicle delays, free flow, signal progression extremely
favorable, most vehicles arrive during given signal phase.
B 10.1 to 20.0 Good signal progression, more vehicles stop and experience
higher delays than for LOS A.
C 20.1 to 35.0 Stable flow, fair signal progression, significant number of vehicles
stop at signals.
D 35.1 to 55.0 Congestion noticeable, longer delays and unfavorable signal
progression, many vehicles stop at signals.
E 55.1 to 80.0 Limit of acceptable delay, unstable flow, poor signal progression,
traffic near roadway capacity, frequent cycle failures.
F >80.0 Unacceptable delays, extremely unstable flow and congestion,
traffic exceeds roadway capacity, stop-and-go conditions.
Source:HCM 2010
Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level-of-Service Average Control Delay
(LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Description
No delays at intersections with continuous flow of traffic.
A < 10.0 Uncongested operations: high frequency of long gaps available
for all left and right turning traffic. No observable queues.
B 10.1 to 15.0 Same as LOS A
Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to good traffic
C 15.1 to 25.0 flow. Light congestion; infrequent backups on critical
approaches.
Increased probability of delays along every approach. Significant
D 25.1 to 35.0 congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. No
standing long lines formed.
Heavy traffic flow condition. Heavy delays probable. No available
E 35.1 to 50.0 gaps for cross-street traffic or main street turning traffic. Limit of
stable flow.
Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in forced
F > 50.0 flow condition. Average delays greater than one minute highly
probable. Total breakdown.
Source:HCM 2010
61 Page
Figure 4—Level of Service Descriptions
LOS Intersections
A No vehicle waits longer than one
signal indication.
B On a rare occasion, vehicles wait
through more than one signal
indication.
C Intermittently, vehicles wait through
more than one signal indication,
occasionally backups may develop,
traffic flow still stable and acceptable.
7.
D Delays at intersections may become
extensive, but enough cycles with
lower demand occur to permit iF
periodic clearance, preventing
excessive backups. Wilor
;
E Very long queues may create lengthy
delays.
ZU 4��
F Backups from locations downstream
restrict or prevent movement of
vehicles out of approach creating a �?
"gridlock" condition.
7Page
Existing Traffic
The existing traffic data collected for the study area are summarized in the tables below. The
traffic data counts are in the appendix. Overall, the AM traffic counts represent higher peak
hour volumes for the study area and are, therefore, the focus of the analysis.
Table 3— Existing 2013 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Existing Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
AM
Intersection Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt
Wedington Dr 182 107 45 172 239 82 14 74 161 172 999 25
/Rupple Rd
Persimmon St 106 127 63 79 66 13 32 72 124 90 175 27
/Rupple Rd
MLK Blvd /Rupple - - - - 114 - - - - - 351 -
Rd(Future)
Existing Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
PM
Intersection Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt
Wedington 154 101 158 194 835 110 20 46 121 51 527 13
Dr/Rupple Rd
Persimmon 41 36 44 27 61 16 12 76 58 60 79 7
St/Rupple Rd
MLK Blvd/Rupple - - - - 304 - - - - - 200 -
Rd (Future)
81 Page
Future Traffic
Future traffic was generated for the study area using zoning to estimate future development
densities. Fayetteville Planning provided two densities for residential zoning in the area.
Table 4—Future Zoning in Study Area
Fayetteville Planning Type Density
Mountain Ranch Typical Suburban 1.95 units per acre
Development
Rupple Row Traditional/New Urbanism 6.24 units per acre
Development Pattern
The future zoning area is approximately 1 mile long by a half mile wide or 320 acres. Which
would provide approximately 1997 units with the higher density or 624 units for the lesser
density. For this study, 1997 units were used.
Table 5—Average Weekday—ITE Trip Generation
Average Weekday— ITE Trip Generation
24 Hour 7-9 AM Peak Hour 4-6 PM Peak Hour
Two-way Units
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
19111 379 1118 1278 739 1997
12537 249 734 838 485 1310
5972 119 349 399 231 624
Using the data from the table above, traffic was generated along the study corridor. For the
future design year (2033), historical traffic volumes were used to develop a growth rate for
91 Page
road. Multiple growth rates were developed (Wedington Drive, Rupple Road, and MLK Blvd).
The rates varied from 12% on Rupple Road, 1.8% on Wedington Drive and 1.3% on MLK Blvd.
Table 6—2013 Opening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Improvements
Existing (with Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Improvements)
AM Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt
Intersection
Wedington 164 143 45 216 215 82 45 105 185 172 999 130
Drive/Rupple Road
Intermediate 18 461 10 10 2 25 5 235 13 75 2 25
Int/Rupple Road
Persimmon 126 292 78 79 66 13 62 135 124 105 175 46
Street/Rupple Road
School/Subdivision/ 25 362 30 40 10 50 20 251 20 20 10 20
Rupple Road
Future Intersection 25 362 30 40 10 50 20 251 20 20 10 20
1
Future Intersection 20 382 20 25 20 50 15 184 15 57 20 25
2
MLK Blvd/ Rupple 357 - 75 - 114 125 - - - 89 316 -
Road (Future)
101 Page
Table 7—2033 Future Traffic with Improvements
Future (with Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Improvements)
AM Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt
Intersection
Wedington Drive 239 248 66 374 307 117 159 269 674 246 1284 201
/Rupple Road
Intermediate 23 765 13 13 3 32 6 973 18 96 3 32
Int/Rupple Road
Persimmon Street 187 498 125 101 85 17 80 845 159 135 224 59
/Rupple Road
School/Subdivision/ 32 588 38 51 13 64 26 994 26 26 13 26
Rupple Road
Future Intersection 86 610 86 144 26 233 62 572 59 241 26 144
1
Future Intersection 60 780 60 112 26 201 58 324 55 168 26 112
2
MILK Blvd /Rupple 818 - 186 - 148 288 - - - 149 409 -
Road (Future)
Analysis
Synchro Analysis
The intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street was evaluated in Synchro using Design
Year-2033 volumes (developed earlier when determining the type of intersection control to be
used at the intersection, not the same traffic volumes used in the VISSIM models) to determine
if the intersection would operate best as a signalized intersection or as a roundabout
intersection based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology.
111 Page
NEdm- V_ P
File EtlR Transfer Options Optimize Help
9�® ® 8 n
i� � (_ ;vs 56 *1 F— o.e
�O ms
. .. 6) icu
�h2 VB
i®os.
a�bo
X85 0
ar1Q1 J�"
Persirrimon 4�
T
98881 10,998
Figure 5—Syncrho Roundabout Graphic
The following assumptions were made regarding the roundabout analysis:
• North and south approaches reduced to one lane northbound and one lane southbound
• Two-lane roundabout with two exit lanes on the south leg.
• 75 feet outer radius
• 15 feet roundabout lanes
• 18 mph circle speed
• PHF = 0.92
• 5% heavy vehicles
• 25 mph approach link speed
121 Page
Mim V_
File EtlR Transfer Options Optimize Help
9�® ® 8 n
i� � �1( ;vs 5 6 *1 F— o.e
m' �fi 8r
_ �o tos
1cu
®osi
mC'= pil
X17 b�bl9
Persimmon St220,
:
59y r-c'
93131 11050
Figure 6—Syncrho Signalized Graphic
The following assumptions were made with regard to the signalized intersection analysis:
• Existing lane configuration at approaches will not change
• Cycle length of 120 seconds
• Permitted left turns
• PHF = 0.92
• 5% heavy vehicles
• 25 mph approach link speed
The results are shown in the table below.
Table 8—Persimmon Street Intersection Delay Comparison
Scenario Delay LOS
(sect
Roundabout 9.3 A
Signalized Intersection 11.3 B
13Page
Both scenarios have a low overall intersection delay. Given the negligible difference in overall
delay, it was decided to model the intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street as a
signalized intersection in VISSIM to provide improved safety conditions for pedestrians.
VISSIM Analysis
Three (3) horizon year models were created within VISSIM. These models consisted of an
Existing Year 2013, Opening Year 2013, and Design Year 2033 scenarios.
The Existing Year 2013 model has the existing geometry for Rupple Road including the
intersections of Wedington Drive and Persimmon Street. The Existing Year model was
calibrated using traffic volumes and travel times collected in October and November 2013. The
targets of this calibration effort were obtained from the Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume 111—
Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software published by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and shown in the figure below.
Criteria and Measures Calibration Acceptance Targets
Hourly Flows,Model Versus Observed
Individual Link Flows
Within 15%,for 700 veh/h<Flow<2700 >85% of cases
veh/h
Within 100 veh/h,for Flow<700 veh/h >85% of cases
Within 400 veh/h,for Flow>2700 veh/h >85% of cases
Sum of All Link Flows Within 5% of sum of all link
counts
GEH Statistic<5 for Individual Link Flows* >85% of cases
GEH Statistic for Sum of All Link Flows GEH<4 for sum of all link
counts
Travel Times,Model Versus Observed
Journey Times,Network
Within 15% (or 1 min, if higher) >85% of cases
Visual Audits
Individual Link Speeds
Visually Acceptable Speed-Flow To analyst's satisfaction
Relationship
Bottlenecks
Visually Acceptable Queuing To analyst's satisfaction
Figure 7— FHWA Microsimulation Model Calibration Targets
14Page
Most of the criteria included in the above figure are self-explanatory, with the possible
exception of GEH Statistic. This measure is a formula used in traffic modeling to compare two
sets of traffic volumes (Observed and Modeled). Its mathematical formulation is similar to the
Chi-Squared test, but it is not a true statistical test but rather an empirical formula. The
formulation for the GEH Statistic is as follows:
2 * (M - 0)z
GEH = (M + 0)
Where M represents model estimate volume and O represents field counts.
This statistic is typically used to offset the discrepancies that occur when using only simple
percentages, as traffic volumes vary over a wide range. In other words, if using only
percentages, small absolute discrepancies have no impact on large volumes but a large percent
impact in smaller numbers, and vice versa. It has been shown that for traffic volumes smaller
than 10,000 a five percent variation yields smaller numbers than a GEH of five. Beyond 10,000,
five percent differences keep growing linearly whereas GEH=5 follows a decaying curve.
The tables below summarize the calibration results in terms of GEH values and link flows for the
AM peak period model. The results indicate that the model satisfies the volume calibration
criteria listed above.
Table 9— Percentage of Links Meeting Flow Thresholds
Individual Link Flows
Time Flow<700 vph (± 700<Flow<2700 vph (± Flow>2700
100) 150/6) vph(±400)
AM 100% 100% NA
Table 10—Sum of Link Flows (Criteria within ±5%):
Sum of Link Flows
AM 0.1%
151 Page
Table 11—Percentage of Links by GEH (Criteria GEH < 5)
GEH Links
AM 100%
According to the calibration guidelines, a model is reasonably calibrated when the modeled
travel times are within 15% (or one minute if higher) of the average field collected travel time
for 85% of the cases. Of the field collected travel times provided, only one of the segments fell
within the section of Rupple Road being modeled in the Existing Year model. This segment,
specifically southbound Rupple Road from Wedington Drive to Persimmon Street, had an
average field collected travel time of 83 seconds, this time is used to help calibrate the Existing
Year model. The travel time for this segment within the Existing Year model was also 83
seconds.
The detailed volume and travel time calibration spreadsheets are included in the appendix for
further reference.
For the Design Year 2033 VISSIM analysis the following geometry assumptions were made:
• Rupple Road would curve west shortly after the existing southern terminus before
traveling directly south to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
• The two proposed roundabouts between Persimmon Street and MILK Boulevard would
have approximately equal spacing between them. The intersecting east-west roadways
were assumed to be two-lane undivided facilities.
• As determined based upon the Synchro analysis, the intersection of Rupple Road and
Persimmon Street would be modeled as a signalized intersection.
161 Page
W--]
edin on Dr
i
h•
x Persimmon St
Roundaboutl
L
{
4
u
v^
c
RoundabouU
C.
MILK Blvd
Figure 8— Rupple Road Extension VISSIM Model
17Page
The following three (3) Build Alternatives were analyzed:
• 2-lane Build:Two-lane Rupple Road extension:This alternative provides a 2-lane roadway
between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and the existing 4-lane southern termini south of
Persimmon Street,thereby providing a 2-lane facility between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
and Wedington Drive,with the exception of the existing 1,300 foot 4-lane segment south of
Persimmon Street.
• 4-lane Build: This scenario provides a four lane roadway between Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard and the existing 4-lane southern termini south of Persimmon Street. Under this
scenario, Rupple Road between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Persimmon Street has a 4-
lane section that reduces to a 2-lane facility at Persimmon Street.
• 4-lane to Wedington Drive Build Alternative:This alternative would provide a 4-lane facility from
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Wedington Drive, eliminating the choke point which occurs
when the roadway reduces from four lanes to two lanes at Persimmon Street. This alternative
will require widening between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive.
Additional improvements also proposed under this scenario include:
o Persimmon Street intersection: Modifying the northbound right turn lane into a shared
thru-right turn lane
o Wedington Drive intersection: Modify the northbound approach to include exclusive left
turn lane, through lane and exclusive right turn lane with overlap phasing.
o Wedington Drive intersection: Modify the southbound right turn lane to a shared thru-
right turn lane.
The alternatives were evaluated using opening year and design year demand volumes, with the
exception of 4-lane Build to Wedington Drive alternative which was only analyzed for Design Year 2033.
Average vehicle delay at each intersection, corridor travel times, and network-wide performance
measures (i.e.,total process volumes, latent demand,total delay time, and average speed)were
extracted from the VISSIM models to assess the performance of each alterative.
Summary of Results and Findings
One of the objectives of this analysis was to determine if and/or when the proposed segment of Rupple
Road, extending from the current terminus south of Persimmon Street to Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard,would need to be expanded from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway. After
analyzing the proposed segment of Rupple Road modeled as a two-lane roadway, it was determined
that, although a two-lane facility appears to be operate satisfactorily under opening year demand
conditions, a two-lane facility would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the design year
demand. Severe congestion was observed throughout the corridor in the Year 2033 2-lane Build
microsimulation model. As shown in Table 12, an acceptable level of delay was observed at all
intersections for both the 2-lane and 4-lane Build alternatives during opening year; whereas,Table 13
shows the intersection delay at several intersections increases considerably as a result of the increase in
181 Page
traffic volume expected in Year 2033 and lack of intersection capacity under the 2-lane and 4- lane
alternatives.The results also indicate that delay along the corridor is substantially decreased when
Rupple Road is widened from two to four lanes between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive.
Under the improved 4-lane scenario, intersection delays are less than 25 sec/veh,with the exception of
the intersection at Wedington Drive which experiences a significant delay on the eastbound approach.
Table 12-Opening Year 2013 Intersection Vehicle Delay
Opening Year(Existing AM with Corridor Extension)
Approach 2 Lane Build 4 Lane Build Difference(4L- 2L)
Intersection Direction
Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection
Delay Delay/LOS Delay Delay Delay Delay
SB 25.8 26.8 0.9
Wedington WB 20.0 20.4 0.4
26.0/C 26.3/C 0.3
Drive
NB 36.4 34.5 -1.9
EB 25.5 26.1 0.6
SB 10.3 9.1 -1.2
Persimmon WB 12.9 13.0 0.0
10.8/6 10.6/6 0.2
Street
NB 9.6 10.0 0.4
EB 11.9 12.2 0.3
SB 5.3 2.9 -2.4
Roundabout WB 3.0 3.4 0.3
1 5.1/A 2.8/A -2.3
NB 5.4 1.2 -4.2
EB 4.8 6.0 1.3
SB 6.5 1.9 -4.6
Roundabout WB 2.7 2.0 -0.7
5.4/A 2.0/A 3.4
2
NB 4.5 1.5 -3.0
EB 4.9 3.7 -1.3
SB 23.7 20.5 -3.2
Main Street/ WB 7.6 6.4 -1.1
MLK 13.9/B 12.1/B -1.8
Boulevard
EB 6.9 6.1 -0.9
19Page
Table 13- Design Year 2033 Intersection Vehicle Delay
Design Year(2033)
Approach 2 Lane Build 4 Lane Build Difference(4L- 2L) 4 Lane to Wedington Difference(41-W- 2L)
Direction tection Drive Build
Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection Approach Intersection
Delay Delay/LOS Delay Delay/LOS Delay Delay/LOS Delay Delay/LOS Delay Delay
SB 29.8 29.1 -0.7 32.3 2.5
Wedington WB 268.4 197.7 -70.7 43.3 -225.1
213.8/F 178.2/F 35.5 71.2/E 142.6
Drive
NB 355.4 346.5 -8.9 46.3 -309.1
EB 185.3 140.0 -45.3 122.6 -62.7
SB 37.4 34.9 -2.5 19.8 -17.6
Persimmon WB 63.8 70.3 6.5 45.3 -18.5
Street 217.9/F 283.7/F 65.8 22.7/C -195.2
NB 575.3 739.2 163.9 14.5 -560.8
EB 65.8 71.0 5.1 38.3 -27.5
SB 32.1 15.9 -16.2 9.2 -22.9
Roundabout WB 397.0 245.2 -151.9 43.0 -354.1
1 193.5/F 118.1/F -75.3 22.2/C -171.3
NB 378.8 221.8 -157.0 4.2 -374.5
EB 144.1 77.7 -66.4 53.3 -90.9
SB 113.6 6.1 -107.5 6.8 -106.8
Roundabout WB 190.9 8.2 -182.7 7.5 -183.3
10.1/13 -148.5
NB 255.6 5.4 -250.1 5.6 -250.0
EB 140.1 18.4 -121.7 28.9 -111.2
SB 28.6 21.2 -7.4 21.8 -6.8
Main Street/ WB 34.3 15.7 -18.7 17.5 -16.9
MLK 27.8/C 18.5/13 -9.3 20.0/13 -7.7
Boulevard - - - - -
EB 21.8 16.3 -5.6 18.9 -2.9
20Page
In addition to intersection operations,the travel time along the corridor and network wide performance
were also assessed for each Build alternative. The travel time results are summarized in Table 14,while
the opening year and design year network wide performance measures are presented in Tables 15 and
16, respectively.
Table 14—Rupple Road Travel Times
Travel Travel
Analysis Year Alternative Direction From To Time
minutes
Opening Year 2013 SB Wedington Drive Main Street/ MLK 5.7
Boulevard
2-lane Build NB Main Street/ MLK Wedington Drive 6.1
Boulevard
Opening Year 2013 SB Wedington Drive Main Street/ MLK 5.3
Boulevard
4-lane Build NB Main Street/ MLK Wedington Drive 5.9
Boulevard
Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street/ MLK $ 1
Boulevard
2-lane Build NB Main Street/ MLK Wedington Drive 32.1
Boulevard
Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street/ MLK 5$
Boulevard
4-lane Build NB Main Street/ MLK Wedington Drive 27.4
Boulevard
Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street/ MLK 5.4
Boulevard
4-lane to Wedington Drive Build NB Main Street/ MLK Wedington Drive 6.1
Boulevard
Demand and processed volume comparisons, as well as detailed travel time and vehicle delay results for
all three (3) Build Alternatives have been provided in the appendix for further reference.
211 Page