The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About198-03 RESOLUTION• • RESOLUTION NO. 198-03 • • A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY DATED OC1 OBER, 2003 AND PREPARED BY BUCHER, WILLIS AND RATLIFF BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section I. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby accepts the traffic and transportation study as submitted and attached to this document as Exhibit "A" � YET Trek PASSED and APPROVED this the 16th day of December, 2003. ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk APPROVED: By DAN COODY, Ma NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Resolution No. 198-03 Document 1 11/15/03 memo to mayor and city council 2 draft resolution 3 12/03/03 Staff Review Form 4 12/22/03 email to Dawn Warrick 5 01/06/04 email to Paul Libertini 6 03/10/04 email to Gary Coover & Paul Libertini NOTES. • City Council Meeting of December 16, 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Hugh Earnest, Chief Administrative Officer From: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director Date: November 25, 2003 Subject: Traffic & Transportation Study Final Submittal RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council accept the Traffic & Transportation Study dated October 2003 as prepared by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (BWR). BACKGROUND The Traffic & Transportation Study was "kicked off" with a Public Workshop held in the Town Center on January 29th. The Notice to Proceed was issued earlier in October 2002 and the consultant was busy collecting traffic and population data prior to conducting the workshop. Citizen input gathered at the workshop was used as a framework to guide the consultant in specific areas of resident concern. Public Meetings were held on June 26th, August 18th, and August 26th for the consultant to present their findings and receive additional citizen comment. A final detailed workshop was held with City Council on October 20th to review the entire Traffic & Transportation Study with emphasis on the Master Street Plan, proposed typical sections, intersection and roadway deficiencies, and proposed improvements to mitigate the identified traffic deficiencies. DISCUSSION Staff recommends accepting the Traffic & Transportation Study as prepared and submitted by BWR. In the future, staff will prepare ordinances based on the policies drafted by BWR and incorporated within the study. Staff will present individual ordinances and policies to City Council for approval covering Access Management, Development Assessment, Traffic Calming and Smart Growth. Staff will also finalize 1 City Council Meeting of December 16, 2003 the Master Street Plan developed by BWR and also present this to City Council for adoption. BUDGET IMPACT The act of accepting the Traffic & Transportation Study will not generate any immediate expenditure of funds. However, Chapter 4, Implementation, has already been used by City staff in the development of the 2004 - 2008 Capital Improvement Program. Future implementation of the recommended Traffic Calming Policy may necessitate creation of a budget to administer the program, c.g. performing traffic counts, speed studies, traffic studies; installation of signs; construction of speed humps, traffic diverters, and etc. as outlined in Appendix C: Residential Traffic Calming Toolbox or to set aside a portion of the CIP budget for this program. 2 • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY DATED OCTOBER, 2003 AND PREPARED BY BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS• Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby accepts the traffic and transportation study as submitted and attached`to this document as Exhibit "A". PASSED and APPROVED this day of December, 2003 ATTEST: By: APPROVED DAN COODY, MAYOR STAFF PIEW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL O1iGATION x AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: December 16, 2003 FROM: Tim Conklin, AICP Name Comm. Planning & Eng. Svcs. Division CP&E Department ACTION REQUIRED: Resolution Approval SUMMARY EXPLANATION: To adopt a resolution to formally accept the Traffic and Transportation Study as prepared by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Division Head Date ' (.t/�1✓ W03 City Attoi ey Department Director Finance & Internal Services Dir. J�WvChief inistrative Office r' is .y yor Date h Date Date Date Received in Mayor's Office Cross Reference: Previous Ord/Res#: Orig. Contract Date: Orig. Contract Number: New Item. /7/Q743,/ Date 164-02 Yes No x Y Clarice Pearman - Re: Traffic & Transpprt;•n Study Page 1 J From: Dawn Warrick To: Pearman, Clarice Date: 12/22/03 1:24PM Subject: Re: Traffic & Transportation Study Clarice, This agenda request came from the Engineering Division. Paul Libertini is the project manager. I will forward this message to Paul and to Gary Coover. They should be able to provide the information that you need. Thanks, Dawn Dawn T. Warrick, AICP Zoning & Development Administrator Current Planning Division City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8267 phone (479) 575-8202 fax planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us »> Clarice Pearman 12/22/03 12:14PM »> The City Council passed a resolution accepting this study. We have not received a copy of this study to attached to the resolution as Ex. A as stated. Please see that we get a copy of the study. The resolution process will not continue until this received. Thanks. Clarice X309 CC: Coover, Gary Libertini, Paul Clarice Pearman - Traffic & Transportation dy a Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Libertini, Paul Date: 1/6/04 10:09AM Subject: Traffic & Transportation Study It is my understanding that you are the project manager for this item, and that you or Gary Coover are responsible for getting a study to the city clerk's office to attach to the resolution as Ex. A passed by the City Council on December 16, 2003. This resolution has not been validated by the signatures of mayor and city clerk and without the study can not continue the resolution process until it is received. Please let me know when I might expect the study. Thanks. Clarice Pearman City Clerk Division x309 Clarice Pearman - Traffic & Transportati Ludy Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Coover, Gary; Libertini, Paul Date: 3/10/04 9:28AM Subject: Traffic & Transportation Study On December 16, 2003 the City Council accepted this study. I have asked for the study on December 22nd and again on January 6th with no response from the engineering division. As of yet the clerk's office has not received the study for Ex. A as attachment to the resolution passed by council. Therefore this resolution has not continued the resolution process. Please let me know what is happening with this item. Thanks. CC: Conklin, Tim City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic andsTransportat n Study • October 2003 1111111 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF 1M/O\ CORPORATION The Louis Berger Group. Inc. Grafton. Tuit & Associates. inc. • • MICROFILMED Traffic and Transportation Study Prepared for City of Fayetteville Arkansas Prepared by 1111111 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF (MOIL CORPORATIO N in association with The Louis Berger Group, Inc. and Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. October 2003 • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES IV LIST OF TABLES VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 STUDY SCOPE REPORT ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL APPENDICES 2 2. MASTER STREET PLAN 3 INTRODUCTION 4 FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT 4 FUNCTIONAL. HIERARCHY 8 TYPICAI. SECTIONS 9 3. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 21 INTRODUCTION 21 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS 22 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 22 WINDSHIELD SURVEYS 22 TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY SURVEYS 23 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMINGS 23 TRAFFIC FORECASTS 23 SIMTRAFFIC MODEL 28 CAPACITY ANALYSIS 29 QUEUING ANALYSIS 32 ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE 37 TRAFFIC VOLUME/STREET CAPACITY 41 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 41 M vro:.35.51/41c.u. cnOoO .O3Icoal Repon mc Bucher. Willis & Ratliff Corporation - i • • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study 4. IMPLEMENTATION 48 INTRODUCTION 48 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION 48 SPECIAL STUDY PROJECTS 48 PROJECT COSTS 58 PRIORITIZATION 61 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 62 5. MULTI -MODAL PLAN INTRODUCTION EXISTING TRANSIT RAIL TRANSIT EXISTING BICYCLING/WALKING DESTINATIONS TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES BICYCLING/WALKING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 63 64 65 67 70 72 77 78 82 ACTION PLAN FOR MULTI -MODAL IMPROVEMENTS 85 TRANSIT ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN 85 BICYCLE ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN 86 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN 87 INTEGRATION OF MULTI-MODAI. IMPROVEMENTS 87 MULTI -MODAL POLICIES 88 6. TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY 97 INTRODUCTION 97 REQUESTS FOR TRAFFIC CAI.MING CONSIDERATION 99 DOCUMENTATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING NEEDS 99 1DENTIFICATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING STRATEGIFS 101 PROGRAMMING OF TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 102 DESIGN OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS 102 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS 102 M V W!-1S>doca. I0 -05a1 Flw Reps Jrc Bucher, Willis & RatliifCanoration - ii Ci(P of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study 7. ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY 103 INTRODUCTION 103 EXISTING ACCESS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA 104 ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 104 8. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY 114 INTRODUCTION 114 DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING 114 TARGETED FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 115 TRAFFIC STUDY 116 RECOMMENDATIONS 118 9. SMART GROWTH POLICY INTRODUCTION SMARTGROWTH OBJECTIVES 119 119 121 125 REFERENCES APPENDIX A: RESULTS APPENDIX B: SURVEYS FAYETTEVILLE PEER CITY QUESTIONNAIRES AND SAMPLE USER AND PROVIDER PREFERENCE A -I B-1 APPENDIX C: RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX C -I M V000.15Ret aOkpmml0-01-01 Fen& Report doc Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation -iii • • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 2-3 FIGURE 2-4 FIGURE 2-5 FIGURE 2-6 FIGURE 2-7 FIGURE 2-8 FIGURE 2-9 FIGURE 2-10 FIGURE 3-1 FIGURE 3-2 FIGURE 3-3 FIGURE 3-4 FIGURE 3-5 FIGURE 3-6 FIGURE 3-7 FIGURE 3-8 FIGURE 3-9 FIGURE 3-10 FIGURE 3-11 FIGURE 3-12 FIGURE 3-13 FIGURE 4-1 FIGURE 4-2 FIGURE 4-3 FIGURE 4-4 FIGURE 4-5 FIGURE 4-6 FIGURE 4-7 FIGURE 5-1 FIGURE 5-2 FIGURE 5-3 FIGURE 5-4 FIGURE 5-5 FIGURE 5-6 FIGURE 5-7 FIGURE 5-8 FIGURE 5-9 FIGURE 5-10 FIGURE 5-1 I LIST OF FIGURES PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN FOR YEAR 2023 7 FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY 8 TYPICAL SECTIONS: PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 28 33 34 35 36 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 53 55 56 TYPICAL SECTIONS: CONSTRAINED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL TYPICAL SECTIONS: MINOR ARTERIAI TYPICAL SECTIONS: COLLECTOR TYPICAL SECTIONS: HISTORIC COLLECTOR TYPICAL SECTIONS: LOCAL STREET TYPICAL SECTIONS: LOCAL STREET (NEW URBANISM) TYPICAL SECTIONS: RESIDENTIAL. AND ALLEY SIMTRAFFIC MODEL SAMPI.E SCREEN CAPTURE EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECT ION LOS EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS 2023 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS 2023 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS EXISTING PEAK HOUR ARTERIAL LOS EXISTING PEAK HOUR ARTERIAL LOS TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND STREET CAPACITY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND STREET CAPACITY SHORT RANGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS SIIORT RANGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS LONG RANGE (2023) TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS LONG RANGE (2023) TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE AND ROCK MT. COMFORT AND GARLAND SHILOH, DEANE SOLOMON, AND MT. COMFORT INTERSECTION SHILOH, DEANE SOLOMON. AND MT. COMFORT ROUNDABOUT 6" AND 1-540 NORTHBOUND COLLEGE TO FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY ALTERNATIVES NORTHBOUND COLLEGE TO FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY SIGNALIZED U-TURN (ALT 6 EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES No FIXED -ROUTE TRANSIT AREAS EXISTING SIDEWALK INVENTORY EXISTING TRAILS AND PARKS PROPOSED TRAILS DESTINATIONS RECOMMENDED CONCEPTUAL BIKE RACK LOCATIONS RECOMMENDED PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS TRANSIT PRIORITY PROJECTS NEAR TERM PHASE BIKE ROUTES MID TERM PHASE BIKE ROUTES 57 68 69 73 74 75 76 81 90 91 92 93 M 12002.159do,U,yon110-0 Fmk] Rem dor Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation - iv • • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stlldi FIGURE 5-12 FIGURE 5-13 FIGURE 5-14 FIGURE 7-1 FIGURE 7-2 FIGURE 7-3 FIGURE 7-4 LONG TERM PHASE HIKE ROUTES 94 PRIORITY SIDEWALK PROJECTS 95 EXAMPLE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS 96 DRIVEWAY SPACING SPECIAL CRITERIA 107 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE 109 DRIVEWAY GEOMETRIC STANDARDS 110 GRAPHIC LAYOUT or TABLE 7-8 TO 7-10 1 13 M V002.1501drc1/41;tryMt10-05 L1 Foul Repan da Bucher, Willis d Bath [Corporation - v City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 27 TABLE 3-2 LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA 29 TABLE 3-3 MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS 30 TABLE 3-4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY FOR CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS 31 TABLE 3-5 FUNCTIONAL. AND DESIGN CATEGORIES 37 TABLE 3-6 URI3AN STREET CLASS BASED ON FUNCTIONAL AND DESIGN CATEGORIES 38 TABLE 3-7 ARTERIAL STREET LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA 38 TABLE 3-8 SERVICE VOLUMES AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE 41 TABLE 4-1 TOP 9 PRIORITY ROAD PROJECTS 59 TABLE4-2 TOP 15 PRIORITY INTERSECTION PROJECTS 59 TABLE4-3 LONG RANGE PROJECTS 60 TABLE 5-1 RAZORBACK TRANSIT ANNUAL. RIDER -SHIP 66 TABLE 6-1 LOCAL. STREETS RATING CRITERIA 100 TABLE 6-2 COLLECTOR STREETS RATING CRITERIA 101 TABLE 7-I RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION SPACING - 105 TABLE 7-2 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SPACING I05 TABLE 7-3 DRIVEWAY SPACING FROM STREET CORNERS 106 TABLE 7-4 DRIVEWAY SPACING SPECIAL. CRITERIA 107 TABLE 7-5 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE 108 TABLE 7-6 DRIVEWAY GEOMETRIC STANDARDS 109 TABLE 7-7 RECOMMENDED MEDIAN OPENING SPACING 1 10 TABLE 7-8 LEFT TURN LANE WARRANT 1 1 1 TABLE 7-9 MINIMUM LEFT TURN LENGTHS I 1 I TABLE 7-10 MINIMUM RIGHT TURN LENGTHS 112 �I ‘2002.3 tedoc%Revon'I0-05-0J haul Report doc Bucher, Willis & RadifCorporation - vi City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Executive Summary • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City of Fayetteville authorized the completion of a city-wide traffic and transportation study to determine the needs and priorities for transportation projects over the next 20 years. The objectives of the study were threefold: ❑ Develop transportation and land use policies to guide development practices and transportation investment decisions. ❑ Identify and prioritize street improvements to accommodate existing and future traffic demands. ❑ Develop an overall transportation plan that provided for a street master plan, a multi- modal plan, and a basis for a transportation capital improvement plan. The study scope included all major streets and major intersections within the City planning limits, the public transportation systems, and the City trail and sidewalk systems. Services provided as pan of the study included data collection, analysis, public involvement facilitation, policy preparation, and establishment of improvement priorities. The study was documented through a study report comprised of chapters addressing: o Introduction o Master Street Plan o Traffic Analysis o Implementation o Multi -Modal Assessment o Traffic Calming Policy o Access Management Policy o Development Assessment Policy ❑ Smart Growth Policy The study also included an executive summary and eight technical appendices containing data and analysis worksheets. M 1.ro02.1594docUtgm11005-01 I'n4 Report dm Bucher, Willis & Ratliff 'Corporation ES -1 • • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Executive Summary MASTER STREET PLAN A street system must include local streets to provide access to properties, arterial streets to provide mobility through the community, and collector streets to link local streets to arterial streets. The proposed functional hierarchy of major streets for Fayetteville has been identified in Figure ES -I. The street system functions best when the intended purposes of arterial, collector, and local streets are protected, and when the overall street system includes the proper proportion of each type of street. One of the purposes of identifying streets according to function is so that standards can be established which will protect the function of the street. Typical roadway sections have been developed based on street function and emphasize multi -modal design. Sufficient right of way should be secured for moving vehicles, auxiliary lanes, parking lanes if appropriate. transit activities. bicycle traffic, pedestrians, landscaping buffers, and utilities. Eight typical right of way sections have been recommended to accommodate the future traffic circulation demands in Fayetteville: 150 feet and 110 feet for principal arterial streets, 90 feet for minor arterial streets, 70 feet for collector streets. 50 feet for historic collector streets, 60 and 50 feet for local streets, 40 feet for residential streets, and 20 feet for alleys. These eight widths' accommodate 17 different typical roadway sections. The sections also make provision for bicycle and pedestrian use of the right of way. 1.1‘2032. 35OdocIRcp"I-O5-01 Fund Rrywl dot Bucher, Willis & Radit%Cotporation ES -2 •` - • % 1�� •-. ' °tom b -..r i _ :, _ anis • . t / 1vi``-... •"r %I i r. g - • «-_ ;SCA • dtAi • • • F !r » 1 4 , , 77IR-� :"• • • • Cita of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Executive Samna°, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS During the initial project interactive workshop, one of the key issues of public concern was traffic congestion within the community. This issue has been studied through a comprehensive traffic data collection and analysis effort. The traffic analysis included all the signalized intersections within the City and all the arterial streets. In addition, several non signalized intersections and several collector streets were also identified for traffic analysis, for a total of 88 intersections, 30.5 miles of Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) highways, and 30.6 miles of City streets. These study streets were identified as arterial streets in the previous Master Street Plan, or were collector streets that the City staff identified might be functioning as arterial streets. The data collection involved compiling: ❑ Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts for major intersections. ❑ Daily traffic volumes. ❑ A windshield survey of the arterial streets, identifying road geometry. U Travel time and delay surveys in a test car, on all arterial streets. ❑ Traffic signal timings. The analysis of the traffic data included the following elements: u Preparation of 20 year traffic forecasts. ❑ Development of a traffic simulation model. U Intersection capacity analysis. ❑ Intersection queuing analysis. ❑ Arterial level of service analysis. U Traffic volume/capacity comparison for arterial streets. U Traffic congestion mitigation recommendations. The analysis identified existing deficiencies in the street system's ability to carry traffic, and deficiencies in carrying projected 2023 traffic volumes. Mitigations to accommodate existing traffic volumes were identified as short range improvements, and additional mitigations to accommodate the projected 2023 traffic volumes were identified as long range improvements. Other improvements were recommended to accommodate future land development in Priority Growth Areas or to complete street system continuity. Figures ES -2. ES -3, ES -4. and ES -5 depict the recommended short and long range improvements. M e`002.3w4ocmw n\IooLI f iul Mcp,n Jrc Bucher, Willis K Ratliff Corporation ES -4 • • • • 1 • • • • • r • 771 21 • 1' • o f?"'ur.4.u- 1e•---1 - - v ?TY : ii t .Q•uuG.I kr"..c.-".Ta` • 3;6 war v 1 -.n— t•Armcsw•r [ �.v.. attar...ti,ra++pi5- . ._n,C.zr • PiraY 1 • • 9 , • • • • • • • • Pay • 10 r .v_ _•O,a -i'�-i-:Kc3 I • • ¢te4E631 /,F 'a mi1 y` i *" --.1.`, - • ===� . I.a_ aeamvp.....2 S?_t f • a___ 1 • 7.....,w I Y'` i -__tart r.:. • a .1 -—�. •r "aaa .,.•-mac., m • • ca 7 L 0 CD 1` • • • • .•••••"'. Y 1 0 mem 0 rti Irmati V I n O y +.1 mmamp i — , c 1 - C ; • ,44i (+Fkeo[ Y r Ire • • Fy S. 4+ • . (I 1 • • • • . � w • 4' t y r • csC uE • • . r_ I r liona � . rrcr 1 • m m n c 7 3 r J ' • • • • 1• • • • • • • •• • 1 • laails saue1 E CD to 0 z r ' acay.E _ A ` fVV : F r �' i _IFMA •(G' L P ..x ,`gAniE r` m -.i1' fit xn- 041 •'DOL` .>. yhro; ,.ate L 1 :m \rte E- A -t • _ • N• . -V L o.ac - e SS SST r • tN • • • PIN iM ISMAIMW C 2 n'^ A x A r PCZ r- T • 9 • • • • 1 • • • • =1: s,EE) 1 • • • 1 •. • 1 • •S • • • 1 • • g• • • 1 Z w :4 _ 7.a a VA • • nw • 7 i • • • _ r 17. • - 171 • t • • 1•,_:•••• J • • • 1 a N (.13 a• mCD Al N H Z 3= F� 0 Q F.) o Q, o= N 0 o N cn -i A > > r W r -3 r 2 = co a w c co • U: ,E n N CO N N -c N N 188.1is saue1 E lanais soue1 Z • w % 3 • --.'[Y V • ..L • j -riEocc; _," 5.: •4 • • • • • • • • tC ?-----__ L • 7• • a • • • • • • City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Even: five Summary IMPLEMENTATION The study has provided a slate of recommended traffic improvements and multi -modal strategies to enhance transportation in the City over the next twenty years. The total cost of these recommendations is such that the improvements will need to be implemented throughout the full twenty years. as funding will allow. Therefore. the improvements must be prioritized so as to implement the most critical recommendations first. with less pressing improvements following later. Traffic congestion relief projects may be prioritized for both short range and long range improvements on the basis of a congestion relief benefit to construction cost ratio. Projects not geared to congestion relief should be allocated funding based on policy decisions for multi -modal improvements. neighborhood preservation. development of priority growth areas, or other non - quantifiable factors. The study has identified 9 short range roadway priority projects at a an estimated cost of $45 million (in 2003 dollars) and 16 shoe range intersection priority projects at an estimated cost of $21 million (in 2003 dollars). The study has also identified 36 long range projects needed in the next twenty years. totaling more than $155 million in estimated project costs (in 2003 dollars). A number of these projects are likely to remain un -funded in the City's capital improvement plan. Tables ES -1, ES -2, and ES -3 summarize the projects and costs. These tables do not constitute the capital improvement program, hut rather serve as source material for the development of the program. M VOa2.3'Q \RgoTU0-0'61 Flnu: Repm, Ep, Bucher, Willis & RatlifCaporation ES -9 • • • Cite. of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Ever:are Summary Table ES -1 Short Range Roadway Priority Projects Rank. Project Description ..+',. ,..r';. .... ".?:' Project Cast.' 1 Gregg. Township to Joyce, 5 lanes plus traits 56,376,000 2 Crossover, Mission to City limits, 5 lanes plus trails 515,428,000 3 Razorback, 15th to Garland, 5 lanes plus trail 5221,000 58,680,000 4 Township, Gregg to College, minor arterial 52,156,000 5 MI Comfort, Deane Solomon to Rupple, minor arterial 54,588,000 6 Rupple, Wedington to Mt. Comfort, pnncipal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) 53.644,000 7 Shiloh and Fullbnght, auxiliary lane 5400,000 8 Van Asche, Steele to Gregg, principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) 9 52,380,000 9 Arkansas, Maple to Leverelt. collator 51,376,000 Table ES -2 Short Range Intersection Priority Projects Rank ' •..1:: Project Description ... v 1.... , w T.; r . <. .. .- ..1^�_ ... _' .Project Cost • . • 1 Gregg and North, auxiliary lanes 5431,000 2 Old Wire and Mission, signal or roundabout 5221,000 3 Huntsville and MappY Hollow. signal 5221,000 4 Maple and Mission, signal 5221,000 5 College and Longview, auxiliary lane 5296,000 6 College and Millsap. auxiliary lane 5296,000 7 Old Wire and Old Missouri, roundabout 5324,000 8 Razorback and 6th, auxiliary lanes 52,589,000 9 Rupple and Wedington signal 5221,000 10 West and Maple Signal 5221,000 11 Crossover and Joyce, auxiliary lanes 51,997,000 12 Garland and Sycamore, auxiliary lane 5296,000 13 Gregg and Poplar, signal 5221,000 14 Rock & College, intersection and local street 51,447,000 15 6th and 1-540 Interchange Reconstruction 512,076,000 16 College to Fullbright Signalized U-turn 5400,000 izort:-.15sworikkoni ow1UI Final Report da Buchu, Willis & Raiff Corporation ES -10 AI • • • City of Fupetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studp Executive Summary Table ES -3 Long Range Projects Project Description .. - _ • Project Cost 15th and Morningside Signal $221,000 6th, Finger to School, 6 lanes $10,993,000 Appleby to Rolling Hills ext., collector 5688,000 Business 71 Flyover $12,000,000 Cato Springs, Razorback to Morningside, collector $6,880,000 College and Dickson, auxiliary lanes 5578,000 College and Harold Signal $221,000 College and Lafayette, auxiliary lane $261,000 College and Longview Signal $221,000 College and Poplar Signal 5221,000 Crossover and Cliffside Signal 5221,000 Deane Solomon. Mt. Comfort to Howard Nickell, minor arterial 58,258,000 Garland and Deane Signal 5221,000 Garland, North to Truckers Drive, 5 lanes plus trails 512,012,000 Gregg and Drake Signal and Extension, minor arterial 5701,000 Huntsville, School to Paradise Lane, principal artenal r/w (4lanes construction) 526,712,000 Joyce and Front Signal 5221,000 Joyce and Mall, intersection 5385,000 Maple and Leverett, auxiliary lane 5127,000 Mission, North to Crossover principal artenal r/w (4 lanes construction) 511,153,000 Mount Comfort and Deane Solomon, Intersection 53,854,000 Mount Comfort and Garland, intersection 5200,000 North, Gregg to Mission, principal arterial r/w (4 lanes construction) 57,495,000 Old Missouri and Rolling Hills signal 5221,000 Persimmon, Rupple to Shiloh, minor arterial 53,670,000 Rupple, 6th to Persimmon, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) 55,830,000 Rupple, Mt. Comfort to Howard Nickell, pnncipal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) 56,559,000 School and Willoughby Signal 5221,000 Shiloh, Mt. Comfort to Wedington, collector $1,720,000 Township Garland to Gregg, minor artenal 54,588,000 Van Asche/Howard Nickell, Garland to Rupple, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) $6,559,000 Van Asche, Gregg to Garland, principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) 55,949,000 Wedington and Shiloh, auxiliary lane 5146,000 Wedington, west to Double Springs Rd. principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) 57,734.000 Zion and Old Missouri Roundabout 5324,000 Zion Rd, College to Crossover, minor arterial 57,341,000 M `100:-1'0dx'Rcper010-01U1 Fines Repu,i 4x Bucher, Willis R Ratliff Corporation ES -11 Ciq' of Ftiveueville, Arkua.sa.s Traffic and Transportation Stud' Executive Sunmtary C i MULTI -MODAL PLAN The purpose of the multi -modal plan is to provide an assessment of existing conditions with respect to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements, and to provide strategies for the enhancement of each mode. Priority transit improvements involve improving the interface between transit and other modes of transportation, including auto traffic, bicycles, and pedestrian mode. Priority improvements to enhance this interface include the development of park and ride locations along bus routes, establishing shelters at major destinations and park and ride locations to give transit higher visibility, and locating bike racks at each shelter location, as well as on each bus. Ten priority bus shelter locations have been identified. Proposed shelters are located at key destinations, at transit service endpoints, or at transit route interface sites. Five of the shelters coincide with recommended park -and -ride lot locations and include: o The regional mall o The Wedington Drive transit route terminus ❑ The south Wal-mart a Tyson Foods o The 6th Street and Happy Hollow Road intersection The remaining five shelters are located at: • ❑ The North Hills Medical Center o The Township Street and College Avenue intersection (Ozark Regional Transit's Highway 71 -Mall Route and Razorback Transit's Red Route cross here) o The Washington Regional Medical Center ci Downtown at the Block Avenue and Center Street intersection o The 6th Street and Razorback Road intersection (Ozark Regional Transit's 6th Street Route and Razorback Transit's Green Route cross here) Figure ES —6 depicts the recommended transit improvements with respect to the transit routes. The Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail Plan has identified near term, mid term and long term phasing for constructing on -street linkages and trail corridors. The priority trails within each phasing program should emphasize connections between major destinations such as the university, the downtown, the mall, and parks with existing trails. They should interface with the transit priority improvements as well. Off road trails have the advantage of providing for recreation as well as for cross-town commute trips. The trails designated in the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail Plan as near term, mid term and long term phasing have been depicted in Figures ES — 7. ES -8, and ES — 9. Providing adequate sidewalks for child safety is recommended as the highest priority in completing the City sidewalk system. A priority sidewalk system has been identified that would provide pedestrian access to each school. The sidewalk enhancement projects needed to complete this system are depicted in Figure ES — 10. • Bucher, Willis & Rat/ifCorporation ES- 12 M l`00:.)• V,peeVigvn�i0.05-0J rrvl Report Eor •.�.- t -,- ---� --I- -1T '�yj ice_ H\ YsI±± — J r — _ I_ rII r 1 ' � :^ i` _ • _ `{ - � �I —^—! t --mot\ ..dy�l , it � �• _ _ _ I i 1'-1 r` v ' .; 1 rte . v � I� _ it — / = �._• • • - v\ •-'• --r 1. -- -ter •-F- _' r o s__ D - 2____; -\I -- I J / JAI ��: _ / _-r-wmU) n I 1 m m m m � N 3 N - ' _ -. - a -- - — W S . S o! L 7 r n r -N Zy T A c I a a. El 0. 'S J � -VCH� C' 1 •1 I —ti 'ELI ' ',"j _ �. _r i_- I mow. LL CD CD III '< r OO Co o N O n F tf r i b 1 i j V-- -- i--T- - / rr a' 1 U. (Th of Fgycaeri//e, Arhan.vas Traffic and Transporlalion Studio F_reeurive Sunrnwry • Policies which will enhance multi -modal transportation opportunities in Fayetteville include the following: ❑ The City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas will endeavor to cooperate with respect to all means of transportation and land development initiatives of common interest. ❑ The City will seek to support and sponsor educational programs which encourage the use of alternative methods of transportation. ❑ City staff shall conduct site plan reviews with an emphasis on walkability, and bicycle and transit accessibility. o Include multi -modal improvements in the City Capital Improvement Program. o Construct traffic improvements with a multi -modal emphasis as a part of each project, where possible. ri Allow and encourage land use densities and developments that provide for a multi -modal orientation. o Install alternative transportation improvements at major generators from a multi -modal perspective. The estimated construction cost of the recommended transit improvements is $975,000 in 2003 dollars. The near -term phase trail development is estimated to cost up to $13.2 million. The mid-term trail • development is estimated to cost up to $12.5 million. The long-term trail development is estimated to cost up to $25.1 million. The near -term phase on -street linkages are estimated to cost up to $609,000. The mid-term on - street linkages are estimated to cost up to $650,000. The long-term on -street linkages are estimated to cost up to $1.6 million. The 18.6 miles of priority sidewalk enhancements that have been identified have an estimated construction cost of $3.72 million. TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY Traffic calming may be appropriate in Fayetteville where there is a documented need to: ❑ Reduce neighborhood cut through traffic o Reduce traffic speeds through neighborhoods ❑ Accentuate pedestrian or bicycle use ci Control intersection traffic flow The traffic calming policy provides guidelines for the following activities: ❑ Requests for traffic calming consideration — This activity may be initiated through citizen petition or through staff concerns. • ______ Bucher, Willis RatltffCoporation ES- 18 M U W:-)!PGot\Rgvt\10O!O1 Fins' Ripon Co, Ciq' of Fapetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Eveculive Summary • o Documentation of traffic calming need - Substantive need for traffic calming may be documented through speed studies, vehicle and pedestrian counts, through -traffic surveys, accident records, and/or intersection capacity analysis o Identification and approval of traffic calming strategies - The traffic calming strategies considered need to be appropriate to deal with the documented traffic problems. The selected strategies must be endorsed by the neighborhood. o Programming of traffic calming improvements — Competing projects should be prioritized so that the projects that address the greatest needs are funded first. o Design of traffic calming projects — Projects must be designed in accordance with accepted engineering design criteria. ❑ Evaluation of traffic calming projects — Completed traffic calming projects should be evaluated for effectiveness and for other traffic impacts. ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY - The introduction of direct curb cuts onto arterial streets provides points of potential traffic conflict where changes in vehicle speed and direction may occur. This results in increased potential for vehicle collisions, and for disruption of traffic flow. The degradation of arterial streets is the primary reason for frustrated motorists to then seek alternative routes through adjacent residential neighborhoods. Protection of adjacent neighborhoods from traffic infiltration, protecting the City's capital investments in arterial street construction, and maintaining safety and efficient traffic flows for the community at large are all excellent reasons for managing direct • access onto arterial streets. The Unified Development Ordinance provides general goals for vehicle safety, but does not identify the specific guidelines to accomplish the goals. The recommended access management ordinance needed to accomplish the goals include: ❑ Intersection spacing u Traffic signal spacing o Driveway spacing and density ❑ Driveway clearance from intersections ❑ Intersection sight distance o Driveway geometric standards o Median openings ❑ Two way left turn lanes ❑ Auxiliary turn lanes at non signalized locations o Frontage roads S Bucher, Willis S RatlifCorporation ES- 19 AI ^OOb1)PAx�Repor:\IUo)aJ f'm•i Rpen dot Cm' of FgFenerille, Arkansas Traffic and Transporialion Stud,' Evecurive Summary • DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY As Fayetteville continues to expand geographically, the demand for new transportation infrastructure will come into financial competition with the demand for existing infrastructure maintenance and reconstruction in the established areas of the City. For growth to continue to be adequately served with an adequate street system, those who benefit most directly will need to bear an increasing share of the cost of construction. The Unified Development Ordinance provides that "the subdivider shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the subdivision." While this ordinance gives sufficient authority to the City to provide for the funding of the major street system construction, it does not provide sufficient specific information as to the total cost of the improvements, or as to the number of total acres tributary to the arterial streets. The City should undertake to relate major street costs and acres of land served by each street segment. This relationship should then be used as a basis for assessing property owners for their fair share of infrastructure improvement costs. The key items of the Development Assessment Policy include the following action items: ❑ Identify Priority Growth Areas within and outside the City limits where it is economically efficient to provide full City services and set a long range schedule for their development. ❑ Compute the cost for all City services within each Priority Growth Area, including transportation improvements. • ❑ Evaluate alternative methods of correlating the demand for City services with properties. Acreage and estimated traffic generation based on the comprehensive plan zoning may be considered as candidate factors. ❑ Establish a financing mechanism for improvements in each Priority Growth Area. such as excise taxes, impact fees, or Community Facility Districts. ❑ Require a traffic impact analysis of new developments in accordance with the guidelines in the Development Assessment Policy, to he administered by the City. The results of the analysis should identify traffic improvements which the developer is responsible to provide to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from his development. In accordance with the City's Minimum Street Standards traffic impacts from new developments should be related back to the costs to mitigate traffic impacts. To make that determination, applications for each redevelopment or new development should address the following basic traffic issues. in the level of detail appropriate to the development: ❑ Level of service for site ingress and egress ❑ Demand for auxiliary turn lanes ❑ Vehicle queue lengths ❑ Access spacing o Access sight distance ❑ Impact to adjacent major intersections ❑ Onsite traffic circulation, including trucks • ❑ Pedestrian circulation Bucher, Willis R& RadfCorporation ES -2O Alfinl Rc is Sc Ciq' of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Siudv Evenrti ve .Sunoaary • SMART GROWTH POLICY City policies related to development and transportation should promote quality, well planned growth that is economically efficient and sustainable. These policies can be grouped together under the label of"smart growth." Smart growth policies recommended for Fayetteville include: ci Identify transportation system deficiencies within the developed areas of Fayetteville as the highest priorities for improvement. o Identify Priority Growth Areas on the urban fringe where City services can be most efficiently provided, according to a schedule determined by the City. ❑ Identify strategies for financing new infrastructure by those who will most benefit from it. ci Implement proposed Master Street Plan design standards for major streets that place an increased emphasis on provision for pedestrian and bicycle travel. ❑ Implement proposed Master Street Plan standards that accommodate both typical suburban development and neo-traditional neighborhood development. ❑ Adopt an Access Management Ordinance to protect the safety and mobility of major streets. ❑ Adopt a Traffic Calming Ordinance to protect quality of life in neighborhoods. ❑ Identify Development Opportunity Districts that present unique opportunities for development and adapt City design standards to fully benefit from the unique qualities of • the Development Opportunity Districts. ❑ Identify strategies for improving transit service within the community. ci Identify strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. ❑ Identify unique demands for neighborhood preservation. o Foster a multi -modal approach to transportation improvements. ❑ Foster a multi -modal transportation orientation to land development. o Foster a multi -modal transportation approach to interagency cooperative efforts. L Bucher, Willis & Ratlii fCorporation ES -21 M l`00: 15PAocVt�on\I"O 43 Vw ReportC City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transporiatian Siudr Chapter 1 - Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION PROJECT BACKGROUND In April 2002, the City of Fayetteville Engineering Division solicited proposals from qualified consulting firms to provide engineering services for a comprehensive review, study and recommendations for traffic and transportation requirements for the City. The City subsequently authorized the completion of a city-wide traffic and transportation study to determine the needs and priorities for transportation improvements over the next 20 years. The intent of the study was three -fold: ❑ Develop transportation and land use policies to guide development practices and transportation investment decisions. ❑ Identify and prioritize street improvements to accommodate existing and future traffic demands. o Develop an overall transportation plan that provided for a street master plan, a multi - modal plan, and a transportation capital improvement plan. STUDY SCOPE The scope of the study area included: • ❑ All major streets within the city planning limits, and a total of 100 major intersections. These intersections included all signalized locations, and a select number of non signalized locations. ❑ The two public transportation operating systems. o The regional and local trail system and local sidewalk system. The scope of services that was provided for the project included: ❑ Communication with City staff, officials, and public (26 percent of project effort) o Traffic and street data collection (17 percent of project effort) o Traffic analysis (24 percent of project effort) o Development of transportation policies (6 percent of project effort) O Multi -modal assessment ( I I percent of project effort) o Master Street Plan development (3 percent of the effort) ❑ Prioritization of transportation improvements (8 percent of the effort) o Preparation of the study report and technical appendices (5 percent of the effort) • Bucher. Willis & RatlifCorporation M f'n.I Rgxwi doe Clip of Fuyettevi//e, Arkansas Truffle and Transportation Stud' Chapter I — Introduction • REPORT ORGANIZATION This report has been organized into nine chapters addressing the study scope of services: ❑ Introduction — A brief overview of the scope of the study. ❑ Master Street Plan — Classification of the major streets into a hierarchy of principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, and local, based on the function of the street. o Implementation — Development of cost estimates for transportation improvements, and a prioritization of improvements as a basis for a capital improvement program. o Traffic Analysis — A discussion of the impacts of existing and future traffic demand on the major street system and recommendations for mitigating traffic impacts. Cl Multi -modal Assessment — An evaluation of alternative choices for transportation in the City, and presentation of strategies for improving opportunities to use other modes of transportation. o Traffic Calming Policy — A procedure for evaluating and addressing through traffic impacts to neighborhoods. o Access Management Policy — Design guidelines for managing direct access onto major streets. o Development Assessment Policy — Delineation of a policy statement consistent with the Unified Development Code which ties costs of transportation improvements to those • benefiting from the improvements. ❑ Smart Growth Policy — Delineation of broad principals for development growth which are intended to promote quality of life in the community. In addition to the text body. an Executive Summary has been prepared that provides an overview of the key points in each chapter. TECHNICAL APPENDICES The production of the study required extensive compilation of traffic data, and analysis. This data and the analysis worksheets have been complied in eight technical appendices: ❑ Peak Hour Traffic Counts ❑ Intersection Photographs o Intersection Geometry o Public Meeting Workbook Summary o Intersection Capacity Analysis ❑ Arterial Level of Service ❑ Traffic Forecasts ❑ Project Cost Estimates Because of the volume of data and analysis involved, one copy of the technical appendices was • delivered to the City bound in three ring notebooks for future reference. Bucher, Willis & Rat/ifCorporation 2 M _ro��•ueo�A.w�uaosar nw ■mn a,� ('ii,' of Ftgetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 2 - Master Street Plan 2. MASTER STREET PLAN Key Findings: This chapter of the report describes the proposed Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. Development of the Master Street Plan considers the function of each street (mobility and/or access) and uses this functional assignment to create a functional hierarchy. Defining a functional hierarchy is paramount in attaining a balance between arterial, collector, and local streets, which is essential to maintaining the quality of life within the City as it grows. Based on the functional assignment and functional hierarchy of Fayetteville's city streets, the proposed Master Street Plan recommends the following typical sections for arterial, collector, and local access streets: Principal arterial streets should generally provide two to three moving lanes in each direction, plus auxiliary turn lanes. Four typical sections have been prepared for principal arterial streets: (I) Principal Arterial typical section (150 feet right of way) with a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other. (2) Principal Arterial typical section (150 feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on the both sides, (3) Constrained Principal Arterial typical section (110 feet right of way) with a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other, and (4) Constrained Principal Arterial typical section (I 10 feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on the both sides. • The typical sections for a minor arterial street lie within a 90 feet right of way width. • This width would allow for (I) ) one moving traffic lane in each direction, a bicycle lane in each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green space, and sufficient room to provide a center auxiliary turn lane, (2) one moving traffic lane in each direction, a bicycle lane in each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green space, and sufficient room to provide a center landscaped median. (3) two moving traffic lanes in each direction, sidewalks on each side. and room for utilities and green space. The collector street typical section would lie within a 70 feet right of way and would provide for (I) one lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a center turn lane with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and green space, (2) one 15 feet lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a center landscaped median. with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and green space, (3) one lane of moving traffic in each direction, on -street bike lanes in each direction, with sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and green space. The historic collector includes two 16 feet lanes and sidewalk on each side, within a 50 feet right of way. Several typical sections for local streets have been developed to meet the special demands for a variety of subdivision designs. Most local streets lie within a 50 feet right of way width. Four typical sections have been provided to accommodate local streets: (1) 50 feet of right of way to include 24 feet of pavement with sidewalks and green space each side. (2) 50 feet of right of way to include 34 feet of pavement to include bike lanes each side, with sidewalks and green space each side, (3) a new urbanism section with 50 feet of right of way, to include 30 feet of pavement for parking lanes each side, with landscaped sidewalks each side (4) a new urbanism section with 60 feet of right of way, • Bucher. Willis & Ratliff Corporation 3 >I V00:JfPdrc`Pgm'l0a5U1 F, W Re Citt, of I-uvetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Slut/s• Chapter 2- Master Street Plan • to include 40 feet of pavement for parking lanes and bike lanes each side, with landscaped sidewalks each side. The typical section for residential streets is set in a 40 feet right of way, and includes 22 feet of pavement with sidewalks on each side. 20 feet of right of way should be dedicated for alleys. It is vital that the City protects the function of the major street system. Therefore, the study recommends that the City adopts the Access Management Policies described in Chapter 7 to preserve the function of the major street system. INTRODUCTION Public roadways have two primary purposes. They are intended to provide access to properties within a community, and to carry traffic between properties within a community or between two communities. These two functions are in competition with each other when provided on the same roadway. An increase in the number of access points onto a roadway causes a corresponding decrease in vehicle mobility and safety. As a result, a well managed street system must include: ❑ Local streets, whose primary purpose is to provide access. ❑ Arterial streets, whose primary purpose is to provide mobility. o Collector streets, whose primary purpose is to collect traffic from local streets and feed it • to arterial streets. In reality, the street systems in most communities do not reflect this distinction clearly. Frequently, what are intended to be arterial streets degenerate into providing direct access to properties, reducing both mobility and safety. At the other end of the continuum, streets that are intended to provide direct property access sometimes end up carrying volumes of through traffic for lack of an adequate arterial street to fulfill that function, resulting in a decrease of safety through neighborhoods. The key to protecting emerging neighborhoods from future encroachment of through traffic is to plan the transportation system to include local, collector, and arterial streets, and to protect the intended function of each through adhering to design guidelines. These roadway design guidelines are most effective when implemented and maintained on new construction. FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT The street system functions best when the intended purposes of arterial, collector, and local streets are protected. and when the overall street system includes the proper proportion of each type of street. Too few arterial streets will result in excessive through traffic using collector and local streets to pass through neighborhoods. In contrast direct access onto arterial streets will result in degradation of the arterial's function to move traffic, again causing diversion of through traffic onto collector and local streets and through neighborhoods. • Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation 4 M`1W]. I�PdeW 111 0!41 rriml Kq Gr Cirl• of Fayetteville. Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 2 - Master .Street Plan • Since many existing streets in Fayetteville do not have a pure function of mobility only, or access only, classification of the streets as a principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, or local street is somewhat subjective. Several factors may be considered in determining the actual existing function of each street. o Greater existing traffic volumes on a street indicate a draw from a larger area within the community, and thus an arterial function. ❑ As the continuous length of a street increases, its potential to carry traffic through the community also increases, and thus an arterial function. Cl Streets that provide interchanges with the freeway system will more often carry through traffic, and thus function as an arterial. ❑ Streets that access major commercial developments, industrial areas, or a university will generally carry traffic originating elsewhere in the community, thus functioning as an arterial. General traffic volume guidelines assumed in assigning functions to the existing streets in Fayetteville as part of this Master Street Plan include: o Residential streets carry less than 300 vehicles per day. ❑ Local streets carry less than 2000 vehicles per day. o Collector streets 2000 to 7000 vehicles per day. ❑ Minor arterial streets carry 7000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. • ❑ Principal arterial streets carry greater than 14,000 vehicles per day. It should be emphasized that these traffic volume ranges do not describe the capacity of the street to carry traffic, but only provide a general range of the magnitude of traffic volumes that might be expected on a class of street. For instance, a minor arterial street. collector street, and local street might physically carry the same traffic volume. Furthermore, traffic volume alone does not determine or necessarily indicate the function of a street. Whereas the traffic volume guidelines may be useful in classifying streets according to their existing function, traffic volumes alone are insufficient to address the long range function of currently undeveloped streets. It is important that arterial and collector corridors be designated to service future development of land beyond the urban fringe, even though significant traffic volumes may not be present for many years. The future function of these corridors will be influenced by the continuous length of each corridor, and their access to the freeway system. The master street plan also designates a number of streets as historic collector streets. These are streets that carry greater traffic volumes than might be expected on a typical local street, but lack sufficient right of way to be widened and/or are constrained by historic development. While the function of these streets may be a collector function, it is impractical to consider reconstructing them to the collector street typical section. Rather, as historic collector streets are considered for improvement, it should be recognized that each historic collector street in Fayetteville has its own unique characteristics and any improvement project should be carried out in the spirit of context sensitive design. consistent with the smart growth policy of identifying the unique demands for neighborhood preservation. Consequently. a special typical section for historic collector has not been recommended. • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation S 'I `.`W:.I'edoc'Rtym.i O. S.u3 Final Rcrxwl d+c Ciir of Fgyerlerille. Arkans'a.r Traffic and 1 ransportation Sludv Cl, upper 2— Al aster Street Plan • Figure 2-I depicts the proposed Master Street Plan for the year 2023. The plan designates the future street network for major arterial, minor arterial, collector, and historic collector streets. It is important that as the City expands, the intent of the plan be followed, so that an adequate balance of arterial and collector streets with local streets is maintained. • • Bucher. Willis & RarlifTCorporation 6 AI!_ppJ )tPyR1R{gy�`.IDOJOJ final XcJ•cn Mt • r .1 - :'i-. H•. _r•.; •\ 1 / �• —. -..•_ rte ±-'y \ r'i ,r ti .. Wit. t_ b• '.�f �• •. •\ � � .. rr -. _ • ♦ .v\ � • IYI 1 U=1 1 -'ll Y/ _)r �_ i• t\P� Litl • J r _ 1 L.-: ;. • r : :f :: . d:--'tc- :r :9:34 ! '•• J 1 Jam. _ , l • . •- { • • i LIB City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 2 - Master Street Plan • FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY The balance between arterial, collector, and local streets is essential to maintaining the quality of life within the City as it grows. Generally, this balance can he achieved through provision of arterial streets on a one -male grid spacing. with at least one east -west and one north -south collector street serving each area within the grid. This functional hierarchy is suitahle for the development of either a traditional suburban design or a traditional mixed land use neighborhood design. Figure 2-2 illustrates how the functional hierarchy would work for both styles of development. Traditional Neighborhood �o Design m —m >1 Co ai C) d t a 0 0 IC Interchange LL C_ .gyp Major Arteria N a SC >•h r 1 @ 'C m • Minor Arterial 0 G_ N a �Irocaod Interchange 11 Major Arterial Commercial 11 Suburban Subdivision Minor Arterial Street Design Collector Street Major Arterial Street Freeway • Traffic Signal Q Roundabout Figure 2-2 Functional Hierarchy • Bucher. Willis R Ratliff Corporation 8 V'fl C \Yh4Ulop.a\lout II' Final R1p'll Ln City of Fa 'etieville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 2- Master Street Plait • TYPICAL SECTIONS One of the purposes of identifying streets according to function is so that standards can he established which will protect the function of the street. Those standards include the design criteria contained in the City's Minimum Street Standards. It is also recommended that the Access Management Policies presented in this study in Chapter 7 be adopted as ordinance for protecting the function of the major street system. As major streets are developed within the City, it is beneficial that the sufficient right of way be secured to accomplish the intended purposes for each classification of street. Sufficient right of way should be secured for moving vehicles, auxiliary lanes, parking if appropriate, transit activities, bicycle traffic, pedestrians, landscaping buffers, and utilities. Figures 2-3 and 2-10 depict typical sections appropriate for each class of street. The sections depict not only the desirable right of way usage for new construction within emerging corridors, but also provide recommendations for improvements of existing major street corridors where right of way may be constrained by existing development. Principal arterial streets should generally provide two to three moving lanes in each direction, plus auxiliary turn lanes. Some arterial streets in Fayetteville carry existing, or will carry forecast traffic volumes sufficient to warrant additional lanes in each direction, and necessary widening may require purchasing all the development on one side of the street. In those circumstances, the purchase of development on one side could supply sufficient right of way to accommodate the preferred principal arterial typical section. In other locations, sufficient right of way for necessary widening to accommodate existing and forecast traffic volumes can he obtained without fully taking abutting properties. A typical section with two through lanes in each direction and • auxiliary lanes could be accommodated in this constrained principal arterial section. Four typical sections have been prepared for principal arterial streets. Those sections include: ❑ Principal Arterial typical section (150 feet right of way) with trail and sidewalk— This section allows expansion of the arterial from an initial two through lanes in each direction to three through lanes in each direction, or auxiliary right turn lanes widened to the outside of the curbs. It also allows sufficient median to provide for double left turn lanes where needed at key intersections. In between major intersections, the median could be landscaped. The section would allow room for utilities and greenspace on each side, and for a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other side. It is appropriate for construction of new arterial alignments, where six through lanes are necessary to accommodate existing or forecast traffic volumes, or where widening to four lanes to accommodate traffic volumes will require acquisition of the properties along one side of the street. ❑ Principal Arterial typical section (150 feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes and sidewalk both sides— This section allows expansion of the arterial from an initial two through lanes in each direction to three through lanes in each direction, or auxiliary right turn lanes widened to the outside of the curbs. It also allows sufficient median to provide for double left turn lanes where needed at key intersections. In between major intersections, the median could be landscaped. The section would allow room for utilities and greenspace on each side, for on -street bike lanes on both sides and sidewalk on both sides. It is appropriate for construction of new arterial alignments, where six through lanes are necessary to accommodate existing or forecast traffic volumes, or where widening to four lanes to accommodate traffic volumes will require acquisition of the properties along one side of the street. ❑ Constrained Principal Arterial typical section (110 feet right of way) with trail and • sidewalk — This section is appropriate where the forecast traffic demand can be Bucher, Willis d- RatliffCorporation 9 M' W:.) 4OC n IQU�.03 Fnul Report 4u Citi' of hgretterille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation ,Srudp Chapter 2 — Master Street Plan • accommodated with 4 or 5 lanes and where these improvements can be met without acquiring the property on one side of the street. It also allows sufficient median to provide for a left turn lane where needed at key intersections. In between major intersections, the median could he landscaped. The section would allow room for utilities and greenspace on each side, and for a trail on one side and sidewalk on the other side. ❑ Constrained Principal Arterial typical section (110 feet right of way) with on -street bike lanes and sidewalk both sides — This section is appropriate where the forecast traffic demand can be accommodated with 4 or 5 lanes and where these improvements can be met without acquiring the property on one side of the street. It would provide for on - street bike lanes on both sides of the street. It also allows sufficient median to provide for a left turn lane where needed at key intersections. In between major intersections, the median could be landscaped. The section would allow room for utilities and greenspace on each side, and for sidewalks on both sides. These sections differ from the previous master street plan, where only one typical section for a principal arterial was depicted with a 110 feet right of way. The new typical sections have been modified to accommodate projected traffic volumes and a greater emphasis on the development of a trail system in the City. and on landscaping. Example Constrained Principal Arterial - College Avenue — College Avenue represents an example of a constrained principal arterial street where a five lane pavement section has been constructed to compensate for high driveway densities. The expanse of pavement, along with numerous signs and overhead utilities, contributes to the image of congestion in the corridor. All constrained arterial corridors need not present this image. The College Avenue corridor could be • enhanced both aesthetically and functionally within a 110 feet wide right of way. Enhancements might include: o Provision of a green space between the street and sidewalk, in accordance with the typical section. ❑ Consideration of landscaped median in lieu of the center turn lane in selected sections. o Relocation of elevated utilities to a buried location. Minor arterial streets generally carry traffic volumes that can be accommodated by a single moving traffic lane in each direction, plus auxiliary lanes. Because less of the right of way is consumed with pavement, more is available for pedestrian and bicycle activities and for landscaping. A minor arterial street can be accommodated within a 90 feet right of way. This would allow for a variety of typical sections. ❑ Minor Arterial with two lanes, median, and bike lanes - This typical section would allow for one moving traffic lane in each direction, a bicycle lane in each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green space. and sufficient room to provide a landscaped median. This typical section differs from the previous master street plan where the minor arterial street typical section was depicted as a four lane street. The reason for the change recommended in the new typical section is a diversion of excess street capacity to an improvement in bicycle accommodation and landscaping. ❑ Minor Arterial with three lanes and bike lanes - This width would allow for one moving traffic lane in each direction, a bicycle lane in each direction, sidewalks on each side, room for utilities and green space, and sufficient room to provide a center auxiliary turn lane. This typical section differs from the previous master street plan where the minor • arterial street typical section was depicted as a four lane street. The reason for the change Bucher, Willis & RatliffCorporation 10 rd vao:.neaoen,m�` iuo.ai r�,a aep+n as ciii' of Farenet'ille. Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Chapter 2 — Master Street plan • recommended in the new typical section is a diversion of excess street capacity to an improvement in bicycle accommodation. o Minor Arterial with four lanes • This width would allow for two moving traffic lanes in each direction, sidewalks on each side, and room for utilities and green space. The typical section for the collector street allows it the flexibility to function well in a variety of applications in Fayetteville, in both traditional subdivisions and neo-traditional neighborhoods, in commercial areas, and in industrial parks. Because it is unlikely that a well planned collector street's function would change to that of an arterial, less right of way may be reserved for a collector street than for a minor arterial street. Seventy feet of right of way is sufficient for a collector street. The typical section for collector streets is appropriate for new street construction and for existing street reconstruction where not constrained by existing development. It is not appropriate in the context of streets in historical areas of the community where the existing right of way does not allow widening. Several typical sections have been developed for collector streets within a 70 feet right of way. ❑ Collector with two lanes and median - This collector street typical section would provide for one 15 feet wide lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a landscaped median. Space for utilities and greenspace would be provided on each side, and sidewalk would be provided on each side. o Collector with thee lanes - This collector street typical section would provide for one lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a center turn lane. Space for utilities and greenspace would be provided on each side, and sidewalk would be provided on each side. • o Collector with two lanes and bike lanes - This collector street typical section would provide for one lane of moving traffic in each direction and sufficient room for a bike lane in each direction. Space for utilities and greenspace would be provided on each side, and sidewalk would be provided on each side. ❑ Historic Collectors provide traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of central Fayetteville where right of way acquisition and widening is not practical or desirable. The right of way for historic collectors is 50 feet, and includes 32 feet of pavement, and sidewalks on both sides. The master street plan designates several classes of streets providing local access, including local. residential, and alley. Six typical sections have been developed to address these kinds of streets. o Local Street - This typical section would provide for 24 feet of pavement, space for utilities and greenspace, and sidewalk on each side in a 50 feet right of way. o Local Street with bike lanes - This typical section would provide for 34 feet of pavement to accommodate traffic and two hike lanes, space for utilities and greenspace, and sidewalk on each side in a 50 feet right of way. a Local Street with parking (New Urbanism) - This typical section would provide 30 feet of pavement to accommodate moving traffic and a parking lane on each side, space for utilities and greenspace, and sidewalk on each side in 50 feet of right of way. ❑ Local Street with parking and bike lanes (New Urbanism) - This typical section would provide 40 feet of pavement to accommodate moving traffic, a bike lane on each side, and a parking lane on each side, space for utilities and greenspace. and sidewalk on each • side in 60 feet of right of way. Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation II RI l`dO:.3 q4 c`Rep+TiOUF-0l FiJ Repon doe C/(' of Fgreneville, Arkap sas Traffic and Trancportalion Study Chapter 2 - 4laster Street Platt ❑ Residential Street - This typical section would provide for 22 feet of pavement, space for utilities and greenspace. and sidewalk on each side in a 40 feet right of way. Residential streets are intended only for special conditions where traffic volumes are extremely low. ❑ Alleys — Alleys are intended to provide services to individual properties and provide access to individual properties, but no real traffic capacity. They include 20 feet of dedicated right of way which would serve to provide for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle movements, as well as provide for utilities. One additional classification was included in the previous master street plan, which was the freeway/expressway designation. Since freeways and expressways would typically be under the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department rather than the City, typical sections for those facilities have not been included in this master street plan. The Master Street Plan, however, has designated a potential corridor east of Fayetteville for consideration of a future freeway bypass. • n Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 12 M l` W: 1!>da`RepoN16U!LJ F,"I Rtpat doe Arkansas Traffic and S • • 2 - Amster 1 Aity Lrr 32, Itoh 8 pw tbo B 2Au>QIYry La... B seems r , . u a: u .IL 1 AIo4Wy Lai i filwl Q a ra.a� Mmn 2 Not fl 24 el>. 2lnr �.��. N 3'' za.e � aomr I an. I Principal Arterial (150' RW) With Trail Figure 2-3 Typical Sections: Principal Arterial AI VOO: J' M c Repon%IOO .U1 Emil Report Ax Plan Bucher, Willis & Rail/if Coporation 13 Arkansas Traffic and — Muster Street Plan • 677i 1 ..: r 2 La.r C l ma &a* 1r YQab �. a acao. Figure 2-4 Typical Sections: Constrained Principal Arterial • /fucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 14 AI V00:JSV.Ept'Agm\IDV5�1 Final Ar Eat Cm of Fgpetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transporiation Stud;' Chapter 2- Master Street Plan • I Minor Arterial With Bike Lanes and Median Figure 2-5 Typical Sections: Minor Arterial • 6ucher, Willis && RatliCorporation IS nl!.'003 J!odo.•0.epon.�00!-0) F,.W Ronon doc Ciii' of Fgrelleville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Chapter 1- Muster Street Plan • 70' 8' RlW 8' 47 °1e°" s s Green SIdewa0c Spam 14' Larr 14't 4: S'am Nu a Lero R. y , r ' 7aao 7Oueo , Gutter Collector Street With Bike Lanes 70' MV s 8. r 47 Green Green Sidewalk spm 14' 17 spas° 1 Lars er sli.,e 1— fl�tw7 c ab 8 Gutter • Collector Street With Center Turn Lane 70' 8• 8' I 47 8, dean Sktewa k e°e 1s Medan • •1S see llaie 1 Lane 7 curb 7 cwo '& Gutter r1 & Gutter Collector Street With Median Figure 2-6 Typical Sections: Collector • Bather, Willis & Rail (Corporation 16 AI e001.J 5P"R,pon:10010J F'n.J Repot Eee Ci(p of Fareueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 2- Master Street Plan • • I. • J� �L. Historic Collector Street Figure 2-7 Typical Sections: Historic Collector • LJ Bucher. Willis & RadifCorporation 17 AI Fin.' Repon0. Ciq' of Fareneville, Arkansas Traffic and T ransnorlalion Study Chapter 2 - Master Street Plan I • I I 5' 5' I 1 Local Street With Bike Lanes Figure 2-8 Typical Sections: Local Street Bucher, Willis & Radii fo porarion 18 Psi Vn:.35Pa `Xy I aoy1'3 fnil Report 6°c Cu;' of Fareneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Chapter 2 - Master Street Plan • 50' 8' RIW 8' Sidewalk 34. Sldewelk a r Curb r curb & Gutter r It T d CAMW drp Moving Lanes arldrp Lanes Lanes1¶LIPI . ,r Local Street (New Urbanism) With Parking RIW • 8 4F s' s 2'Cnt r Bike 16' Bars r r curb & Gutter Lane Moving Lanes & Gutter j Lanes n Lanes Local Street (New Urbanism) With Bike Lanes and Parking Figure 2-9 Typical Sections: Local Street (New Urbanism) • Bucher, Willis & Rail/if Corporation 19 ..\I _: )Mdca on'iOO�01 FmJ Repon 6x Fai'etterille, Arkun.sas Traffic and — Muster Street Plait • Resfdenfial May Figure 2-10 Typical Sections: Residential and Alley Bucher, Willis & Rath fCorporation 20 MI x`00_.11QdoNlmon!i 4O'O1 Fin& RR+n Eor Clip of Fiyeueville, Arkiigs s Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3- Traffic Analysis • 3. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Key Findings: This chapter of the report discusses the impacts of existing and future traffic demand on Fayetteville's major street system, as well as recommendations for mitigating traffic impacts. • County population and employment are projected to grow by 45 percent in the next 20 years contributing to increased traffic congestion. • Approximately 10 percent of the major intersections in the City suffer traffic congestion. • Approximately 25 percent of the major intersections in the City will suffer traffic congestion in 20 years. • In the next 20 years, traffic demand will exceed roadway capacity on more than 20 miles of major streets in the City. • 35 short range traffic improvement projects and 22 long range traffic improvement projects have been identified for construction over the next 20 years. INTRODUCTION During the initial project interactive workshop, one of the key issues of public concern was traffic • congestion within the community. This issue has been studied through a comprehensive traffic data collection and analysis effort. The traffic analysis included all the signalized intersections within the City and all the arterial streets. In addition, several non signalized intersections and several collector streets were also identified for traffic analysis. The data collection involved compiling: o Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts for major intersections. ❑ Daily traffic volumes. ❑ A windshield survey of the arterial streets, identifying road geometry. ❑ Travel time and delay surveys in a test car, on all arterial streets. ❑ Traffic signal timings. The analysis of the traffic data included the following elements: ❑ Preparation of 20 year traffic forecasts. ❑ Development of a traffic simulation model. ❑ Intersection capacity analysis. ❑ Intersection queuing analysis. ci Arterial level of service analysis. ci Traffic volume/capacity comparison for arterial streets. O Traffic congestion mitigation recommendations. • Bucher. Willis & Radif[Corporation 21 1.1 VII0: 11Pdne-R1pni1 PG.0 -0l anal Revon 6x Gist • of Fu,'etteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation .Stud,' Chapter 3- Traffic Anatvsis • PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS Traffic congestion generally occurs most severely during the commuter peak periods. Because traffic congestion in a community is generally the worst on a daily basis during the morning and afternoon commuter periods, traffic congestion analysis is typically performed for traffic volumes during those periods. The analysis methodology established by the Transportation Research Board in their publication, the Highway Capacity Manual, is based on the evaluation of one hour of traffic flow during the heaviest traffic periods of the day. Traffic volumes for major intersections in the City were provided by the City staff. These traffic counts were derived from vehicle detection units at signalized intersections. Those counts provided tallies of left turn traffic and through/right turn traffic on each approach. The traffic detection equipment did not make a distinction between through traffic and right turn traffic, so right turn traffic percentages were estimated. In addition to the 66 intersection locations where counts were supplied by the City the project data collection included obtaining manual peak hour turning movement counts at 41 locations, ten of which were included in the 66 locations supplied by the City. These ten locations were considered by the City to be locations where actual right turn counts were desirable rather than estimates only. Both the manual counts and the automatic sensor counts were compiled for the periods 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. on typical weekdays. Traffic counts were conducted in the fall of. 2002 while the university was in session. The detailed traffic count summaries along with the date and time of counts have been compiled in a technical appendix. • DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES The AHTD maintains an annual traffic counting program on major streets. Historical maps of daily traffic counts were supplied by the City for completion of this study. The major street analysis compared daily traffic volumes for the year 2000 with forecast traffic volumes for the year 2023 to evaluate the staging for major street improvements. WINDSHIELD SURVEYS The data collection effort included conducting a windshield survey of all the designated arterial streets in the City. The survey included: ❑ Noting posted speed limits. o Preparing sketches of the number of through and auxiliary lanes at each major intersection. ❑ Taking photographs of each approach at each major intersection. This information was compiled in technical appendices and used as a basis for the traffic analysis. Bucher, Willis & Rath fCorporarion 22 M \.tl0I 1�Oae1cpm\IPQ!-0) Fwr Rcvon Doc Cinl of Fare//evil/c, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3- Traffic Analysis • TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY SURVEYS The travel speeds experienced along all the arterial streets in the City during the commuter peak hours were surveyed as a pan of the data collection effort. The speed surveys were conducted by driving a test car along the major street and recording the overall travel time between each major intersection, as well as the period of time the vehicle was delayed at each signalized intersection. Three runs were performed in each direction during the commuter peak hours to provide average travel and delay times. This information was foundational for grading the quality of traffic operation on the City's arterial street network. TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMINGS Traffic signal timings were supplied by the City for all signalized intersections. The signal timings were an essential element of data for the traffic analysis. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Fayetteville Model Development To support the Fayetteville traffic study developed for the major streets in Fayetti • changes in employment and population. sensitive to shifting distributions of pot considering changes in future travel pan requires subdividing the entire area it employment are allocated to these zones. on roadway segments and at intersections. • Methodology and operations analysis, 2023 traffic forecasts were ville. These traffic forecasts were based on projected ;ince historical background traffic growth rates are not ulation and employment, the only valid method for °ms is a travel demand -forecasting model. A model to traffic analysis zones, and then population and This zonal allocation produces traffic volume forecasts The Fayetteville Model was developed using the TransCAD (version 4.5) travel demand forecasting system. This software can directly access Census TigerLine files as well as Census geography. This feature allowed the Fayetteville model to be constructed quickly and efficiently. The Fayetteville Model covers all of Washington County. To begin model development, Census TigerLine files, and Census geographic boundary files were downloaded from Census and CIS web pages. The boundary files downloaded are: o County Boundary File for Washington and Benton County o Census Tract Boundary File for Washington County a Census Block Group Boundary File for Washington County ci Census SFI Block Group Data File for Washington County. %I UOO2.35 4oc'A6ou IOO —OJ Fu RNon doe Bucher, Willis & Rat/ifCorporation 23 Cirl' of Fgyeneviiie, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Chapter 3- Traffic Aualvsis • In addition to these Census data, additional data sources for this model included: a An older Tranplan model for Washington and Benton Counties. ❑ Employment data purchased from InfoUSA. ❑ Land use and other GIS data from the Fayetteville web site. In addition, proprietary TransCAD GISDK user interface software was used to run the model and develop forecast year traffic. Network Development The Census TigerLine files were used as the basis for the model network. The TigerLine files were first imported into TransCAD. Then these files were reviewed and modified to convert them from simple line configurations into a network suitable for use in a traffic forecasting model. TigerLine data does not have travel direction information. Consequently a road such as I- 540 is shown as parallel lines with no travel direction. Also, TigerLine data does not have grade data, consequently any grade separation (bridge) is shown as an intersection. From a line attribute perspective, the TigerLine data does not have many of the attributes typically used in models such as: ❑ Number of lanes ❑ Posted speed o Roadway functional classification. • However, the benefit of the TigerLine data is that it is geographically correct and aligns perfectly with Census geography. The TigerLine data also has street address and zip codes that can be used for address matching. The first major work activity was to convert the TigerLine data into a model network. This conversion was achieved by fixing all the grade separations, particularly along 1-540. Northbound/southbound or eastbound/westbound directions on the limited access roads were also properly coded. All ramps had to be checked and set with the proper travel direction. Test paths were then built through the network to check for erroneous line gaps. Following this initial cut, the existing Tranplan network was then geo-rectified and used as an under -layer to the TigerLine network. This underlying process allowed attributes from the Tranplan model to be attached to the TigerLine network. Using this attaching "tagging" process, one-way roads in the Tranplan model were readily identified and this feature was carried into the TigerLine network file. Similarly, the TigerLine roads were also tagged with the functional classification, posted speed, roadway capacity, and number of travel lanes from the Tranplan model. Next, the TigerLine network was electronically overlaid atop an aerial photo downloaded from the Fayetteville web page. Then a detailed manual process was conducted to check the lane attributes and roadway configurations in the model against the aerial photography. Bucher• Willis & RadiffCorporation 24 u LM:.�saao,w kl"5ci1"Rrn m Gin' of Fgyetleville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3 - Traffic Analysis • The TigerLine data shows a line for every road in the County. However, only major roads are represented in the travel demand -forecasting model. Since TransCAD is a geographic information system (GIS), it develops a travel demand forecasting model network by building a network from the GIS layer. This allows the user to create a selection set of roads in the GIS that can be used as the roadway network for the model. As a starting point, all of the roads included in the Tranplan model were selected for inclusion in this model. In addition, the project team compiled intersection turning movements at the major intersections in Fayetteville. These intersections were used as a guide to select additional roads for inclusion in the model. Basically, all the roadway approaches to counted intersection were included in the model. A final review of the network selection set was then conducted by another examination of the aerial photography. The purpose of this review was to identify local roads that appeared to be logical connections/crossroads that would provide network connectivity. As final network preparation steps, speeds, capacities, and observed counts were coded into the model. The capacities and speeds initially came from the TranPlan model and were compared against speed/capacity lookup tables developed for other projects. This capacity analysis was used to estimate hourly and daily directional roadway capacity. Newly collected traffic counts were then coded into the model for later use in the model calibration process. When completed, the highway network consisted of 869 centerline miles of road (note limited access roads were computed with centerline miles in each direction). Traffic Analysis Zone Development Traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were developed based on 2000 Census block group geography. This geography and demographic data can be readily downloaded on the web and TransCAD has • built-in functions to import this data for model use. The demographic data came from the SFl block group file for the County. The TAZ employment data came from InfoUSA. This website based company sells County level employment data. The data contains all reported employers, the business address of the employer, the number of employees, the employer name, and the standard industrial code (SIC) of the employer. There are many other data fields in the InfoUSA data, but those fields were not used. TransCAD was then used to "tag" each employer with a block group (TAZ) ID. A proprietary in-house program was used to aggregate the data by traffic zone and by employment type. The employment types used in the model were: ❑ Retail o Service ❑ Education (K-12) o Education (college) o Health ❑ Entertainment ❑ Manufacturing o Agriculture ❑ Wholesale ❑ Government • Bucher. Willis & Ra:4 fCorporation 25 .0 Fn Repme Cite of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3 - Traffic Arm/rsis • o Other. The InfoUSA data represented the last quarter of 2002, and the Census data represenled2000. The Census data was inflated to an estimated 2002 based on historic demographic trends. As a final step in the employment compilation process, the employment data was reviewed against the aerial photography. Some cleaning of the InfoUSA data was needed. Traffic zones were then attached (creating zone connectors) to the highway network using an automated TransCAD process. These zone connectors were then reviewed using the aerial photography and many were adjusted. At the external boundaries of the County, external traffic zones were developed. These external zones were placed where model network roads crossed the County line. At each external zone, the average daily traffic (ADT) was coded along with a likely share of the ADT trips that are external -external (these trips travel through the County without stopping). The external -external percentages were based on roadway functional classification, the total population in the County. and Transportation Research Board Report t1365 (TRB Report 365). "l'RB Report 365 provides guidance regarding external -external percentages and it is an industry standard for providing general guidance toward the development of regional travel demand forecasting models. This report is based on the compilation of hundreds of surveys conducted nationwide. When completed, the TAZ structure for the County consisted of 364 zones, including 336 internal zones and 28 external zones. • Trip Generation The trip generation process generally follows TRB Report 365. For internal traffic analysis zones a cross -classification process based on area type (urban, suburban, CBD), total households, household size, and auto availability was used. The model has 5 trip purposes as follow: ❑ Home Based Work Trips ❑ Home Based Non -Work Trips ❑ Non -Home Based Trips ❑ Trips which have one end of the trip outside the County (external -internal trip) ❑ Trips which have both ends of the trip outside the County, but which pass through the County (external -external). The trip generation equations generally follow TRB Report 365, with some modifications based on previous work from the Missouri Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Trip Distribution A gravity model was used to perform the trip distribution step. The gravity model is an industry standard and is discussed in detail in TRB Report 365. Gravity model parameters and settings used for this Fayetteville project were taken from TRI3 Report 365. The output of the gravity model is a daily person trip origin/destination table for each of the trip purposes discussed above. Bucher. Willis & Ratliff Corporation 26 N F nil Repo dac Cli v of l urelteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studt• Chapter 3 — Traffic Analysis • Trip Assignment The trip assignment process used is known as an equilibrium assignment. This process considers speeds and capacities when assigning trips to particular travel route. The process is sensitive to congestion and will recalculate routes as corridor congestion increases. The assignment was conducted separately for each time period (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour). The assignment product was traffic volumes on all roads included in the model, and intersection turning movements at intersections. Model Calibration The model was calibrated to guidelines establish by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Typically to achieve calibration, each step in the modeling process is reviewed with some adjustments made. Population and Employment Projections . , Demographic and employment projections were based on projections made by Fayetteville and posted in recent reports. The projections were allocated to TAZs based on Fayetteville's future land use plan. The projections were made for a 2023 forecast year. Table 3-I below shows a summary of the base and future year demographics and employment. Table 3-1 Population and Employment Projections Variable - Base Year 2002 Future Year. 2023.. ,. County Population 158,117 230,327 County Employment 99,293 144,482 These demographic and employment characteristics translated to 688,000 daily person trips in 2002, and 1,003,000 daily person trips in 2023. The model zones and network and the input and output files are included in a technical appendix. The daily traffic volume forecasts for the year 2023 were used to establish 20 year growth factors for each of the arterial streets in the City. Those growth factors were then applied to the existing intersection peak hour traffic counts to develop 20 year forecast intersection peak hour traffic volumes. Li Phi Sao: r•aeocuo.i'Io.o 4i nnW anion doe Bucher, Willis & RadiffCorporation 27 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3— Traffic Analysis • SIMTRAFFIC MODEL SimTraffic is a micro simulation traffic model used to present an animation of traffic movements through a street system. Just as a model is a replica of a real item, a traffic simulation model is intended to replicate traffic movements on a street. A micro simulation traffic model is intended to provide detailed information about traffic movements at one or more intersections. SimTraffic provides a graphic animation of how the vehicles would look from an aerial view as they pass through intersections and along a street system. The SimTraffic software works with another software package Synchro, to provide measures of effectiveness for intersection operation. These measures include vehicle delay, and a resulting level of service for each intersection. Level of service is a grade A, B, C, D, E, or F, of the quality of traffic operation, depending on the average delay that motorists can expect during peak traffic periods. The SimTraffic model was set up for the City only as a byproduct of the Synchro analysis of the major intersections. The SimTraffic network reflects only those major intersections where traffic volumes were obtained and a level of service calculated. Inputs for the model included only those parameters necessary for the Synchro level of service and vehicle queuing analysis, which were lane geometry, traffic signal timings, and peak hour traffic volumes. The SimTraffic model includes other parameters which can be adjusted to refine the model. It was the intent of this project to prepare the model for future City use, and not to refine the model for any particular application in this project. Figure 3-I depicts a screen capture from the SimTraffic model. • S • S Figure 3-1 SIMTRAFFIC Model Sample Screen Capture • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 28 M\2X1-3S7tc\RcpoflIO. J-01 rind Report tc Cih' of Foyeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3 - Traffic Analysis • CAPACITY ANALYSIS The methodology used to compute level of service for an intersection is known as capacity analysis. This methodology is described in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (IiCM 2000), published by the Transportation Research Board. Table 3-2 summarizes the delay parameters resulting from intersection capacity analysis corresponding to the six levels of service grades for both signalized and non -signalized intersections. Table 3-2 Level -Of -Service Criteria Non -signalized - Signalized LOS Intersections Intersections" Approach Delay ' . Approach -Delay- 1 • (Seconds/vehicle)e (Seconds/vehicle) ., A ≤ 10 s 10 B > 10 and ≤15 > 10 and ≤20 C > 15 and ≤ 25 > 20 and ≤ 35 D > 25 and ≤ 35 > 35 and ≤ 55 E > 35 and ≤ 50 > 44 and ≤ 80 F >50 > 80 • Capacity analysis was performed for all the signalized intersections in the City for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, for both the current and the 2023 forecast traffic conditions, and for select non - signalized intersections. The capacity analysis worksheets have been included in the technical appendix. The resulting level of service for current traffic volumes are depicted graphically on Figures 3-2 and 3-3 while the 20 year forecast level of service are depicted on Figures 3-4 and 3- 5. Level of service C or better is considered desirable. Level of service D, while less than desirable, is nevertheless generally considered acceptable in urban conditions. Locations indicating a level of service E or F were investigated for improvement strategies. The results of this analysis were used to identify locations where intersection capacity improvements may be warranted. These improvements generally consisted of the construction of additional lanes, where feasible, or change in traffic control, such as from stop sign control to roundabout or signal control. Table 3-3 summarizes the slate of short and long term congestion mitigation projects for intersections identified as being congested under current or projected year 2023 conditions. Table 3-4 summarizes the levels of service corresponding to those intersections for both congested and mitigated conditions. Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 29 M V W: I�>tla',Rry+n`. i O0�dl Furl Kwon b% City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3 - Traffic Analysis • • Table 3-3 Mitigation Strategies for Congested Intersections Intersection Short Range Improvement' ?.: .:<'. ston.Range impoeembtt r.r.. (Band We weaned 106lands pb median, Added EB 5mbh and stre et reet Realigned and Installed Snot Runt Interchange Right Turn Line MohwooG (Eutrae St) and DAN Sheet Rglgr.d and Installed Sept Rmt Interrhanpe. ImnS El and We wNavad w 6lan s den .r d n Traffic Signal Control Garland and 6th Sim: W short range Impdvement EB and WS ordered to 6 Lines pis nnedian Wispy Mdlld'• Rd. and 6th Street Coaege and Rock W isle and wet InsOE TgEM Signal Control Street Closure Instil Traffic Signal ConNW EB and We vend tO 4 Lines plus median No long nnoe mpMntnl No rig range mprowmml Maple and GJNnd No Short range mprorement, Omimoed Signal Temps Chi Tramp With Realignment Wedugton and Rupple No Lan range rnprovenenl Instal Traffic Signal Control North and Gregg Need EB. WI and 50 Thru Lines. added SB Right Turn EB and we widened tO A lanes pus median Lane Moslem and Ot Wire Rd. Instil Roundabout Control lb and We widened tot ends gds mMLin Crossover and CM1uen N6 and SB widened to S Lines NO long range mpwement Crossover and Joyce N6 and SB widened to S art. Added EB Right Turn Added NB and SO Right Turn Lane Une. NOM WB Left Turn Lane. Added 2nd El and NB Le Turn Lanes Me isle and Mission Instal Trent Slonal Control NO brig range YrpMernent Ro6ap Ha Or. and Ob Missouri Rd. No thole range Imprpvement LOOM N6 end SB Right Turn Lists No Lip anise Inipiovement COMOe and ROoup MII6 Of Drake and Gregg NB end SB widened to 5 lanes Extend Drake. Instal Traffic Signal Control Coding* end Longvew Laded El Right Turn Lane IMan Traffic Signal Control College and Wren St. Added WS Right Turn Lane Instal Traft Signal Control Codeoa and Poplar St. NO slices rang. mpOvement Insaw Traffic Sag"$ Congo Instal Talc Signal ContvVRwrbabout poolar arid Gregg Instal Tratnf Signal Control No dig range mprdvement Sean a and Cart -and Added WI Right Tu•n Lane Int taw Traffic Signal COntml btte and MID Ave Added 2nd SB and We Ref Tum Lines Ob Mdswn and Zion byCe and p ate DD" Deane St. and Garland Ideal Traffic Signal Contoll Clonsow. and CkITf instil Traffic Signal Contra Ism Street and MIN' ide -.. . Instil Traffic Signal Con" WMnplon Dr and DTCt Sompi Rd. No ON range Imposement stn arc Cato Sonrgs Rd. NO long range Improvement School and WOwghby Rd Instil Traffic Signal Control 6m Steel and arge (Band WI aCKMd too Lines plus median 6m Street and Razorback EB and WI widened to 6 lanes plus median 61n Street tad Schml EB widened to 6 Lines peed mMlan. WI widened to e lines plus medtn Coley and Dckwn Added ED. NB and 50 Rght Turn Lands, Added 2nd EB and NB Left Turn Lanes Colege and Liayelte Added NB AM SB Right Turn Lane Colege and TownNv Added SB Right Turn Una instil Mu hwaY Stop ControvRoundabout Instal TraSc Signal Contra Nape and LevKRtit Added SB Right Turn Lane EB and WS widened to Lines pis median Wedagton and 5M h - — Added 50 AM EB Right Turn Lanes, Added SB LM Turn Lane Crwsovet and Mission EB wbtNd to 4 lanes plus median TOwnsnp and Crossover Added NB and SB Rgnt Turn Lanes NO long range mpovement Ole Mnsoun and Old Wee Rd. Instil MURiwaY Stop CMIn1VROVNabout No long range Note'. Not Cu nten.cicns that received mpeovenent wee lMneled. rather only prose WterseRVbs that erernpee a LOS p uraaepable condIpn pr r to mptvement am nduded In the rape. In addition to any short range mpdrenenls AI Final Repo Dix Bucher, Willis X RatliffCorporation 30 Q1, of Fuyeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Chapter 3— Traffic Aualrsis • Table 3-4 Level of Service Summary for Congested Intersections AM YM AM ,T I AM MIOO.ted RIM MPt g.ted AM MMtd.ted .M MItld.ted IntenelLon E.lnLn L.btlnp EMMing E.IMInd 2023 2033 2033 2023 LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS . LOS . SI.Mh.nn 6ln Stmt 0 A E B F B F B fun•.and6th 9rtet E A SCF _ A E D Md•ywOdd .ro 6M Stmt D A E C f A f 0 G.Mro en66th5bee E E t f C FEF Mpldw Rd. and 6M Str.M FAF _ B e B f B wp4 and Wea B A FAC A E B !M a. Mr4nd E E C B E MA D nA wild Lan.nd RURRM _ D D E E e A EA Mptn.rp Grpd r B (B •IF B f 0 MBsp,.nd OM win Rd. E B F B E D f E Cressdve ii Cltann 0 C f C f E F r Cmwwr.ndloyce r C D B f E F D RdR.q mas O,..nd pd M4sour, Rd. C C B B f B/B r B/C Cc4ge.nd ROIOry HIPSD' C a ( C C C E 0 Drake a M Grepp C B F D E A F cwne.ro 1ppvMw E E F F F A F A Colpe.M M.rmm 9. _C C F F C A F Caro PWr 9. D _D r r F AFA Pod.r.ro Grpd C A f A C A F A .rid G.Nro s.)Me C_ C f E E A r A a W • b.ee.rd M.. ♦ve A C -58 _0 Old Missouri .r.d Zion a - C - C BIB F UB bK•.ro tYMab Dm._ C _f - f A r B CNLwvel.ro CWM C - C F A F A tk5lnet .na .brw,sMe c 0 E A E A wWIMtOn Or ar Do.tI.S .y\R6. D D - F F F I SCMp andC.M SPANS Rd B C C C E E 5ppol.r W'IMV3Iy Rd. D_.. C •f A D A 6th 9mt.nd fuper A _ - C A F D 61M Street .rid n.,O.BMt C - D _-- C C E C ath9rt0 and Scrod C __ C - E C E C CUM"oMut•yette B - C _ - B B E D COMde and Town.nld B D - B a E E Mwtn.nd Coupe C - C B A F D CN3wve. am MMWf B - L : 0 t V TOwrMq.nd Cmsswr D B F D E B OM MBsoun.nd OM Wue Rd. D F C'S I f/B F E/C Missbn and MIMe 0 __F/B A E A E A F Mote'. Hot MI .Renecuoal that rKMM Impdvemenl were MMLYMd. rather o (how Intfl a 4t (Mt etemdli.d . LOS of unaaeM.BM LOndRcn dip M .rprovenWnt are Kluded n the uoM. Not: A •. derotef nO 1MIYJVYI rKdnnerded • Bucher, Willis& Ratliff Corporation 31 .Lt V W:.1�d6MUtrtwn`Ilw)L1hail Retch arc Cite of Fgrcneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Chapter 3- Traffic Anagais • QUEUING ANALYSIS Where vehicles are required to stop for cross traffic or opposing traffic, the possibility exists for several vehicles to form a queue. or stack behind each other. Intersection geometry should provide sufficient turn bay storage space so that queued turning vehicles will not spill back into the through lane, and block through traffic. Likewise, the turn hay ideally should be long enough so that if through vehicles are queued back from a traffic signal, a vehicle approaching the end of the queue would be able to get into the turn bay. Sometimes, this may not be practical at locations where a large volume of through vehicles could form extensive queues. A queuing analysis was performed for all the signalized intersection approaches in the City for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the existing and forecast 2023 traffic conditions, and for select non -signalized intersections. A summary of the comparison of vehicle queue lengths with existing turn bay lengths for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for existing and for 2023 traffic demand has been included in the technical appendix. This information will be of use to City staff as they establish the parameters for specific capital improvement projects. • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 32 \ hail Rrym Eoc • 6 o • 1 1 1?—Sc:S'iAF x.1-- +14'.L" ' r ''1 _--_.Ir •Ji n rc' i 1 - :� • T - T " 3M! : $•A s: i. J7- i I.f T 6 Ij Z ` � ♦ t s E ♦1 T ' Qu T I I h' / ¢ � � 5 l.l♦�I I I - I o f I ; � S — ` ' , c ; • ' 4K=(1}Tel - — IJ I { ' - Ty✓ •(1 U -4•F,. y�� 1 - r Y t Via- r �';v1"E-G.ZYR�' �JEV.•L1..'�N:TOfFlC qT/ � in � t<..y��C • lC1CI:l aT...E.. T m �• e 22 a 4 I n w S `'MiS•E p .iaJ l:' 2 f•`'!`. (t 'c.'ven 1 i • `. ry fl 1nQp Y y ,� S k "C• r �\ - I' • 1 ' CfiE • 4 •C5..'0Li _ - E� - _ cl i Ct -- c 1 I'icE ' Ss'e:lw - ` 7F -e$ —J4 M� t jly -1"�. \i:v.43H � 'V f✓�I •V • ; ' ig r 2' ♦ 1> 6 %S r C ₹ v mJp(H,-.TY.31 n W2--;. / b JWl_4/ n ��_ - layyj�y` r ._ 'L n'].4'J - .i P } - J i -� fL 3••- 1 .'/�"'* �fl- ItG l � � � S� � -�.L ar.a..�_Y...._L"1.�•--w.�_n _ v.�p.�♦ cv'EPfGR �� < T D > • _ -- _ 0Vr a I, - i a'v'n •�+I SI v4CElQ.v 1=. —� "a -' 6 ^.� > �' � - -T.'B '. uZcl IT \\S- i,F ( la� ES 11 a:Y : 'xcrvi < [< •�-.-ti--�_�-fI�'-J S y j --a v� � ` C'1';: J p i ? fl.l nui s/3 {{{{{ C i" • •-'w 1 c• .r•hZ�b�© n 1�' - i• :::n �L� ilCq,jt ] J„ Ij J [v \.G ' 4lII+M-'1\TG v 1 Ka S _ 6: 3 v I.v.L D y - P•HYI£ < V f..!'Y•T-rt �� 1 I "' pro li� m 4 = ryQgq� _ Yl.Clg� C v ( Y 't='� ^A N."� F'�•'r r \ I .I D p.F ,.^(g •9 1�'Ed�tq P a ' a > S i - _ • M T 5 4. q -n a .x•.v S'. . ."/� iwe—Eww__ a o Y F '. i f • > ¢ q `\-^f�nc. -'�1 .,try cNl "rt T.r LGcs-- A f nk n 3- - c 'x.;w. =uv.,1 � rn, , :. ]bi'.-1.'ET I.�P,'- I9awr\ ± 1 _ _ Nea'If I v R'`It'YE M19•T"iY3 c-1xZi e' Z 2 j _ t. r DS E- fF i < I� r. >.i - i } I . M1 • - n " ' L ll T 9CL.}Y3 I l'r'IIC£ \1 .� • a ..-E may. } -1 _ .i Yc T '1 -U1 .-.l. Cf.•�.,] .• �1., 1 V"M € 11 — 3 rte.: h; .'e..•� '*r- K](.': 1✓"mf E.A, -SAv. .o 1 �`@.i . [RX�S: ^.� • m ne v J `'7'� •y •[ v.JJ" 1 ryEnF ,e t. .,LaG]E s IwIY"i T �^`•�� © J ` '. !` Si—A•w1E�Nr IARCR 1jF 1 • 1}[ t I•� ..`•<S~( S�i< I J '<o.CtM�.pY%..Z' 1 1� -. i � Od o -p1:: !} i � J ; ; ,. S � • � Y ^1\Ci. gOOL_^. C • 91i Y.a �_-` ��, LR•E�'w • • I :1 � �" G-•tjc.' i E f,.-'^vF - '. c F £ -• - T l+.<cc if' 14 .i+ . w • .£fir• . Yi IC,Y IYM-- r -♦'�.� , �•c • _ Y.c..xl l4 i 1 -4Qly 'J I� •1 � rh 2Y^q.14 elm S.� _-Y y7i1C 6 • • � L-1,c .Y _4• .71 7 np z ra d a IT Y 1 T+.. o s g i l a ci O ! ^ I 2 tir•\.,•I_ "=•, Q. r w �` v s �• }`` � IL _�.' 1 e]-{ `J vi � I N C5 .. ±1 _ - �_ rt- z G r • g t Z ' f�I`FF --x'25;•.- f I I ; I I I i l� I • i z —� — r • J r r-- I o I y u•C ~t _.�_.! '- a _ .v„41 s f} ) _ - rii:Si '•`�-Ly. •' ; } �c 'r v✓1r T I- `.�R rC:.fiq U' r • ` \ _• -' ` zG ^ Ei G l;. .2_#- A3M1�tl3 rHel11 F4 i rT91'-I Fs n, l,L _ J © f _ 11 ( y aJ _ C 9n4445•i• ' Y icr. �i :' a 1Fa � �\ o m �4 r- a f - � > L4hT.�-[ir r.Y F -i e.i R ^�'Y'L..' ip C Ct •v nN:J( >F- _<_ a •^i z 1_' �nV'.YYT♦', V1C` •(•'C.r- - n, -v �-,, .�.� I '�RtT:'_'_V - '�- .T\r2r� � /lR n c'EI'e +uFY '-� I;f r- �� Y vE'.i i 2 ♦ � -t C� %rl D F (U C: JI m E 1` r ] 'lc. ➢ v 'J 1M �Y�-=G'.]YT'v .'_- ! � 4'.CV `•9r tl 1 I'll'41 l31• 1Yi ■`1 ' �. Y - Y c' [ 3"V'<tr_n_ g � � z I SR e• 1�i • 5 -'.: t'; I•{x'aVa�i � � _ L4 . •i 9 1 s _ ` _ 6 h - :'^..14J� L 4_Ci�Y`.rTM{C 1)ertZ+r- Sir g i!r i Rr� r y r�� - •i i' �. _ _ vlE•9 �-^��-.-.: .F4 . 1i 'P IrF I 1 � ci T. • Z � e !- r E%dT P� $ �y t •• { _ .x t '>>r'Z % L-1'��•T�� IAr;]•FS-', 1J �� E- I.r; • yi'Im yti' y y > 1 .. aP i •G 6j !zOt /rte a Dry t n ••�'��•. { � '1."�., �,•L'iK�1Y�a C. � Y 1{ Y� rit _ w .•�YY�µ( • G a 1 a it I y .. o{+]. 411Jr iYnh. —F '••� ` LI ,i: n SW?r Y^1F� eYSY .L._. [ -•l1L r/ . "••t I\ 1• � C l fj a :t+a �- 1Q I_j � I • ••rr I 'c•/r. LvN1 _ I x'� i v-l'P•v,�r nHi '� — • 4l• -a' � -c r • (D G O N ( 1 , ! • ti • e_ile i�J Vl ( T j n ry C ' —T1 ] 'Dix.-_-- ':I ILi• b t 7i I I, l ...5 1 i ! •• = a S • '!. t •'`-VFu�y`t(YyG 1. `S n I_ _ vil ,... C'Tvry S 'CQ+WKi = � �^ -. w4•..-�..Isa..- rSi`•Y`-a:-:vn6iA �'.+ I�� `:1 C I .: vr<-_- V/ I � �KF'Jt£C5^K?--,_^-� .� �—":SFi E'z. A o• i � e ' _ � • � .rte � 1 i-_'I 1 If a4J. e' j i~ ti 'L ,�_ IVIM1',"E.,4 •� �\ , i 41 rr 1 1rY"� _ -.Ic • L i 1 .ripe. p Yr . Lke.. 1 ' F x i7 e:. .� .J T 'c1 •---A -- - 1--_ �•T L : —= T y —.. i 3 / d' sL L:. a_ • -_.e tMJl -c -. L2 n c~ C4 :i S :Z � • i • r ! aY '^ _�f �l\IS1O'UI rs te£ ' 44 � I^C "'AF`'�F i Of;, , r + ,' i lakp n ��SS ni 1LIv rY - / J s +Iflefffr S t_ • -'Y .^�s Y ,3G r, D 1 4 J.E J �^�.� " 1 W�"F1 - - �i ul..erV< R vcc.��.••£ 1 i e i Il IT citc-. s�='..�r�'f;• - 5 �\ \\ - -, i K ISM � eC r••d c � D. � pj _ 7- • —T OIL: -t 4J,rE '�hM] li r VIZ 4 I •�:- ] d 111111...III . .C,. z.J•vf 1 'F r { �]4s,f,•M'�.Q:e uJS_p .. / 1 C tF. ev lt i -_._— _ —0-r :-- x l ,e D — t x(•r•PFrE₹-L: '\6' e siv..i- - F r ;� V. I c +yJ.I �.N;.. pr0.�-t -iap Q • -- 1i r ' F w Y J•JJ. RY tI '_ � (j CiN•Rk9 i T 1 rw'4.F F •y� /-•t T • D fnCii`[f. r Ir'n-� rt i K1 .. .ylSc $ r S K•'�_ i Y' `4 E • F�E n` J `+Ulm' _ r 1'v.!fvEt, a r i t uc s y i WF- _ b- 'i '- r F t^ .. r 'Yay. •bn.4' iA " S r^ p 4_\�Dy r�F 1 i 'I Yat(t '-:±T ,lY. 9 :.: (i r�• e J ^f6._ •� Y evny,_ ,1.,-rs:-. �[.� ( •9901:— U__ •. n ; ,.�• ^ e, • ,\ tP3nvC it I Y:. ' 1 1 - r q �..1 , '�^ .l• iYuyt�- r 7� --p; 2 T'�. 4ti'a N.A Z n H r 3 ! u 4G -V / � • 1.0 Y - C41�' I , Ywr:t0 r Mb1F vJ! f^a i cr C' I I -r! r••.^] . x Na , ei al ' .g �k !6 _— _ ' 111 i I ^ ...+o -n r ^.]'� tM \ flll i FP r' 4 1 _ �.":... •:it "h r I> I� f_ IS »-tr=- 4�'!Ci .� i1N.[e m yO` Tt ! .. -1 L -1`q ,c.'. , : •J { L). •-��• - ChvO.F bC-tc-,♦ J6 Y :• :::t !t- --i y " . {R �a4: n: 'M{YM- y • .bbl .-.`v+%�1 A,: T1'4 e ,'.I'.IS) Y , r-. ' o T c yy� �.pr xMfexk C� l odr,tr� —rcII[[ 1i' Min '8 v ! a�,+i • I a Ii - IiF M-- -..+a h i rY- - ._i`•. $ stlnrF5eP Iyuv: %� r It z ..f <' +.`r ,\ i004. f e _ F• a ' .: .• n�" fA • ."�,.E:::a e 15 . F Ems_ a n a v, ♦ �� • O f i • �F11'i= ♦ • rF4'•'rA ) ✓ 6. fl•:: .Y iFr • # ` :�'3. Yr.Ji © <. iCnv .r•Mr-= .1♦�cJ'1r wr a,n t-. �t t ,� '+. ti I■ �� r_' C i^Lr.-� .� .N' �.. h*1'd' a" L��P; t I r n �� - i 'i i• 'i f L a , . - tic L I . JrL' 1 Ir • ye /\ - ist lrJJ. - ':'c'-; L,` . - • C l6. I 1• ; - '� m e • 1� t l rI :s E '-}` v J.HSr ' a .r T `l•l J.. c 1x1COD.1.\. i S� -'-0n. .� ♦ �T D ^ ti Q • D ♦+ a G CD Ct N fair.. [ •4 r S': � .f l.�• • ad \J >L1 V 2 1 �.YA n R i 1 Eye•EL-.rn I _ 0 N a ¶i JEYFPs 4 ^s ..c `u `I - ` i. • z ♦ �' zz Co a o a5ti I + z� \I- /-f-i- T W (3 91•,1 E. ,.-t 1--p" -- rn. t rJd ; a �y:S v O % yl -v lJY'.. I .-... _ ` J ' 1� V • �� r__ ^ Y - i* ' — .L4(c�f. I 1--�_�=ti.-.—�•-:��.i-�{. • y- •I I I ♦ • C _ • b f • 7 • I i • —'JaF_:'.:e • p—_"—^'r.,u�i£ • � `lam` f e -'_a; p. • . 1 � � yp5-� . i n 1 V _ T 9' 1 � \ • Y -_-JPI i pY m • ^ ! 2 Lv^o -JYJL M1 - }1( _ •oEEX ♦ ♦ ^ + ' i ors—. 6:.wYn1 - C[rn"JSJ 4 nY • ✓[I. t. .i v -1 y cAF-Rr_ \ ]<'c9 - YKte- _ z C L zr `£L^! a^a. Ty IPJv —��• < _ IY 1— 2_� : 1? i J t L yyJ _.C' a$�EWi ♦ ,y yr n'^FV G 3 i, w n «emu ' I :_ TI c t p' .. - . I i'I-'1 - e:if AY�J:'1:.' • ` :- 3 cC I' D 1 r � -147 �y D 'Ar.t lr. z / �. � _ .. Y `_� LL—_��5 •'--a..leg-'-I Ei�D �ISC:LL'JY � QI 33♦ I_bL.rfi � y < Y. �♦' Fa" � x .2 s e;F£ -I O , D F ± �'° -V4)zfE S ?. r gGVr °��. I e s..T w-F'rt"z v -qd'. y-•-- P -.-'Y"? it 1 ( E, BIJ'NT _i—c-s <Q 9T Pc -• ^ iegn r'<:1' • ≥ i i v _ i D L' n +S _, I�• /2 tyfm 01 ' ch Fv y N' - 3, , _ 'N'<<'SViTM�.] 'I}�Ai tm��yy �•.I` Iry ",.�� 3 r 31 `ri 53E!e C, y {{ll M•'Hr A_.•txtJ11I}' '/ ` •*4 •' l � 6_1•ti '�� <tr.J .q� 1 / •"cl)AIrJ E fi ^_-l' .� vrJ , • , V I a ' -i • y� ^ • j �.L � � /r j/ it '. '� /' i \ ♦ � F�� '�p % -1<Y~y < Lri ti, o I - �� • • Z > 1 J:V 1: l V 4 Arkansas Traffic and 3 — Traffic Analysis C1 ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE The travel time and delay surveys conducted on the arterial streets and on several select collector streets served as the primary basis for determining the level of service for each segment of arterial street corridors. The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology for assigning level of service for arterial streets is based on travel speed on the arterial. The travel speed requirements to achieve an adequate level of service depend on the class of the arterial. The class of an arterial street is defined by Tables 3-5 and 3-6. Based on the combination of these characteristics, the arterial street is assigned a class of I, 11, III, or IV. Table 3-7 correlates arterial level of service with class and average travel speed. Table 3-5 Functional and Design Categories Functional Category Criterion"" Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Mobility function Very important Important Access function Very minor Substantial Points connected Freeways, important activity Principal arterials centers, major traffic generators • Predominant trips served Relatively long trips between Trips of moderate length major points and through -trips within relatively small entering, leaving, and passing geographical areas through the city Design Category • Criterion High -Speed Suburban. Intermediate Urban Driveway/access density Very low density Low density Moderate High density density Arterial type Multilane Multilane Multilane Undivided divided; divided; divided or one-way, undivided or undivided or undivided; two-way, two two-lane with two-lane with one way, two- or more lanes shoulders shoulders lane Parking No No Some Significant Separate left -turn lanes Yes Yes Usually Some Signals/mi 0.5-2 1-5 4-10 6-12 Speed limit 45-55 mi/h 40-45 mi/h 30-40 mi/h 25-35 mi/h Pedestrian activity Very little Little Some Usually Roadside development Low density Low to Medium to High density medium moderate density density • Bucher, Willis & Rarliff Corporation 37 M i'w:.j 'dor`Aepa,�I Po�.3 Foul Rrymt Ex City of Fgreneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3 — Traffic Analysis • Table 3-6 Urban Street Class Based on Functional and Design Categories ............ r Functional Category Design Category.'. ,. a . ,:, Principal Arterial ' -_I Minor Arterial High -Speed I N/A Suburban II II Intermediate II III or IV Urban III OR IV I IV Table 3-7 Arterial Street Level -Of -Service Criteria Clas"s I II t III - ` 'Iv . . LOS. . ,� �_ Average.Travel Speed.(mi/hr) >. . A >42 >35 >30 >25 e >34-42 >38-35 >24-30 >19-25 C >27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19 D >21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13 • E >16-21 >13-17 >10-14 >7-9 F ≤16 ≤13 ≤10 ≤7 Figures 3-6 and 3.7 depict the arterial level of service for the existing a.m. and p.m. peak periods. • Bucher. Willis d- RatlifCorporation 38 AI L`PO:laPdPlRgonl�POa-01 ruW Reyon doe 0 • • • _ A r � ..1 •. - P¢ • li : •JI1/ PA q Ii i — I ]1F4 r" � i4'lfyS}•Pg t[ y'• ' � : r r F--ui.-,' `ice^•-"6[�`,iT ;- Y r � I�. �•� �.MR\,F' �t��i{rrrf�6a�Yrr i :�([ . Y.4!1 eyi , "�..., \` �.l -`'�- �-' : Tea --G mz•x: �' i f a� RJR 1 -- 'iv[ [ D. -�9' 1 •: - •. '_,_Eve [--- �.� f ` ₹ - E ,a�,.E4 �i�e�_—'aa ^.r, ~-----�--_" i Zam,.r[ tE > lkI 4: p C=i r-1 •�C �[✓{�-�-r• ♦ �I / L r p VItVe-g 3 i:L4'i _ CL'. II! '' 1 - � i 9 � r. - M r .fLI]'d O Ir 'Y'• 2 i- r]I� Ir Z K'♦ '•'`�' ilatN 1 r_ T © r - '•'ONE _ .� �M prnn 4:'"--<- .r .4. ��rt'a[� ' 'h[ +__ •5 '� 'i `.orS+(Y �. B'.Cyw•T:'?r r r. •J O <rx :r tG L(v 1> CCir"eN �k^ f• ��?i i�c n.a p�� < n.�& • J �I l - -' r -Iq•1. �� 3 [1rEgy} i L� {s F y S jY I ` r:r �f}- �•:s-,=—a"1':+PE -�n-�� l > jy 1 is.:K52c. ♦ [ . C 1 ♦ E �. , !g i 3'.L. 1 O �[ r•Y`r.tE .Y rt'Y�!Vugl •-t D l i1 34, -'-D'1' 14 •Y {D F•'Y•IAY.FQ. [rn Y/S ( T 14 Y y. [ M., _ \r[E • \ _ ' m L! • .n ✓r:[tr 4[ : 1 ;'-� -]WN• n'- n --- ,�1 1•.�:5 :7 -y-= E� F _- � __ - K"SP Plc -"CD o - r. w` r l •�nr` -- mrs�^r-. ,�.-r_ ,@ 1 �≤t$ tr+:>,_. -T.�J .- �\ '� . ' ' � .\ II � � 1 -Yl lr" f-b118git'I 1 A `l _-.: v�lll,- CI I [ ••G . —J h^tE{ -� `�- [ —nL h•�.n Yry Y.M T.� i� n i:1: � \•` - � z alD _ •— [.._ R © r ^. S Y- 9 - _-�' rr. Jlr-7 .. S'�' �1W ';E4TL_n '� _1 IVY. E £. _L aK.6r: s fl +cx ro- �. I ,� tec vey- -E 2 i P �]_..�[9 >wrr > =,[ VI + • m .z- �'z - 3a•e: , \ >� ya y:: � -.Iu .. w.mH li .gym \ .-=o n n•]t.r. \ 1I -YMc� . '. u ti r •¢ t`kfl 11C• � 'r '. `�� / i .. rrl/M �KCJ C' f - Vi N x i IT _-f t F 5 'r _\Yrly TT [�§i r. d♦ s 1 Ej}n 3 -.1 : �.1•PY"'� 4 \ -� [ y 'R 1 1 • . `t 3' _[�' �• i .�_ C I Si " PFLvr•,f� �vyrI IN P F - nj'@r rS bb _LrC l '` - n.a J • I iE s�•iE;. �t '�., s- r`.,ti ; 1`. f�_C_"�', t:x 5'..% 1 f 1 �� F`M'^•Y- 'L₹F. -. q 'ro'. n'-'4iI ,.Ir. };.. \a'srS Dti _ a -_J •rtYc 6 D •n D z I I ryl�'iClj�� q'1°F��. V•'Y^y r r *:L, I:BCa • ' u'd[miJl ni • '9[.yC•h'd gjl+V.J Z`] � cT � »� 91::f3 f' �. 4 R AI. J S • r \r �f 2 a _ c 'L > , � J1�@• —'SS 1 a \. fc, Jr:» o, .• .Dar �� •� 1 33^ y a / d' ' '4iti DI. —an _ti,a[.� __�y�1'-rrO' 1 1 _ C-1:; n% __ nom. £ —� ^'1'— ` : < . • C, - r •w^Rj.P-v - _._-,_c-- y�AlJ' 10 �. \, ;+ • 3 [ 3 j3!'nl J Y Lr :•A»•.. f� l� � }rr t R` v_. • PJ -. ri ti -X- - •r • `c .' . .——��--_�.—.--� 'tip= • • — P:EK 1 3 y/y P i '5 \ psi'. 1 c Fny. Y ' '^ I r \V Yi • C. O 'P — 'aFi. .Q _)r _ _..•r 46r t - F F _ . - ot9CA ::[•. E •- j1 IF r li I V • V s • I v c a y ti r Y M1 y• y � , — xa-- • I • _ _ ! �- r—r3_an LOW G lam' _ l �lis - •_ ' .'v1xy�',, F_M1 ♦ L tai I ! • -✓1l'.` t •. D-_ Zi £ 'J `C]E4Y _. _��'tlFt•yµrpaln i Cr-53^ISC • -Te` - .._—L n - • i i—. F �l rF 1 • 4•i. Z � � o . r nC ( .., \ +-+.•�1 •C � I .1l l fp r JMh1c nsn C a- II.'1 .M1/F+. F: r 1 h •':r. l r: ly/`/' p,•..H_.. 'RCS I.- I _] �. •1/}.3'I�].:'I c. -'>'�1Eus - _ '':111 " 4 ' l a a•1•�:. CA •..^♦'� S 1 • r-• C .. ♦ I I�j E 1 1 LL..'JILUu 4 yM `4 _ :SW�� •-FA':a � r �� t:-e✓'rehry 2 � Ty �•-� � J n z ' f fO'.1.1n r I.- � _ y �♦ - .�. ^^^•vp••• idi � •e— —'•� ce .3- D �� 1 "IYy-E_C P M1 }-e-t_ y P `� \ � ••EFI,_ (=1J• • I _f —OIj3f s)n •� v � px I { .9.. 'h l"t• Cltid qg 14c )fi _ 1• 1 x 2 . n• rF .S.jr. r e40+ 13 _ , r - 't a:: 6 ?aT-1LL• ui v" _ r v I � n .e q 1 ♦ • 1'DGC.^ — e i Sr2. = I ,o j yv �I ' .K--. • •. c_.E ♦��2 '.rNN.R / a r...W S -'Y' ��-Mr�t i. • a _ + ._— 7 © n LSE nr.Y u ♦ u Jy; s r • _c.n �R1. T9� v f j Il .'...iyr.. - Y .. I t ' Z /a-� Y�• 1 I f J •Y W&•' If f9 ( r 4riul =] L -p • 74 • � I I 1 • •b IL I , a- +` l W I ! n i r "' ---4 is ;d O I L—p.+e4 _�_�1 mrNa 3. i • NI I r T T Cut' of Fareueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 3- Traffic Analysis • TRAFFIC VOLUME/STREET CAPACITY The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 provides traffic service volumes that can be accommodated on arterial streets, depending on the number of lanes, and based on assumptions of traffic signal timings and free flow traffic speeds. The arterial streets in Fayetteville have been assigned a daily capacity to carry traffic as derived from the HCM service volumes. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 depict those streets in the Master Street Plan proposed to be arterial streets, plus the collector streets Maple. Lafayette, and Old Wire, along with their daily traffic capacity, the year 2000 daily traffic volumes, and the year 2023 daily projected traffic volumes. This comparison of traffic volumes to street capacity has provided the basis for major street widening recommendations. The expected average daily service volumes based on the number of through lanes has been correlated with level of service in Table 3-8. Level of service E is generally considered the full capacity of a street or intersection, and consequently represents severe congestion. Level of service C or better is desirable. In urban locations, level of service D is considered less than desirable, but still acceptable. Table 3-8 Service Volumes and Level -Of -Service Lanes in Each Service Volume (vehicles per day) Direction L,O.S. C L.O.S. D L.O.S. E 1 10,000 16,000 17,000 • 2 20,000 32,000 34,000 3 30,000 48,000 51,000 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS The comparison of the traffic volume to street capacity provided a basis for identifying arterial streets that will need improvement now. In addition to those arterials, other major streets have been identified as key to completing system continuity or providing infrastructure for Priority Growth Areas. The results of the intersection capacity analysis served as the basis for identifying intersections that will benefit from improvements now. Other intersections were identified by City Staff as having potential safety concerns or non conventional intersection geometry that needed to be addressed. These short range improvement locations are identified in Figures 3-10 and 3-I I. Those improvements that will be needed within the course of the next 20 years are identified in Figures 3-12 and 3-13 as long range improvements. Bucher, Willis X RatlifCorporation 41 RI uW:.3 G . cRNa111 LL0♦UI V,nl Report &.c ?Usti$ a —� }f{J.i• I i � �- i 1k ` � . .. ` Iii. w � .TA s.nf��y�ak3L I k } I �: r---.!..--.�. •--.-.__. i tim u • I o ti I r ; l i S- —,DIY•- i •r ` a •(Y pG r s . 1 b• •v .-� tO�}il[Ei �- 'r / ≥ t' 94EV—; V4- COO-Ti.Y•1:.w -- ' Y � O ��(' Ii -_ � �� i \ 1. :. �i �•--[pC1..� `:.MF•- t 't .J--N".IOUln2 "! r - -ol•"� B :•ems._; L y ': Y- -Ya[I I �I .Q.:`: i�'�Z. • .(fix C - n:Y]'{!b" 1 +. � i' � a O y. ri t41 i EY•c-''irlf -..I II I 1 ONv IS v t r • I � i �� _ \\ _ t e r �'�• - r -..Eye-.....u.v.�w�_• .1 8 n FOR V O _ J 8 i. P _ y UM I n `f'"' "�v 3 l i `�.t'. 5w y' .y • t' `-4• �r .... =nzri`,rj�.�8i y_�y'l-� ��jS :P� �uR[Na. _G F ��T • nJ7C •r £`= i wt$ rz.. •llIIZ[� S [ �' ( e'..JCNN, J-Cy'4ii >FS -Ftv �' ?�.a•'l:AT.� '�r`•eepyyi v {s y �y C I IE Y 8 } •_ f1f1 V �1 _j t \ • ¢ pvv Ii I ri i T'_r: i r AT [ F re F '14-•—B]y`y'� �^ rr yF,:14 v YC C'' _ — ry V r C.� '� r F5'CV.Ecn:u:V.•(,aE.f3•:L I, 'Vl'SO L♦ V a O O p l_ _ Fw �qt' cA7$ pPO .i•7c l ,Y c l__ -.{.- P Y •3 j 'GI yHnIS, /i 0- ' 14 °. n,y_rf c i DX 4+1 n .9 ' / : .:' 1 .lcY.•♦ C- vi'i' ♦ J.r � (�. :' •� Y _ ♦ \ •t 1RN r so — — �I pip k aC G J../ •• `^ {'� 4 {'6 'Y:l(!; yJ' ( f1♦ t.. _ EYn e'er � i I M"`s _ �.C�5Cr /�----/ I : Ig I£ cr,�r_- Yytt^'.•'� :;N.,Bpp. ' � ♦ .LE a '- .'"��- � u ti -.1 �. ; � Y�.If::[" / 2 � \` ,n ,tom [ C • S ti _ b, �.:'., er fc _ _ 'n:yAtD �i • I i 8p �' N -3 _-. r .y S ____ f _ - '? `t`-• .Cc r., !'flrtFf,--' ./ n G :r.e23 A. nir ` �� Ba.SR' 9 / `' .t Ir�2 i J �—,s 1.1.—.w Y.... _ r _♦4Z ( ' vcIV.'i` •^/ ,^� Pte♦ _ \ •ppe' S,yCE. \ Iro- RV . i i u..i� [ I f i ` V �..]�•�'�• Y!A i e.t � 2 � _ � • �''1VYV ' 1 _ ° 11 { pV Z '.ti.l [ ,i% • ..Jci� y L` e Y � � `� O ��\ � $- " � '''44^p�tOJ 8 �4.W>•E i ai,�x GIIII• c t `y 9 tee" Xe T z L �£,( ct �.�.-.G .v = H i IJ ^ I ]EL>��'' Iw ��vW ry' 4 „!��-3'Fw•rr� • _j ccx - •c,r< c � T6- Y I S , 'r r . 4 • VC'.:,4'n ',� Acv .f.r I. "'�(�- -:. iJi -ew+ta}�ry, a :a — -_ 4p. o.'; .i- -- ._—•/. _— ` ' '"Pr•hxfs 5,/+Ys; $tom / '{y+,y sO 4--' '`'n ' 1 ♦ IS Ig. r; •'E'�>V:; i �]j• ` Ya ♦ , ;�ry �,•'-� - r n4•�i%.:.:,` Y'' R fy Iy i+ !O ^��477 C b -{'�. Il l YIFhI E `� : ".x.!' Y t L t 1 3 M1 }IQp a TF' r K T -� g25 VFW£ n '-INI 6r ..:e+tc' -�•_ .. r••' ,n cy,n T'1 ,} yi a%{ .� ,/.' Y ' _.•,_ 3. �" .n • � ` c JY r__ •Jf ay. 9Jr L[9' .t' !, ^ a - •i F > �•tS<ae. •[ } � 1`i— t P aW.— '. J _ — ' 'y >J ^nl�.O 44 -• G i X \ y.. • N• v O O n v £ 4• \ • ` N o v -"••let... >. :,.: cT.: .•i V�y.- rvi I TA 1 J / I -„.•—ice. h -y +-- ,? 1 I • 1 p 00 00 , � , �._ii- m..,�_ III 1 1 I- $ • Y SJ r _ _ • _____ ins ti, r Ie 1 !lv rvsS i _ � .^.P ":Y`4 C A I mg 88 1 , 1 1 pllrgO O O OIL ij� vl ti —ltxlr--_� . L V',� • - s I l 4 S\ .`!�-E ri.�� '•i11rIf1/14i1�>W i ..'fl In .-�.r.. n l /l T� Pr.. Gi •_s -1 I }f ri • • , Yin _ A �. a � �`' '81g m� : K m I+ .I BR)Ch �'i. '-�-c •.S\'-, a'' 1 f----r\.L-• MLf E _•. +.a..,I „. a 4:r. .alu:. ''`•1 _ ca 77 A . _ 5 ₹ z ml:&i .r. g r al nIc. 1 s Ir 1 cffi:ra'1—J 1 r c r. r -1 y'-VSfu vl i •. - 4 -v+h Is•1 t G r •a: =JIW4— I • 1 '_Byu 1F - / >`> x - .'eM a}•v ' tr` ^WY:4 Yp —♦ p f 1y f ^crvac -V - {{w ^ . S�-0aEcw ra • . f. • �'. 1 C 4_'cV. '� a f OI In + O 1 i p �' E �(S • _ 6 r O p O Er n `V• -\M1'15 Z `h - O _ Y p 1 h_ 3 <•I.b O O -Q0. •,r. _ }y I' i B o 9 r'F 9_- rn �TL' _ 'h a'n:'.J ;•/- v r .•,. G] VYM' .] F . . y i :. r �' ',4'. ]rt T. _ R w�. • � • - }S a -� = • ryo�] f .m �] { • . '.'.�'!1\ le. a'.E a� H .i _ }:r4t!!J' !..• W ~ a r v�nN,k.'J.. E i 2 '+ _'.IC• ib`.a "i0.,' ' >°\Hv'J: r9/ _ Y usP x �r:G�psy�, • pm GO 5 , O <.t.�. ` _♦_tom•_^�-._.� .��. r - • _ Z '�'• a'raD� d W]C'+.1�', 11 1 ! i 2 K4_ i 1 •'"`� 1'? i yy 1 • ' __cam.- • I i Yv V Xv 3 \. ! c �^ • # ..•a. `_'c -4.•i '.Y a u .!'.f. ='Ere£'. i 1� � Lb.11•- iF.ey. .-4l bl.ae /r/CTC- ` 1 Cr Faoyn. r _ . qI r` m v. j r •V `{ � • •Y l ` • • ' 111 • _ I l• I ` ^ '� / ' I.�°iT'CI.G_ r. 1 1 j � �I III �� . + ti r , I is t —M1._ '., a'`' it • 1 LL.�.y �• V. /\ ! .' P-`. SW i I el ' rEsLtj A r .V it 'r'nc, �, f 5 w N �y {�• n o i • ' g I I / A N 41 ; - ¼ 1%) I y � Z � Y • • • x i •.)r O uvc � 2' - ttgp I • E• t . •t i • 1 • ! C \ r ! -:dl---- • -CC I i r. -V{Y LTaff --. rT "�'4u xc r i SEA ' } 1 - _ .w•.f. .r.ar 'i Y II p J 1 [ r a , i i a r,.rr r i� •1 •4. p„v. a I '•�r Il! G ficYcfr ° Q =`-"4K I 3 E i �{ i .---n. {q FJ4 "n'FL I rS S __;______\ :: -mac••—�$.% }-wm•»C. � 1 f-1-� , -R>'-. fl.a •'}t �4�! • •t —•Vr..il 'ir i :^fe:, 4 a 1 •112 n t� ` . I n 'p i I M1 h{ • -zKts • - r.•>'`^l� • r -..•a ( �•pf( jLCA•lJ 2 a •r' S• x j • + �a' e vMi -.'cl • • •'.l: /_. ..•... C t1 • til.•m. .e: y 'f� n'JG } c�� s 1 �}' Q in�r r.• ".y M • XF •C _� a•= • �• j.l. _...yam i r _ i > = _� .may 1y T'L < ` •v( f �—.•f•6 Ra. � r5-��YCiJ.}jQ�•1:�gls � }.� - n Q S a va w. 1 I 't+ r Y : nxz J -ac •S (n i w� ayli r • au. i 1 !� xtz' .. i Q Q ..r.w: I 4. 9c: - ff • i ry + •J'N ta: A C %'S 1 1, Q� 1 'R"'•.�S = i a --a4. Y' i' O 1 F 1 r r ` 44�}[CNQ. i C D' ` • '•w'ra+os '•.. --1` a v .ac:.,3 Q � -',E ��_G c .4n as e� - ?-3 • - r v r`c a i —`.••r>, ♦-,•cwl� (D - A��Ca eM. dJ� _•�J r .� l ix � _ - nav- __ 1•.c�•. —t. y 1t Ctt.h . a . -.u.- I ID / 3 / 1 L4 I � � �IJ /�'7� ••fj•�{ � l � — V ♦ l { r lu, Yc ',e Yb_ r ` (> r_,N V..It °1y, ° ^o Ja l f: 1, .i e •r ..i\` 4s.Y'.wu� ,f l: �j`--�a i J iA�9N z_ T N 4_ac9 S•Y.- 7 •� l ay.. • `rvuC \ 9 �•`^T Va. ` •ar}y.u-.QaM• _ j ate. l .s�rv�'+ty. — all:r. ,°.t .; �i46 •l ly¢ ? • 11 . C �Yv-1'r ♦. Q ) .Jr r 1 i ''. S = I.t .a� f ri /p $ a.�Klr f ux z. �x�o � C•, � � � i S ">41•''4';.} r lr .F 3 •IiG £ �i 1C '_� /�- _ 2' =-rwW 1;••u. •• " > ♦ t 3 x al ry v• L:)4.1 � =N♦ /'�rl ` L vey ` -__ ul:.}]- 1 iYjx]j IJY�YT x V 1 Ia to------------------ i_•_"r4' • a•in.:.�i R x ay 3 t_I aam.' c . >.� xW�lf•� `�, a 1 •t�::i w..: YlW v •'/ i ti _{• uu♦♦/ i 'w t ' S'r _ t•- � R 4.A n�`-rQ-.1 3 , -f l Mwv��.z.-{• \ � �_+� .. _�., f F /, , / 'a1 6 II • L D N c W N vCi a a a c� vci - a w w CD—' E J J J N Cn A C Z3 W — r , r G< V n) r r— 6 2 CJ fl: J. J ❑l CC (D J — Cr J J (D J — '-• n_ :n 0 ( ,gyp^ /n CD TI V CD Y ` •b - _•*, z � iz. .t D f —•r•IAT • •c -T- Is 1k 1 I 1 Li [HL-1. 1$♦_fja 'aY P-r.=Q. �� 'tS �Iry. <' � � mIP m_ s' � � n 1 • 4' V) • • • 3J II ie • I M • • I W: —GYM �prFr q f^ I r l InH1 ' m m \1 r ��` M> \ fy •. SD 7T- ism 1� 6 _ E u ii1 - IY L_ }g L r ({ k r rg 'PEEP' / -iR,c E A uhh C 1 . ��2 l 1 W_V` �S � R � � I j.. L I u F n • - `-ryS\r � �\ 3t� "B' 1:"l't; SS v N I[ ] +.e —��uU • •7 • -. TEH 2 ' R; P'-i� ....•' f IJ I D _ _�h. >/"•-r" g l '�,�pp1�-gIC'L4 4 9 /`I}...•.,l V"Rv• '. • "i h� 4 r! H .�. y'`•"'A 4. (t5 ) I ..rQ `o T l V w�' r �- c :�I JlIr .e7 ��' •XI C�'Y.X'.�_� [ 'c�c CI L £Lr ≥T • S.). S r n f. ", _.5 ".YEuS•• z./ 'a: alz`'f, [c —c„Er I5—h.11.r�-r F�_w y_X 5 p < ��A?t}p _ 1 [u e4 n ( �1 CV•, vc`b� - •r To 5� ' 14 I'4tlA� s •ca •t I. 4 a , a r IY"` ^ r'4 ` -5.x,•1!_ 1� �" • _ D ;Lrn� '� e'�f�-�::cf V— - .o- '�MF- 4 !" f s f A f1I `F 4 —1-M S :. I ��if:�'! -iiraf v - ' ly I Vi 11 1'l• �-1 - F i C 2 ` _ . E49`�.�r�+J1-.-,._..,'.. •!1j1 IFS, �.`. ^')e .c • I• ! �`•/��'�""�_'ti�-�••rm�_� -• , C• 2• .>' t.i <.;Y .a'jK� < wC �` ♦%. i G'14 u• {^'�'l".T'....:.91'.Vtrb/plf�:S ' �.' ' , K i I�_•n•5�.'•r--__Fwa"r C/r'.�.F > - �Ll• .il w •'•��:1c. ti • s , --i; "tJ!;R'e v^ <rr,I /'•; F e J m J • i t -•r, i £`Gu%'i • �9., • Y i> ' - i / 2 _ __ • L� - C'4: 1Y`- _ . 7 ^J'I - y' 'a E:y"Ji •� • L. `♦ r j r.+ ` 1 _ }} • cc a r Y ;z ^, CDD G � (/I m SU S11 fti L-r'�. o er. h £ 7 r CD •_ { •i G4�e'4 ri / to ? J r �//U�✓3 U3 L _ /� 1• `• �• l_ m - m - - ,_ _ 1 11. , -• . I - . I ?'I I - - r i I 1 n I t. "4 rte'. e' I y - (Cn - r N ,= N �r r w r w K m 7n o V) m N a E I 7P = i z LC_I(Lc i _' __ 2 nV d'r2a ! YR: R3E �>Ii e ' • -• - LG: • (•� i>C'$Y} r X.. ce+��J I Th �.•.' L - If •rte- • n• `_ "' n .� <ry-Vi.�.n-y M>l.• m •I tO ti S I I a •' 3 � C II ruA Y n a .. £ f. S f n 1 Y> i 1 f F4$\ `gN 4uFeC C` e I. ^N 0. i CQOGPv fL • .... ' r I ? ` Ru(•- I4 fl' -vw • Mxiytb_-'rE4 _ ' - - _fF-ss a- RY"t''S' tMOImC " l- 5 - I • � / � • � � Y iy T 3 , ll _ 7 1 •-_mot - ur_• eYfi}•rs \ -cam'-f •r�_�'�—'j / - Pv .+ I Ii C"'L' IS c \ S ♦ l,_\ - j f f. It .CND-. • 1/ C I 5— 4Y i• —_ � .. C4 -� IALviY �e'��' 3 1= rzq io i-- ,.. LT� <L£ I Ci &eTJ+ 1 �� l♦ 'v. y 'i -A_ T � 1J- f S 17�E�.�_ �.�`'_Jy,.1 �ti.r j . •Lri '•:•rYAS.e�—Y1.y 1 �\ �f 'yrF J { 1 . n{{I>.—J c q _ ti iii � •.a I ca' - f � '161jc` : � '•`p.R. ; kM1kx�.IGt £ �•L a - 9•T� � _. -��--—`i��-•�•�`�` . _ � _ —`r1 P4a•e_-ai.ri-. a ly Ir --�.� if .-._ m.. 4 Li I -n- / • :'— t+•C' ! . :s�_ •—s, - i 1 rD/'".••�i �' F t —4x ! 1,f a +t'tAC,_T� Yf'I^•ry-�(' �+�•A I> 1�. �_�' a�>Ef _— � �c�^••a.� C �� „d �� [�a.•�r>� if. I� �Y Ci v c -- - _ E/ij s _... �1,•I.'^9J r�wne6u. -''�� r• � I rw'y":G1j •�' Sj 11 --WI \ � �— 1 t 1 2 Qp�,.L Y 4 t •'E '�.-^ ' >_ jam' i • E:n 7-,{, ij _ q. J , - II '' 'e t� s •L-- Tijp_7-.aa:,': 'r m cl • :a 3 ` - 1n r -t'- -•4 q L • � 4 :n� � e 2<n.` -ID 1 i g >r 1 nc- � �� y_ / ( •J f J - IR 2 ?� ♦ _� � S 'T -!4L. � "^r f••'crrv— ,�� }B S� Fr vr:.., a _ 1 :>!ie -avVf �CV'Nf_� / •1 •1 2 • I- i 1 • 1 e. r I > 3 " -J _ --;i f 5 f 7 } 4.t'f� 1 •{1.'E tit • S~ Is•} 1 g ��y i nJ / la 9.LDI_St. wf-K£ -� -Yn'a(.e�� • $ l }� - /x�.-iGGc 1 a� }{{' n~�}( c jP S hI�)<F•'2�xThL^SCl ' F OV `^!__�~eIE'M:..f-1 �'4 C'C-J.s�:. Ill. ^Tca 1'.C �• `!6 ~ I( / .iiYnr ` C g .4__- \ -'W'- n• �\ i �,r —%\.S�n ..11..•K ••-"I :Fv L -. aLd(\ ..': •' O N / }v'c'.w; -V3f. .� c i"5�'4 r_ \gyp �''� P s'ra"pL \'o 4 .__`z'-. .sec::-- s:a.� .�,� - C` t•�<� ra :2k �,s. = e>. .� m C I_��. r.`.\r-\.E2'E `wi'I- 1[ • Z •li S MFg y S vf4fs'y ' / •c —ic�`r �i••a'�A .2 s' � � �� . -_— (5�e0 O L "- n�.�. �c•E::�' • _Vr „{{ •Il t L -2P �.3 _I r`.S43 -vl_ YJ ~�_.' Y d' v_. �� • \ / I v 1 i 4 ) '.P.c Eno .Yi[:1 r I-.i'A .Y y sn> �+ b 3• ]j •iJ ,• I. X C•z>.. 0!G [.9 '>'.e"C'J CM 9vC '7 ('• ` . >� go ":.[. O I. '! v 11{ 4 , a�nr _ [_ b i p.nf13- a a 1 ':•'g - ----- f ..,.li/ • ~ - • -D..d4 '. _C �. <P ..•+F.Mb _ - . I Ci(t' of Figeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 4 - lmplementatiotr • 4. IMPLEMENTATION Key Findings: • The total estimated cost for 9 short range priority road projects is $45 million (in 2003 dollars). • The total estimated cost for 16 short range priority intersection projects is $21 million (in 2003 dollars). • The total estimated cost for 36 long range projects is $155 million (in 2003 dollars). • Implementation of the short term traffic congestion relief projects would reduce existing total vehicle delay by 104,000 vehicle hours annually. • Implementation of the long term traffic congestion relief projects would reduce future total vehicle delay by 588,000 vehicle hours annually. • Capital improvement needs must be prioritized to select those projects that give the greatest return for the dollars expended. • Projects not geared to congestion relief should be allocated funding based on policy decisions for multi -modal improvements, neighborhood preservation, development of priority growth areas, or other non -quantifiable factors. • INTRODUCTION This study has identified a number of improvement strategies to foster opportunities for transportation mode choice within the City, as well as recommendations for traffic operations improvements. While some of the improvements should be implemented in the near future, others may not be needed for many years. One of the purposes of this study is to identify the probable construction cost for each project and to prioritize improvements based on the benefit, cost, and necessity of the projects. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION The traffic analysis section of the study identified traffic improvement projects based on traffic congestion relief, intersection geometry, system continuity, and provision of roadway infrastructure for Priority Growth Areas. The improvements have been further identified as short range priority road projects, short range priority intersection projects, or long range projects. A summary of those improvements have been provide in Table 4-I. Table 4-2, and Table 4-3. SPECIAL STUDY PROJECTS In addition to the major street intersections and major street segments that were studied. City staff designated five locations to be studied based on other concerns, such as intersection geometry, future development impacts. or unconventional traffic circulation. Bucher, Willis & RarlifCoaporation 48 M F'nJ R. on Eoc City of Fat'eneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 4 — Implementation . College and Rock Rock, a local street, intersects College at the location where Archibald Yell, Business 71 Highway, diverts from College. This has created an intersection with five approaches. Furthermore, the Business 71 Highway is curved at this intersection, contributing to restricted intersection sight distance. Rock to the cast of College provides a shortcut via Huntsville Road to Highway 16 to the cast. City staff has expressed a concern that the intersection has experienced a substantial accident experience. Considering the intersection geometry, sight distance and accident experience, several alternatives involving traffic restrictions could be considered at this intersection. The first alternative is the least restrictive and has the lowest implementation cost. That would be to restrict left turns with signing for traffic northbound on College, westbound on Rock, and eastbound on Rock. Accident experience following the implementation of this alternative should be monitored for a minimum of six months to evaluate its effectiveness. Should the first alternative fail to produce the desired accident reduction, a second and more restrictive alternative could be employed. That alternative would be to physically close the connection between College south of the intersection and College north of the intersection. College south of the intersection would be realigned to connect with Rock east of the intersection. Rock west of the intersection would be posted one way westbound, away from the intersection. Two new blocks of Mill Avenue would he constructed to provide access between College north of the intersection, and the Huntsville Road connection to east Highway 16. Figure 4-I depicts these physical improvements. • Mi. Comfort and Garland This intersection was studied because of the severe angle of intersection of both streets with the major street system. The improvement recommendations call for realigning Mt. Comfort to intersect Garland at nearly a right angle. This would improve the intersection sight distance for the Mt. Comfort traffic. The diagonal portion of Mt. Comfort cutting across the northeast corner of the North and Garland intersection would be closed. It is recommended that the City retain ownership of the right of way, in that this segment of Mt. Comfort may coincide with a portion of the "Trail of Tears" and may have historical interest in association with the regional trail system. Figure 4.2 depicts the recommended improvements. Shiloh, Deane Solomon, and Mt. Comfort The immediate proximity of four intersections within a very short distance along a horizontal curve in the roadway was the basis for the study of this intersection. The intersections of Deane Solomon. Shiloh south of the intersection, Shiloh north of the intersection, and the 1-540 southbound ramps along a sharp curve in the Mt. Comfort alignment has been a source of concern to a number of residents in the area. Furthennore. in as much as traffic volumes are expected to increase through the interchange, there is some urgency in securing adequate right of way to provide for future reconfiguration of the intersection area. Two alternatives have been identified that would address future traffic needs, as depicted in Figures 4-3 and 4-4. One alternative provides three right angle intersections, separated by a minimum of 400 feet. The other alternative provides for a five approach roundabout separated from the 1-540 ramps by about 400 feet. Either option would provide for improvement in traffic operations and safety, and both options would be in the same order of magnitude of cost. • Bucher, Willis & RatliffCorporation 49 M VOW.Jy9da'R000) OJ Finel Repan dm tf C 2 ! ! L I at J . • V • ' � I T'fl.U'f:jL- ,tJJ1 ttt1 r f• .rR } r " • 7 I4tirrr- i ,rr,rsr- k :* \ • I 'Fun Itt •o r _a . v t�'� I. A r . f 1 S i ..•. w .• ,1 ��I ,/ 1 4AI2 - I it t • 1 ♦. ` 1 f ' • t.. !-.LAY. • • Pd t-" - ' A tagt • a±a.an'fr. -- •J S : - .. .'.• -. 11r : s - •lIU••gb: I - s )__ t jiSi'itE __ is - •1 y • Il i - ; , ' y .ice. .•j.- __ . Ct i C r t Ct ti F • • 'J C C :r -s -s r; 7 •.4/ /.lt ...../, 1 Y' ii ic /' Y i • / r. T rJ- s C n rr Z z 0 : Qom' ' S / I , 1- - •-----KKKR Y • `1 \, ST I 1 r ' / n G-� 1 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 4 - hnplenrentation • 6'"and 1-540 The 6'" Street and 1-540 interchange is one of the most congested locations in the City. Because the relief of traffic congestion at this location involves an entire system of streets and highways, rather than just several single spot improvements, the City staff requested that this location be considered in the broader terms of the several intersections in the area, rather than just the two signalized ramps. The primary reason for the interchange traffic congestion is the limitation of physical space between the two interchange ramps in which to store turning vehicles. While the conversion several years ago of the frontage roads (Shiloh and Futrall) to one way traffic allowed the 1-540 ramp traffic to merge with the frontage road traffic, thus simplifying the traffic signal operation and improving the traffic flow efficiency, these improvements will be insufficient in the long run to accommodate both the frontage road and interchange traffic. Reconfiguration of the interchange to a single point would reduce the number of traffic signals at the interchange to one, and would eliminate the need for storage between the northbound and south bound ramps. This configuration would require the relocation of Shiloh to the west to a location along the east side of Wal-mart, and the relocation of Futrall cast to Hollywood. Both frontage roads could again become two way, if that is desired by the City. It may be possible that these improvements can be constructed without replacement of the 1-540 bridges, although a more detailed feasibility study should he completed to make that determination. Ultimately, 6'" Street will need to provide 3 through lanes in each direction, at which time it is probable that the 1-540 bridges would need to be replaced. Figure 4-5 depicts the ultimate interchange improvement concept. • College and Joyce Currently, northbound traffic on Business 71 (College) has no direct route back to 1-540. Traffic is directed onto a northbound ramp which intersects Joyce about 250 feet cast of the signalized intersection of Joyce and College, with the expectation that this traffic will make a left turn from this stop controlled intersection onto westbound Joyce, and from there a left turn back onto southbound College which has access back to 1-540. This means of routing northbound Business 71 traffic hack to 1-540 has proved unsatisfactory and has been a traffic safety concern to the City. Six alternatives have been identified here for City consideration. Figure 4-6 depicts the five alternative routings. Alternative I involves widening the southbound departure lanes from the intersection of College and Joyce to accommodate northbound U-turns. This would include the prohibiting eastbound right turns on red, and providing southbound lane widening of up to an additional 40 feet to accommodate truck U-turns. This routing, while awkward, is perhaps the most direct connection to sign for northbound Business 71 traffic bound to 1-540. Alternative 2 involves directing 1-540 bound traffic onto northbound Front Street. The intersection of Front Street with Joyce would need to signalized, and would need advance eastbound flashers on Joyce warning of the signal phasing status, since sight distance of the intersection for eastbound Joyce traffic is severely limited. This alternative should only be considered after additional study has verified that the signal system can be safely implemented. Alternative 3 involves signing northbound Business 71 to 1-540 traffic to use Millsap, west to Garland. and back cast to the Shiloh and Fulbright Expressway interchange. C Bucher, Willis & RadiiCo/poration ,54 N �!001.)!ghrW ryon�iP950) f,lui R,ppn Eoc ® • M r \ lJ .JI S l Q\ 7 - ` I2IJ _r —f.* r r x7Nf3 a,v, 1, i-�,I • 1 p 1 $C h ' : • �_— � . - \ / �?•.,r � 1 f�1~,ASLW WI dS..^\J�O ♦ ii TS[' �a ' li ' � 06 \ � J V 4 VI' I:.ti- 1 �4,}f' 'a\j \ sus i 1♦ /. afC'` � {.�1 \ J'•l"iV�� J 1. _ (f / v •I l} Qr o o OO'oo�n�:-yo-. i I1� - ., 11 . 4l JJJILUUIC: F�t ,7_ • `If/1V.. I -J+Titl .�.,.ii `�', ♦31 r .�i .'� �_ � ." hM 1 ` p.�v' ',. ♦'.1 .1}� 11. t a tl 1 �� .1 `, ih.: • •y�pli�r� /, { r/_'v-��•.P OrY. ,11 �ii�Q l�dl. /��. 1,�� •J. Y '] Y1yS• f f .rah\T^♦SYf� p. }, jjpp�I •. r .. y�.� 't� Y 1 � !•IJ Rlr�'^716Tr5' ' \ 1 \ F / ,J' �l Jtie-�f t1`f� \\ i�ty� F,h, �y+�..ft✓i1� \��1� r 'l / • ♦yyyyyy S • �j I c / \) 1M1 %_tn IfiT i � q _ I� 7 ,1 1 .�y2,\ - Jf ✓ ! It. � i 01 !tea( �. \ e .tI II r f • �. .mil % !' -1 •M \ 1. IfN .ff ,-';7 fn p�4 � =� l i Q' J I. � 5 'ice_11 ai:d �.• 1 \ -` _ c/1\.'u `�111D_yy �t. y� •. o I(1 /�/ ,� _` �J./// ,� � --` ti I,.jt � �-� ��' \ \_d. .'. ``!ILLl\'A♦�� S `...�\��'Y I.� I 'I�I� � .. !' '\\\ �\``�, QcT,.y_ 1�_j Y •• ,1111 .v ,` Iq a�i y,.♦ } OO .. I � Y 7 •- nom' � Y9 i♦ t ♦ ♦fit • 1 1 ° ,Y. 11 1"\ `mil t / -1F Ll t, 1•' .:p ice' cif >>�fi` i' w•Ii •a_ �, • .I.1F L�J T" _--,Tl\ � ' � tea.. Ji&- L>K ., yr . L i e I; -- / 3J 'J ♦ C } e I .♦ �•Ir � i 1 1 4�(.♦ �.'.\ / "Y')-� "'• it �y \ 1 � � jJ "aIY ,}. i ♦�tCll ,Yf Y\" •\\T Y j� r).AJIa`YO ry`lr _ 7�T•'4'>i:• en"; . .4 (j,^ TJa$- `•• - t^' IY �'1 •� T . - 1Il,,, I'Y, -- 1 �� 1' ;- --. c - -' `- 'VI`�,a.-?�...'_�'uJ •i )E "S�,; ne` �_.U-1'�.i. �. 17r 1]-!�_ x,J rt' C it v - IL!• � �{ ` �1 C l l e Z !4-INOODEC HOLLOW Iti '�O'O`sJSDE -I 1 1 11 1, '7. CRiS HOLCCTN cn —PRvar Z L01 N 'O ♦ i:7 IC � '--NrctiLilRF—'T C C /' i r `' 1 (Si a W N PRVATE P€ZIL'tlT€--�q f< � J , r-- 3T Gv R $ 1rd�r•'p' c-= C i - A?k iy� o �a—NORTr'00] iy IT ✓ K' �t —Rq yULiACi }y r i %•II4QBLR� E I TAI --co �-x5,� >�. �, rn _ 'VAITJEI� n �'p• '. Cl) }ri � j —. Jr l T j r5LL — .-- I c _ _ X17 ——--tiULL___r I �•, N ✓ F 91 2 7- 'AARTIf' _� E alrlJ RC?.^lRO,ryE ___ SHER�'�'I -;BABEL - �•, D - � ,'t 1 qr TE 15 r ! O 6F1f AfdTACE ny1rANPAGe F r •--.�Yr CG'XtE` �p i.;,. �;�y� .—--hdEL 017'�^.-(A,, Li>)1 02 FOxn2I I xi p; m ' 2 : C Ran. ��PI�Y'iiei✓ r. 1 �i %, fTv�.- R�/f5G T 1 f ti 1 1 A V Y 4 1 -J 1,� R. NC NC Cite of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studs' Chapter 4 - Implementation • Alternative 4 involves signing northbound Business 71 to 1-540 traffic to use Joyce west to Steele, and south to the Shiloh and Fulbright Expressway interchange. Alternative 5 involves the construction of a northbound flyover between northbound College and the westbound Fulbright Expressway. Alternative 6 involves signalizing southbound College about 1000 feet south of Joyce to allow northbound U-turns back onto the Fulbright Expressway. Figure 4-7 depicts this recommended alternative. PROJECT COSTS The preparation of reasonable opinions of probable construction costs is foundational to a sound capital improvement program. To plan for financing of future projects, the City must first have an idea of what these projects may cost. The development of cost estimates is generally based on a determination of construction quantities, such as the length of curb, the area of pavement, the number of storm inlets, etc. that will be required for a particular street project, multiplied by unit construction costs established from recent construction bids. An accurate determination of quantities for a project presupposes that the existing conditions are well established and documented, and that the proposed improvements have been thought out in some detail. Both of these presuppositions are beyond the scope of this study. However. assumptions can be made which will place the opinion of probable construction cost • for a project in the right order of magnitude. Some of the quantities can be defined within a reasonable margin of accuracy through identification of the general extent of the project, such as length of the project and the number of lanes. Quantities such as pavement area and curb length can be generally determined in this manner. Other construction items such as drainage improvements and street lighting, while not strictly tied to length of the project, nevertheless correlate with length. Still other construction items will comprise a typical percentage of the overall construction cost, such as traffic control or construction staking. The uncertainties of the quantities that may be encountered on a project can be compensated for by adding a contingency factor. In addition, contingency factors are appropriate to cover engineering and administrative costs. The most difficult project cost to quantify at a pre -conceptual stage of project developments, such as included in this study, is determination of probable right of way costs. Because the actual use of property can have substantial impact on its value, accurate right of way costs can vary significantly from property to property. For the purposes of this study. the initial right of way costs have been based on actual right of way costs for roadway improvements completed in the Fayetteville metropolitan area. Tables 4-I, 4-2. and 4-3 provide a summary of the traffic improvement project costs based on the above stated assumptions for the year 2003. Details of the opinion of cost for each project have been included in the technical appendix. It should be recognized that as project implementation is deferred to future years, construction and right of way costs will escalate. The longer the deferment is, the greater the opportunity for changes in cost. Therefore, the initial cost opinions presented in this report should be reviewed and updated each time the capital improvement plan is updated. Inflation factors should be applied to the 2003 costs corresponding to the expected implementation year for each project. • Busher, Willis & RatlifCorporation SA %I x:001 )!>�Eo['R6o^\I W1Ol fin.l Ke lrc Ciry of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Chapter 4 - Iniplenientation • Table 4-1 Top 9 Priority Road Projects Rank .. Project Description. - - Project Cost 1 Gregg, Township to Joyce, 5 Lanes plus trails $6.376,000 2 Crossover, Mission to City limits, 5 lanes plus trails $15,428,000 3 Razorback, 15th to Garland, 5 lanes plus trail $8.680,000 4 Township, Gregg to College, minor arterial $2,156,000 S Mt Comfort, Deane Solomon to Rupple, minor arterial $4,588,000 6 Rupple, Wellington to Mt. Comfort, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) $3,644,000 7 Shiloh and Fullbright, auxiliary lane $400,000 8 van Asche, Steele to Gregg, principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) $2.380,000 9 Arkansas. Maple to Leverett, collector $1,376,000 Table 4-2 Top 15 Priority Intersection Projects Rank, • Project Desription _, _ Project .Cost 1 Gregg and North, auxiliary lanes $431,000 2 Old Wire and Mission, signal or roundabout $221,000 3 Huntsville and Happy Ho(low, signal $22 1,000 • 4 Maple and Mission, signal $221,000 5 College and Longview, auxiliary lane $296,000 6 College and Millsap, auxiliary lane $296.000 7 Old Wire and Old Missouri, roundabout $324,000 8 Razorback and 6th, auxiliary lanes $2.589.000 9 Rupple and Wellington signal $221,000 10 West and Maple Signal $221,000 II Crossover and Joyce, auxiliary Lanes $1,997,000 12 Garland and Sycamore. auxiliary lane $296,000 13 Gregg and Poplar, signal $221,000 14 Rock & College, intersection and local street $1,447,000 15 6th and 1-540 Interchange Reconstruction $12,076,000 16 College to Fulibrlght Signalized U-turn $400,000 • Bucher, Willis & RathjJCorporation 59 M V W: JSO,aoPAgwn'l0O5d1 imtl Ripon doe Clip of Faveueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studs' Chapter 4 - Implementation • Table 4-3 Long Range Projects Project Description '. ' - - Project Cost. 15th and Morningside Signal $221,000 6th, Finger to School, 6 lanes $10,993,000 Appleby to Rolling Hills ext., collector $688,000 Business 71 Flyover $12,000,000 Cato Springs, Razorback to Morningside, collector $6,880,000 College and Dickson, auxiliary lanes $578,000 College and Harold Signal $221,000 College and Lafayette, auxiliary lane $261,000 College and Longview Signal $221,000 College and Poplar Signal $221,000 Crossover and Cliffslde Signal $221,000 Deane Solomon, Mt. Comfort to Howard Nickell, minor artenal $8,258,000 Garland and Deane Signal $221,000 Garland, North to Truckers Drive, 5 lanes plus trails $12,012,000 Gregg and Drake Signal and Extension, minor artenal $701,000 Huntsville, School to Paradise Lane, principal artenal r/w (41anes construction) $26,712,000 Joyce and Front Signal $221,000 Joyce and Mall, intersection $385,000 Maple and Leverett, auxiliary lane $127,000 Mission, North to Crossover, principal arterial r/w (4 lanes construction) $11,153,000 Mount Comfort and Deane Solomon, intersection $3,854,000 Mount Comfort and Garland, intersection $200,000 North, Gregg to Mission, principal arterial r/w (4 lanes construction) $7,495,000 Old Missouri and Rolling Hills signal $221,000 Persimmon, Rupple to Shiloh, minor artenal $3,670,000 Rupple, 6th to Persimmon, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) $5,830,000 Rupple, Mt. Comfort to Howard Nickell, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) $6,559,000 School and Willoughby Signal $221,000 Shiloh, Mt. Comfort to Wedington, collector $1,720,000 Township, Garland to Gregg, minor arterial $4,588,000 Van Asche/Howard Nickell, Garland to Rupple, principal arterial r/w (2 lane construction) $6,559,000 Van Asche, Gregg to Garland, principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) $5,949,000 Wedington and Shiloh, auxiliary lane $146,000 Wedington, west to Double Springs Rd, principal arterial r/w (4 lane construction) $7,734,000 Zion and Old Missouri Roundabout $324,000 Zion Rd, College to Crossover, minor arterial $7,341,000 xl V(q:.J'Pdot'Agvn'.IPe5-0J rirvl Rrpwi Eoc Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation 60 Cirp of Fapeneviiie. Arkatt.sas Traffic and Tratr.spormlion Stu;' Chapter 4 — Implementation • PRIORITIZATION The study has provided a slate of recommended traffic improvements and multi -modal strategies to enhance transportation in the City over the next twenty years. The total cost of these recommendations is such that the improvements will need to he implemented throughout the full twenty years, as funding will allow. Therefore, the improvements must be prioritized so as to implement the most critical recommendations first, with less pressing improvements following later. The comparison of recommended alternatives can not be made on an equal basis, since some improvements are geared toward relief of traffic congestion. other improvements are based on developing infrastructure in Priority Growth Areas, and still others are policy oriented, such as protection of neighborhoods from traffic impacts or the provision of multi -modal transportation enhancements. These non -traffic oriented improvements should be budgeted based on a policy decision of the emphasis that the community desires to place on non -auto oriented improvements. These initiatives would include funding of: ❑ Traffic calming ❑ Transit improvements o Trails ❑ Sidewalks It is recommended that a minimum of 15% of the total capital improvement budget be directed towards these four transportation improvement categories, and that the other 85% be directed • towards traffic improvements. The basis for prioritization of traffic improvements should consider the following factors: ❑ Cost ❑ Reduction in vehicle delay ❑ Benefit/cost ratio ❑ Designation as a short range or long range improvement The development of the prioritized short range projects in Tables 4-I and 4-2 were based on consideration of the prioritization factors. The short range priority projects have been ordered in the tables based on the recommended priority for implementation. The comparison of benefit and cost was developed through amortizing the cost of a twenty life of the improvement project at 5 percent, compared to the benefit of vehicle delay reduction valued at $10.42 per hour per vehicle, which includes the value of time and fuel consumption. While the determination of the value of delay reduction may be subject to numerous debates, this value does serve as a point of equal comparison for all delay reduction projects in the City. The benefits of the short range projects were developed based on existing traffic delay reduction, and the benefits of the long range projects were developed based on the 2023 traffic delay reduction. While these delay reduction factors may not yield a true comparison of benefit to cost, they serve to indicate priorities within the groupings of short range projects, and long range projects. • Bucher. Willis S RatlifCorporation 61 MI 22.J1 cRoflIQ.O.O3 Emil Rwon Gu (lit' of Fupelleville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 4 - Implementation • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The current capital improvement plan for the City provides approximately $2,400,000 in expenditures on an annual basis. The total estimated cost of the capital improvements needed in the next ten years is approximately $66 million. An additional $155 million will be needed in the subsequent ten years. Both these numbers far exceed the reasonable expectations for funding of street improvements, and exemplify the need for the City to be very selective in its selection of capital improvement projects. Projects should be selected which will give the greatest return for the dollars expended. The City will also need to explore other sources of funding. The costs of the improvement projects as identified and prioritized for the next twenty years have been estimated in 2003 dollars. It should be understood that as projects are assigned to specific construction years. the base costs should be factored up to account for inflation. Over 20 years, the current cost estimates could inflate by more than 250 percent. As the inflation rate changes, it is recommended that this value be adjusted with each update of the capital improvement plan to reflect the current inflation rate. • • Bucher, Willis & Rail ffCorporation 62 M V(O1.l�>duVtepn\IPOS-0) Fin.' Repot 6u Arkansas Traffic and Trans Chapter 5 - • 5• MULTI -MODAL PLAN Key Findings: This chapter of the report describes the multi -modal plan for the City of Fayetteville. The purpose of the multi -modal plan is to provide an assessment of existing conditions with respect to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements, and to provide strategies for the enhancement of each mode. Below are some of the recommended mode specific action plans: The specific action plan for transit enhancement includes: • Construct five park and ride lots at key outlying locations along bus routes to interface automobile traffic with transit, and with the trail system. • Install transit shelters and bike racks at ten key locations to interface transit with bicycle routes, park and ride lots, and major generators including the university, downtown, shopping centers, and hospitals. • Conduct a user preference survey and an existing transportation service provider survey to identify those transit service improvements in greatest demand by the community. The action plan for bicycle oriented improvements includes: • Construct priority segments of of road trails and on -street linkages that would link • existing trails, the university, the mall, other generators, and multimodal nodes such as park and ride lots, transit transfer sites, and Drake Field. • Provide bike racks at major generators. • Design and expand streets to meet Master Street Plan standards which include bicycle lanes and trails. The action plan for pedestrian oriented improvements includes: • Complete the missing links in the priority sidewalk system providing for child safety, i.e., access to schools, which will not otherwise be provided for through major street improvements. • Enhance pedestrian crossings with pavement treatments designed to add visibility to crossing locations. • Enhance signalized pedestrian crossings with signal upgrades designed to improve the safety and convenience of pedestrians. • Design and expand streets to meet Master Street Plan standards which include sidewalks and trails. Recommended multi -modal transportation policies include: • The City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas will endeavor to cooperate with respect to all means of transportation and land development initiatives of common interest. • The City will seek to support and sponsor educational programs which encourage the use • of alternative methods of transportation. M V002-35?doc'Aepon'to05.O3 Fir Repon dac Bucher. Willis & RatliffCorporation 63 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter S - Multi -Modal Plan • • City staff shalt conduct site plan reviews with an emphasis on walkability, and bicycle and transit accessibility. • Include multi -modal improvements in the City Capital Improvement Program. • Construct traffic improvements with a multi -modal emphasis as a part of each project, where possible. • Allow and encourage land use densities and developments that provide for a multi -modal orientation. • Install alternative transportation improvements at major generators from a multi -modal perspective. INTRODUCTION As expressed through the initial study interactive workshop, citizens of Fayetteville have a desire to move about within the community through other means of transportation besides automobiles only. These other modes of transportation are: o Transit n Rirvrlinn ,nil I • At the initial study interactive workshop, the following Key Qualities of Expanded Mobility were presented: ❑ Balanced car travel and transit strategies through compact and mixed -use development ❑ Connected systems to form large networks with multiple choices of routes and modes ❑ Transportation/Land-use connection such as minimum density requirements ❑ Reduced parking impacts by using shared and on -street parking ❑ Balanced costs/benefits in investment decision ❑ Investment priorities M 12002.359 & %R. %IP05A1 Fuel Report 00c Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 64 Arkansas Traffic and from 6:00 holidays. Plan • The purpose of this multi -modal plan is to provide an assessment of existing conditions with respect to each of the alternative transportation modes, and to provide recommendations for the enhancement of each mode. The assessment and recommendations incorporate the themes listed in the Key Qualities of Expanded Mobility above. EXISTING TRANSIT Currently, both a university and a regional transit syste University of Arkansas (UARK) operates Razorback Transit with eight regular fixed routes, as well as para- transit service. Para -transit service is a comparable transportation service required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed -route transportation systems. The fixed routes serve key locations on campus and major destinations and student living areas off campus. Several routes serve to shuttle students and employees from parking lots on campus. A key feature of the Razorback Transit system is the Garland Transfer Facility located in the center of campus along Garland Avenue. All eight bus routes converge at the facility. The facility provides indoor shelter and seating in a temperature controlled environment. Many of the other Razorback Transit bus stops are also equipped with r shelters and/or benches. Each Razorback Transit route is color -coded (e.g. tan route) and all routes are signed for case of route and stop recognition. The existing Razorback Transit routes are shown in Figure 5-I. Razorback Transit buses run from Monday to Friday during the fall and spring semesters. Buses run on reduced schedules and routes during the summer semester. During fall and spring registration and final exam days, only one bus serves each route. Limited - route night service is also available Monday to Thursday p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Bus service is not provided on weekends or on official UARK Razorback Transit buses do not have bike racks mounted on the vehicles. The Pomfret Express fixed route has the most frequent service with a bus every ten minutes between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The red route has a bus every hour between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Other routes have buses every eight to thirty minutes between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. There is no cost to passengers, including non -students riding Razorback Transit buses. Route maps and schedules are available online and at various locations on campus. The other existing transit provider is Ozark Regional Transit which recently began operating two fixed routes from downtown along College Avenue to the regional mall and further north, and in the south part of the City running from downtown and along 6t° Street and 15'° Street. Ozark Regional Transit operated only pars -transit service prior to the new fixed routes, but now provides both. Ozark Regional Transit routes are also shown in Figure 5-1. Distinct route signage has been placed to mark stop locations for the Ozark Regional Transit fixed routes. The signage includes the Ozark Regional Transit information phone number. Information on routes is • available online at www.ozark.org, as well as through the information phone line. In addition, route information and maps are available at several locations along the routes. Regular adult fare Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 65 M V 003159No,Uryw,IPOt-0) Final Rryw Erc City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5— Multi -Modal Plan • is one dollar and seventy-five cents for students and fifty cents for senior or disabled passengers. Transfers are free. A monthly pass can also be purchased for twenty-four dollars, twenty dollars for students or youth, and twelve dollars for senior or disabled passengers. A ten ride ticket is also available for seven dollars and fifty cents. Children under twelve can ride for free. Para - transit service costs one dollar and twenty-five cents. Table 5-I summarizes annual transit rider -ship. Ozark Regional Transit had a 2002 rider -ship of 136,000. This annual rider -ship figure reflects only para-transit service and does not include the fixed routes. Since the opening of fixed route service, the two routes have served approximately 3000 passengers monthly. Ozark Regional Transit buses have just recently been equipped with bike racks. Table 5-1 Razorback Transit Annual Rider -ship Blue 306,453 Red Brown 187,659 Tan Gray 124,198 Van Green 391,248 Night Orange 38,247 Night • All Routes = 1,147,2 • 29,154 61,384 7,006 Fixed 1,872 Van 21 i2 • Pomfret Express fixed route service began in August 2002 - annual figures not yet available. Source: University of Arkansas Transit and Parking July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002 http:/Avww, uark. edu/depts/parking/a/stats.htm The two transit systems interconnect at the Garland Transfer Facility which is served by all eight Razorback Transit routes and by Ozark Regional Transit's Highway 71 — Mall route. Razorback Transit's orange route also crosses paths with both Ozark Regional Transit routes at Hillcrest Towers at the intersection of Center Street and School Avenue. The two transit organizations have a good working relationship and share rider -ship information. Both existing transit providers serve a large part of the community. However, several parts of Fayetteville are not served by regularly scheduled fixed route transit. Figure 5-2 shows areas of the City that are more than one quarter mile from a fixed transit route. The largest area includes neighborhoods east of College Avenue north of 6th Street and south of Joyce Boulevard. There is also no fixed route transit service west of Razorback Road Mu 2.159docacpou'IUU5L1 heel Repot doe Bucher, Willis & RatliffCorporation 66 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5- Multi -Modal Plan • north of 6`" Street and south of Wedington Drive; south of 61h Street and west of Hill Avenue and School Avenue; east of School Ave and south of 15th Street; west of 1-540 except the short spurs just west of 1-540 on Wedington Drive and 6ih Street; and along Huntsville Road east of Happy Hollow Road including Lake Sequoyah. RAIL TRANSIT Rail as a transit option may be considered impractical for local application only. Rail transit in a regional setting may be considered on the basis of sufficient rider -ship to justify the costs. At the initial public interactive planning workshop, BWR presented a display board titled "Mode Choices" which included a description of light rail, commuter rail, and heavy rail. The display showed that most modem light rail systems offer frequent services that rival convenience of car, offer "seamless journey" interchange from/to feeder services and to and from train services, offer level boarding with easy access for everyone, including wheel -chair users, offer Park & Ride so outer commuters need not drive to city centers. Light rail requires substantial capital investment, and demands a corresponding high rider -ship to be justified. Commuter rail is defined as a mode of public transportation that is based on passenger trains operating on railroad tracks and providing regional service. Commuter rail uses rail infrastructure (e.g., Tracks and signal systems) and equipment similar to those in use by mainline freight and intercity passenger railroads. Commuter rail is feasible in large urban or metropolitan areas where such an infrastructure can serve a large suburban or commuting population. Heavy rail refers to traditional high platform subway and elevated rapid transit lines. Heavy rail is operated over rights of way that are completely segregated from other uses, with the track placed in subway • tunnels, on elevated structures, or on fenced surface rights of way, free of grade crossings with roads. Trains consist of anywhere from two to 12 cars, each with its own motors, and drawing power from a third rail (or in some cases from overhead wire). Boarding is from high platforms that are even with the floor level of the car, allowing large numbers of people to enter and leave rapidly. Heavy rail is feasible in very large, densely populated metropolitan areas. Based on current rider -ship information for Fayetteville only, rail transit does not appear to be feasible at this time. However, rail transit in the future may be feasible, if based on a regional collaborative effort. The potential to link communities along the 1-540 corridor via an abandoned railroad corridor may be feasible if borne out by regional demand studies. r1 M '1:- 3S9taepon'I0.a5n) fi.W Report doc Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation 67 T L fr- w a. S. a. ■ ON x - S n m -m 3 H 0 y ° C O C 0 H ft L S . 1. — C CD zrcnCOo n r, A w m s o O-4 - v v a N o o o nn n Arkansas Traffic and 5- Multi -Modal Plan n L_J EXISTING BICYCLING/WALKING In addition to transit service, pedestrian and bicycle travel can be facilitated by the provision of sidewalks and dedicated trails, as well as bicycle lanes and signed bicycle routes within the City. Presently, many streets within Fayetteville have no sidewalks. Sidewalks and greenways linking schools, parks, and residential areas can enhance the mobility choices of all citizens including those who are too young or too old to drive, while providing their own social and recreational benefits. Pedestrian access to transit facilities is essential for all transit users who do not park and ride or are not dropped off by drivers. The number one issue identified by citizens participating in the initial study interactive workshop for this study was the lack of sidewalks throughout much of Fayetteville, as well as the lack of connectivity for the sidewalks that are in place. The State of Arkansas is currently installing ADA standard curb ramps at -- many crosswalks and at bridge crossings along State Routes through the City. Despite these improvements, the lack of a complete sidewalk network could deter many people from walking. Of concern is the absence of a complete sidewalk network to serve the schools in the community. During the course of 2003, the school district completed an inventory of the sidewalk system • within a one mile radius around each school. The inventory identified those segments of the priority system that are already in place, and those segments that have not yet been constructed. Figure 5-3 depicts the inventory results. LJ Fayetteville is home to an avid bicycling community with an existing trail system located al primarily recreation destinations. Figure 5-4 shows existing parks and trails. The system is comprised of 14 miles of trails, including 8.5 miles of soft surfaced trails within City parks. The remaining trails are hard surfaced trails along greenways or within City parks. Existing trails include the Wilson Park'1rail, the Gulley Park Trail, the Lake Fayetteville Trail, the Raven Trail, the East Mud Creek Trail, the Lindsey Trail, the Lake Wilson Trail, and the Finger Park Trail. Also, the newly constructed Joyce Boulevard Trail is complete between Highway 265 and Kitty Creek. Nearly all existing trails are located in city parks. There are currently only the recently completed Joyce Boulevard Trail and a portion of the East Mud Creek Trail outside the park system. SI '21 smrx,yon�ioasa3 F,w nmm me Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation 70 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 - Multi -Modal Plan • The Fayetteville Alternative Transportation & Trail Plan which was recently completed by the City identities over 70 miles of on -street linkages and 180 miles of desired trail/greenway corridors to be considered as proposed trails. Figure 5-5 shows the proposed network of trails within the city as well as an overlay of proposed regional trails as identified by the Northwest Arkansas Heritage Trail Plan. The Northwest Arkansas Trail Plan was formally adopted by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission on October 28, 2002 as Amendment Five to the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. Any local trails tied to the regional trail system become part of the regional trail system and become eligible for funding as part of the regional system. • LJ Ozark Regional Transit recently installed bike racks on their transit vehicles creating the opportunity for bicyclists to ride to a transit stop, take transit to a destination, and then bicycle for the next leg of their trip. Razorback Transit vehicles are not currently equipped with bike racks. Following a recommendation from a 2001 study, the University of Arkansas installed bike racks at about 50 sites, evenly distributed, throughout campus; prior to the time of installation there were no bike racks on campus. The intent was to locate the bike racks at convenient, visible locations close to the entrances of buildings to encourage bicycling by making it as convenient as possible. Most of the racks can accommodate two bikes each, but several can accommodate about five bikes each. The overall campus capacity for bicycles at the newly installed bike racks is approximately 100 to 120 bikes. Bike rack use on campus is quite high with an estimated 400 to 500 bicycles on campus daily, according to one former student and member of the Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks. Over a year and a half ago, the City of Fayetteville passed an ordinance requiring all new developments to install bike racks. This ordinance also applies to all new city buildings. There are currently bike racks at the City Hall and the Town Center. In addition, there are bike racks at several city parks including the Gary Hampton Softball Complex, Gulley Park, and the softball complex at Lake Fayetteville. There are many parks however that do not currently have bike racks. In addition, there are currently no hike racks along transit routes at transit stops or at many other destinations within downtown and at various employment and retail destinations. There are no dedicated bicycle trails on the University of Arkansas campus to prevent conflict with pedestrians or automobiles. Bicyclists are allowed on campus sidewalks and mix with traffic on city streets. Many city streets that might be used by bicyclists allow on -street parking creating a safety issue with the chance of a door opening into the path of a bicyclist. A great deal of bicycling appears to be done by students to the campus, especially with the provision of secure locking facilities by the University. Despite the estimated number of bicyclists, a peer city survey conducted for this study revealed the University of Arkansas as having the lowest percent of students bicycling to campus compared to ten other universities. The low number of bicyclists to the university may be due in part to a well established transit system and the lack of bike racks on campus prior to their recent installation. In addition, despite a favorable climate and an avid bicycling community, little bicycling is done to commute to work. The low number of commuter bicyclists may be due to the lack of a network of bicycle trails connecting residents to employment destinations; the lack of bicycling amenities such as bicycle storage lockers, secure bicycle locking areas, lighting, security cameras, employer -provided bicycles, shower facilities, and/or monetary incentives; and/or the lack of programs such as distribution of bike route maps or promotion campaigns highlighting health, environmental, convenience, and recreation benefits. M M2 )59&cReydl\IP0543 Ftn. Rryw1 d,c Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation 71 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 - Multi -Modal Plan • DESTINATIONS C Primary destinations in the City of Fayetteville include industries, schools, the University, downtown, the regional mall and other shopping centers, hospitals and doctors offices, and city parks and recreational facilities. Destinations are shown in Figure 5-6. Many of these destinations are currently served by either or both Razorback Transit or Ozark Regional Transit. Razorback Transit routes serve the University, several schools, downtown, the regional mall, medical destinations on the north end of the city, and some parks. Ozark Regional Transit serves industries including Tyson Foods, the University, several schools, downtown, the regional mall, other retail establishments along College Avenue, medical destinations along College Avenue and downtown, and some city parks. Many parks and a number of schools are not accessible by transit. In addition, industries northwest oft - 540 and most of the Industrial Park in southeast Fayetteville are not served by either transit provider. High traffic generation destinations should be targeted for development as multi -modal nodes. These locations have the greatest potential for high transit ridership demand. Integration of bike routes, sidewalk, enhanced pedestrian crossings, park and ride, bike racks, and transit shelters and kiosks, transit routes at major trip generation destinations will provide excellent opportunities for multi -modal interface. Key destinations that should be considered as multi -modal nodes are also depicted in Figure 5-6. M l`Wl ls4dx`Rrya,\160S-O F,n& Rtpwt— Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation 72 t:tr TTI71LLL1H 7 - pr� C I Trt=H- 142 n -- a i � i t1 Y• I , \ • • • S 1 1 FNCT77 ,. f0 a, a- -- a- -F l n ti V � 1 Ir ` r1 r A. V T t, - H. - ` ,'i W J I_ �'_� ��l.= ;icec V J rte! e i r i------.-- ( °'- -c-_ '-- ter/ r --- - =LL { I1-�� , n t r N N m II f J J4 1 / 1 I I _ -I 1 / --i\ I I i. 1 II = / , I _ a7 I I _ �r/r_,, ,_ \`'J ii— �:I\�'— t r _r (. �-- r -r`\ .I t1� \�'�if rl�i J .j .i..-L^.. '�'' ✓"- ' ��? / _� \ \ t 1� -1 G`. fl. 111.: ys ',�^ .t .I_ t �1 / � t !'�� \ � i-r^�:_ I --::�� 1 Il i iI: � . _ r.�f 4 tom`♦ ? N r. i ,1\ 1 ,---I I 111 t' �� ?\_:--- - / I r C) v (n N X v V � is n pi7j o i I N m S • • r Cn y u C 1 N_ _ a _ 'it _ - - I r r __ y �_ tI 1 �1- � I 1 ♦ HL±IT "* �t 1 CD N City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Cl. pter 5- Multi -Modal Plan TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES The scope of this Multi -modal Plan did not include evaluating the locations of additional transit stops and alignment of additional transit routes, or of the feasibility of light rail as a transit option. Further initiatives by the City or the regional transit authority could involve a more in-depth data collection effort that assesses potential rider -ship and unmet demand. Recommended approaches to collecting data pertaining to unmet demand include an existing provider survey and a phone administered stated preference survey. Examples of each survey are provided in Appendices A and B. Particular interest should be given to the large residential area east of College Avenue, north of 6th Street and south of Joyce Boulevard that is currently not being served by either transit agency. Priority should be given to higher transportation disadvantaged areas and areas determined to have high unmet demand, employment destinations, and medical destinations. Other areas for evaluation include service to residential and recreational areas. Several transit improvement initiatives are already planned which will enhance transit service in the community. These include: ❑ Razorback Transit is adding a ninth route beginning in fall of 2003. Several of the existing routes will have modified routing with the additional route. ❑ Razorback Transit will also be expanding their night and weekend service. They will have four routes, rather than the one route currently in operation. The new routes will have a longer headway between transit vehicles. ❑ Ozark Regional Transit will be conducting a Comprehensive Operational Analysis in the • winter of 2003 on the feasibility of more fixed routes throughout Benton and Washington Counties. Other strategies that could benefit transit patrons include: Consider purchase of abandoned railroad right-of-way for use as a transit corridor. Consideration has been given to implementing light rail on either an existing rail line or on abandoned railroad right-of-way. Proposed stops include Dickson Street, the University of Arkansas, the Medical Center, and the hospital. As described above, further initiatives are required to assess the feasibility of additional transit routes including light rail. These initiatives should take into consideration the need for increased bus service, such as feeder buses, to provide access to rail transit stations via transit instead of the need to drive to the station by automobile. ❑ Provide more frequent transit service to improve the convenience of transit. ❑ Tie transit system into the city trail system and to the park and ride lot system. r1 LJ ❑ Provide bicycle racks at transit stops and equip buses with bike racks to encourage both bicycling and transit. Also provide information to users either online or via printed brochures on how to load bicycles on the bike racks mounted on the transit vehicles. N V W2.3Sc'00c'Rc qi\IO-0>L5 Ftn& Rcqi doe Bucher, Willis & Raili/jCorporation 77 Arkansas Traffic and S - Multi -Modal Plan Install or implement the following amenities and programs to enhance safety, convenience, and user satisfaction in areas where increased transit use is desired: bus shelters, benches, security cameras, improved lighting and signage, employer -provided 1 may t !_ transit passes or discounts, monetary r incentives, transit route maps, and t; promotion campaigns highlighting economic and environmental benefits. ❑ Initiate a "Try Transit Week." ❑ New major street typical sections as proposed for adoption as part of this study have sufficient width to provide an auxiliary lane or to accommodate a bus pull-out if desired. BICYCLING/WALKING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES Several initiatives are already underway that can help guide the improvement of bicycling and walking conditions in the city. ❑ Organizations such as the Sidewalks and Trails Advisory Committee can be utilized to guide the prioritization of needs and improvements for sidewalks throughout the city. ❑ In summer of 2003, the Fayetteville Public Schools G.I.S. Program mapped all sidewalks • and crosswalks within a mile radius of each school. This data could be used by the city for analysis of existing sidewalk infrastructure and needs. • ❑ Planned trails include the West Mud Creek Trail and the Center Prairie Trail. ❑ Another future project is the construction of the Lake Fayetteville Trail Spillway Bridge. ❑ The City's trail system will also tie into the regional trail system. Proposed regional trails in Fayetteville include the Butterfield Coach Route, the 112 Loop, and several Spur -Secondary Trails and Rural Bicycle Loops. Figure 5-3 also shows Bucher. Willis & Ratlii fCorporation 78 M VOD: J54Wo�`AryonJIPg5-0J fiul Rryv, Eoc City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 — 4fulti-Modal Plan • proposed regional trails. Regional trails arc currently just in the planning stage. The intent of the regional trail system is to identify culturally and historically significant corridors/routes through northwest Arkansas. The routes will initially be promoted as driving routes and eventually may be signed or constructed as on -street or multi -use trails. The identification of regional trails will allow cities to incorporate the regional trail system into local trail plans. Fayetteville will play a key role in the regional trail system by being the central hub for most of the proposed regional trails. a The Fayetteville Alternative Transportation & Trail Plan which was recently completed by the City identifies over 70 miles of on -street linkages and 180 miles of desired trail/greenway corridors to be considered as proposed trails. Other strategies that could enhance pedestrian and bicycle movement within the City include: ❑ Sidewalks throughout the city need to be evaluated to identify missing links, condition and connectivity. Issues to he considered may include: > No existing sidewalk > Existing sidewalk in need of repair > Number of persons sidewalk project will serve > Proposed sidewalk project will enhance system continuity > Proposed sidewalk project will provide more direct access > Proposed sidewalk project will eliminate or mitigate one or multiple barriers or street • crossings > Provides lateral separation from automobile traffic volume > Motor vehicle traffic volume > Sidewalk would provide pedestrian access to schools, churches parks, or other pedestrian oriented uses. o Construction of sidewalks, bicycle, and multipurpose path projects should be programmed into the capital improvement plan for the city. ❑ Designate subareas of the city as pedestrian districts or pedestrian activity centers. These pedestrian districts should be areas surrounding key pedestrian destinations. Prepare plans for each pedestrian district to provide amenities and facilities that enhance walkability within each district. ❑ In construction of new multi -purpose trails, preference should be to provide dedicated right of way for off-street trails. However, in areas where right of way is unavailable a striped bike lane or signed bike route may be acceptable. Arterial streets should be evaluated for safety with consideration for the target user group prior to striping of bike lanes or signing of bike routes. Other streets with lower automobile traffic volumes such as collectors or local streets are often ideal to serve as either a striped bike lane or a signed bike route. Another option is to widen existing sidewalks to provide sufficient space as a multi -use trail. a Consider purchase of abandoned railroad right-of-way for use as a trail corridor. ❑ If a portion of Mt. Comfort Road east of Garland is abandoned, right of way should be retained for a greenway/trail. This route is very likely part of the Trail of Tears and • significant Civil War troop movements. Mvro_ssu w sioosa) Eiw Repon Ax Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 79 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5- Multi -Modal Plan • ❑ An expansion of the City's and University's efforts to encourage bicycle use throughout the city and on campus could include providing other amenities and facilities to encourage additional bicycling on campus such as: dedicated bike trails, public bicycle storage lockers, bicycle racks on Razorback Transit vehicles, lighting, security cameras, employer -provided bicycles, shower facilities, monetary incentives, bike route maps, and promotion campaigns highlighting health, environmental, convenience, and recreation benefits. ❑ Initiate a "Walk Awareness Week" or a "Bike to Work Day." ❑ Coordinate with advocacy groups such as the Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks to promote alternative modes within the city and to gather information on trails and transit use as well as desired improvements. ❑ Continue to use the existing policy requiring new developments to install bicycle racks. Requirements for bike racks should be coordinated with the development of the citywide trail system. In addition, all existing employers and retail areas should be encouraged to install bicycle racks for employees. Consider designating spacing for bike racks to be located every one third mile in employment areas and every one quarter mile in retail areas. As the city trail system expands to serve both residential and employment areas, employees will likely request that racks will be installed for their use. ❑ Ensure that bike racks are provided at public facilities and other community destinations that currently do not have bike racks to encourage the use of alternative mode access to these sites. The city and school district should ensure that all schools and parks are provided with bike racks. Figure 5-7 shows recommended conceptual bike rack • locations. ❑ New major street typical sections as proposed for adoption as part of this study will foster pedestrian and bicycling modes through the incorporation of sidewalk and off-street trail and elements as well as on -street bike lanes. O Employ colored or textured pavement treatments to emphasize pedestrian crossing locations. ❑ Use current technologies to enhance signalized pedestrian crossings. LJ 'I '2®2.3S' cWryun\IU054) Fin& R.cc, da Bucher, Willis & RadifCorporation 80 ft r. F r. Y J _ • s__fr-\ \T / y 1 KI � NCi-0C NX7 m m77 ; O d n � d a 0 o ^ n n c x c `_ � 1 II i+ f41 1ic ✓ A 1 _- CCII City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 - Multi -Modal Plan TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The opposite of high multi -modal use is high single -occupant automobile use. To encourage alternative modes and discourage single occupant automobile use within Fayetteville several policies can be initiated which would assist the City in managing travel demand. According to the peer city survey, the University of Arkansas ranked among the highest of eleven universities for percent of students parking on campus. High single -occupant automobile use is fostered by the lack of viable transit and the presence of good trails and sidewalks. Through enhancements to transit, pedestrian and bicycle systems and through programs and policies that discourage single -occupant automobile use a more desirable mode split can be achieved. Strategies that promote alternative modes including multiple -occupant automobile use and discourage single vehicle occupant automobile travel include: ❑ Identify desired future multi -modal nodes and lay out a framework to reach desired types and levels of multi -modal use. Establishment of multi -modal nodes involves tying the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems together to provide specific locations where transfer from one mode to another can be done conveniently and efficiently. The University of Arkansas Garland Transfer Facility is an existing multi -modal node that demonstrates the success that can be achieved through coordination between the University and both existing transit providers. The Garland Transfer Facility also incorporates walking and bicycle elements through restricted automobile traffic adjacent • to the facility and through the provision of bike racks on -site. Enhancements to the Garland Transfer Facility as a multi -modal node could involve increased emphasis on tying bicycling into the Transfer Facility through provision of bike racks on transit vehicles. ❑ Limit the availability of parking in areas of the city where higher alternative mode use is desired. Limited parking availability can encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of transit. This can be accomplished through a city parking requirement code that encourages provision of less parking. ❑ Establish a parking permit system in areas where higher alternative mode use is desired to discourage automobile use or to discourage access by automobile to a specific destination. a Install parking meters or reduce the allowable parking time at existing meters in areas where higher alternative mode use is desired. ❑ Allow high density residential development at key destination areas such as downtown and near the University of Arkansas to promote maximum land use and transportation system efficiency and to discourage automobile travel by providing residences to patrons of key destinations at sites at or adjacent to those key destinations. ❑ Allow mixed -use development. Mixed use development is the incorporation of multiple land uses into a single development, usually with multiple uses sharing a structure. Examples include housing overtop retail or office atop retail. Mixed use development • provides housing, shopping, recreation, or work within the same development in order to Id X2002.159 &c'Repo %I0.05.03 FtnJ Ron doe Bucher, Willis & Rat/if Corporation 82 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 - Multi -Modal Plan • minimize trips. A mixed use development can provide retail and services within traditional employment areas, or provide employment and retail in traditional residential areas. Mixed use developments are ideal at transit stations and transit centers, downtown areas, or satellite community centers. Mixed use developments are implemented through local zoning ordinances and through the developmental approval process. ❑ Encourage Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Transit -oriented development involves the support of land development patterns that allow efficient integration of transit systems. This strategy encourages mixed land uses, centrally located cores with compact development, a well-connected grid roadway network, and easy access for bicyclists and pedestrians. With these types of land use characteristics, transit providers are able to develop transit systems that serve the community efficiently and effectively. This strategy is implemented through local zoning ordinances and through the developmental approval process, and can be promoted at the regional level. Coordination between transportation and urban design planners, city personnel, developers, and the community is required to ensure success. Transit Oriented Development as defined by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute is: "Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and commercial areas designed to maximize access by transit and non -motorized modes such as bicycling and walking. A TOD neighborhood has a center with a rail or bus station, surrounded by relatively high -density development, with progressively lower -density spreading outwards. For example, the neighborhood center may have a transit stations and a few multi -story commercial and residential buildings, surrounded by several blocks of townhouses and small -lot single-family • residential, and larger -lot single-family housing farther away. TOD neighborhoods typically have a diameter of one -quarter to one-half mile (stations spaced half to I mile apart), which represents pedestrian scale distances. It includes the following design features: > The neighborhood is designed for cycling and walking, with adequate facilities and attractive street conditions. > Streets have traffic calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds. > Mixed -use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices, within each neighborhood. > Parking management to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking compared with conventional development, and to take advantage of the parking cost savings associated with reduced automobile use. "Transit Oriented Development generally requires about 7 residential units per acre in residential areas and 25 employees per acre in commercial centers, and about twice that for premium quality transit, such as rail service (Ewing, 1999). These densities create adequate transit rider -ship to justify frequent service, and help create active street life and commercial activities, such as grocery stores and coffee shops, within convenient walking distance of homes and worksites. However, other factors are also important beside simple density. Transit rider- ship is also affected by factors such as employment density and clustering, • demographic mix (students, seniors and lower -income people tend to be heavy transit users), transit pricing and rider subsidies, parking pricing and road tolls, the rd'2mz.)5P&c'xmmvaoso3F,wa,00nm,. Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation 83 Arkansas Traffic and 5 - Multi -Modal Plan • quality of transit service, the effectiveness of transit marketing walkability, and street design." Source: http://www.vtni.org/tdm/tdm45.him ❑ Establish a system of park -and -ride lots at key locations. Park -and -ride lots serve as a meeting place for people who wish to ride together and can also serve as a transfer point for people to park their vehicle and ride transit. Figure 5-8 shows recommended park - and -ride lot locations. Most recommended park -and -ride lots are along the highway for people who want to gather to leave Fayetteville for employment or shopping in Springdale, Bentonville, or elsewhere. Designated park -and -ride locations can be public or private lots and should be tied into the transit and trails systems. Often there are existing parking lots that have excess capacity during the work day such as retail shopping centers or churches. ❑ Establish a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program to encourage alternative mode use and off-peak hour travel and to discourage single -occupant vehicle use in areas where higher alternative mode use is desired at both a citywide and regional scale and within smaller areas where mode shift is desired. Demand management strategies that encourage alternative mode use or encourage motorists to travel at oft -peak hours or not to travel include: road pricing, commute trip reduction programs including those involving financial incentives such as transit benefits and parking pricing, flextime, transit improvements, rideshare programs, HOV priority, parking management and pricing, distance based fees, traffic calming, speed reductions, car -free planning, vehicle restrictions, and tele-work. An example of a city TDM Program can be found in the link • htip://www.ordlink.com/codes/sosanfran/index.htm. • N' 1.3 9'A Rcpon\IPOS-01 Fin.Rzpon Coo Bucher. Willis & RatliCorporation 84 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter S - Multi -Modal Plan • ACTION PLAN FOR MULTI -MODAL IMPROVEMENTS The Multi -modal Plan has identified a series of general strategies which may be effective in accommodating transportation modal choice in Fayetteville. These strategies have been provided to the City, the University and regional transit authority as options for enhancing multi -modal awareness and service in the community. In the context of the larger purpose of the City-wide Traffic and Transportation Study, multi -modal enhancements should be included in the Capital Improvement Program for the City. However, since alternative modes of transportation generally do not have a significant effect on traffic congestion relief, to evaluate multi -modal enhancements on the basis of congestion relief would leave those projects virtually not funded. Therefore, the inclusion of multi -modal improvements in the capital improvement program in any meaningful way must be a City policy decision. The policy should allot a percentage of total capital expenditures to alternative mode improvements. These funds should be further apportioned between transit, bicycle, and pedestrian enhancements. The following criteria have been suggested for prioritizing multi -modal capital improvement projects that incorporate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian elements: TRANSIT ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN Priority transit improvements involve improving the interface between transit and other modes of transportation, including auto traffic, bicycles, and pedestrian mode. Priority improvements to enhance this interface include the development of park and ride locations along bus routes, • establishing shelters at major destinations and park and ride locations to give transit higher visibility, and locating bike racks at each shelter location, as well as on each bus. Ten priority bus shelter locations have been identified in Figure 5-9. Proposed shelters are located at key destinations, at transit service endpoints, or at transit route interface sites. Five of the shelters coincide with recommended park -and -ride lot locations and include: ❑ The regional mall ❑ The Wedington Drive transit route terminus ❑ The south Wal-mart ❑ Tyson Foods ❑ The 6th Street and Happy Hollow Road intersection The remaining five shelters are located at: ❑ The North Hills Medical Center ❑ The Township Street and College Avenue intersection (Ozark Regional Transit's Highway 7 I -Mall Route and Razorback Transit's Red Route cross here) ❑ The Washington Regional Medical Center ❑ Downtown at the Block Avenue and Center Street intersection ❑ The 6th Street and Razorback Road intersection (Ozark Regional Transit's 6th Street Route and Razorback Transit's Green Route cross here) M'2 2 3 Ydxaepw,\IM1USLl FIIIV Repwn &x Bucher. Willis & RatliiJCorporation 85 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5— Multi -Modal Plan • One shelter is estimated to cost approximately $10,000, including construction, engineering and surveying, and the incorporation of a bicycle rack. Five shelters at $10,000 each will cost approximately $50,000 to build. The other five shelters will be constructed as pan of the park - and -ride lots. A fifty space park -and -ride lot is estimated to cost approximately $185,000. The five priority park -and -ride lots are those that coincide with transit routes. As indicated above, transit shelters should be constructed at the five priority park -and -ride lots. The S185,000 figure includes the cost to construct a shelter and install a bicycle rack. In addition to the development of these capital improvements the additional following action steps should be taken to identify other specific transit improvement projects. ❑ Conduct a user preference survey and an existing transportation service provider survey to identify those transit service improvements in greatest demand by the community. o Based on the survey results, identify and rank those changes in the systems which have the greatest public support. ❑ Identify the costs of implementing each of the transit service improvements identified in the surveys. a Identify the projects which have the greatest level of community support for the lowest cost. Preference should be given to locations where intra-modal transfers may occur between auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian, and to improvements which would serve the greatest number of people. • BICYCLE ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN The City has developed the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trail Plan, a comprehensive trail plan integrating local trails and on -street linkages with the regional trails and on -street linkages. In addition, the construction of trails and bike lanes arc an integral part of the street design standards recommended in the Master Street Plan. Figures 5-10, 5-I I, and 5-12 depict the near term, mid term, and long term phasing for the on -street linkages and trails recommended under the plan. It is recommended that as each phase of the plan is implemented, that priority for construction within each phase be given to trail corridors that fall primarily along stream alignments and are dedicated trails separated from traffic. These trails are recommended as priority trails where they provide connections between major destinations such as the university, the mall, and parks, or where they interface with multimodal nodes such as park and ride locations, recommended bus shelter locations, or Drake Field. Off road trails are recommended to have priority in the system construction because they provide for recreation as well as for cross-town commuting. The near -term phase trail development is estimated to cost up to $13.2 million. The mid-term trail development is estimated to cost up to $12.5 million. The long-term trail development is estimated to cost up to $25.1 million. The near -term phase on -street linkages are estimated to cost up to $609,000. The mid-term on -street linkages are estimated to cost up to $650,000. The long- term on -street linkages are estimated to cost up to $1.6 million. • M COO?J5T' 'AepotoIP03U3 riw Report Aoc Bucher. Willis & RatlifJ Corporation 86 Arkansas Traffic and Trans Chapter 5 — PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION PLAN Although completing the City's entire sidewalk system should be the ultimate goal, providing adequate sidewalks for child safety is recommended as the highest priority. This priority sidewalk system that would provide pedestrian access to each school has been identified. Whereas, several of these priority sidewalk connections have been included in proposed major street improvement projects, those priority sidewalk sections that have not yet been constructed or included in timely arterial street improvement projects have been depicted in Figure 5-13. The priority sidewalk projects total approximately 18.6 miles, at an estimated cost of $200,000 per mile, for a total cost of $3,720,000. Pedestrian crossing locations of busy streets can be enhanced through colored, textured, or raised pavement treatments that will heighten motorists' awareness of pedestrian crossing locations. As street improvement projects are constructed, consideration should be given to pedestrian crossing enhancement as well. An example sketch and several example photos of this kind of treatment are pictured in Figure 5-14. New technology is available to enhance pedestrian safety at signalized intersections. These technologies include audible walk and don't walk indications, pedestrian indications with better optical properties, and pedestrian indications that display the amount of time remaining in the pedestrian interval. Upgrades of signals and new signal installations will provide the City with the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety and convenience at signalized crossings as part of the capital improvement program. • INTEGRATION OF MULTI -MODAL IMPROVEMENTS The on going integration of multi -modal improvements will require the continued cooperation of several government entities. Higher priorities should be given to transit, trail, sidewalk and street improvements that provide opportunities for interfacing with other multi -modal improvements. The Action Plans presented in this multi -modal plan have been prioritized to provide that integration. Transit recommendations that interface with other modes include: ❑ Bus shelters at park and ride locations. ❑ Bike racks on busses. ❑ Bike racks at bus shelter locations. ❑ Bus shelter locations located along designated bike routes. ❑ Bus shelters at multi -modal generators, such as the mall, hospitals, downtown, the university, etc. Bicycle recommendations that interface with other modes include: ❑ Bike routes that interface with park and ride locations. ❑ Bike racks at bus shelter locations. ❑ Bike routes that interface with bus shelter locations. ❑ Bike routes that interface with multi -modal generators, such as the mall, hospitals, • downtown, the university, Drake Field, etc. mum 1�4Nx`Repoet�l005-01 FnS Kq,on A,e Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation 87 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 — Multi -Modal Plan • o Typical roadway sections that include bike lanes and trails. Pedestrian oriented improvements that interface with other modes include: ❑ Bus shelters located at high pedestrian traffic generators, such as the mall, downtown, hospitals, and university. ❑ Completion of the sidewalk system adjacent to schools as an alternative to parent drop off. ❑ Sidewalk construction as a standard on all typical roadway sections. o Enhancement of pedestrian crossing pavement treatments. o Enhancement of pedestrian crossing signal equipment. To finance the multi -modal strategies, it is recommended that a minimum of 15 percent of the capital improvement budget be designated for multi -modal improvements. MULTI -MODAL POLICIES The level of use of alternative transportation within Fayetteville is at least in part a reflection of the development policies and practices endorsed by the City and the University. For example, a comparison with other universities indicated that University of Arkansas students tend to rely more heavily on automobile transportation than do students from other universities. This appears • to be at least in part due to efforts by the University to provide sufficient parking facilities to meet the parking demand. In contrast, Cornell University has adopted a policy to limit the construction of new parking facilities, which in turn has fostered an increased demand for alternative transportation. While not all policies and practices gleaned from the review of peer cities and universities will be applicable or accepted in Fayetteville, the following multi -modal policies are recommended as being consistent with other elements of the Traffic and Transportation Study. The City of Fayetteville and the University ofArkansas will endeavor to cooperate with respect to all means of transportation and land development initiatives of common interest. Because land use development and transportation initiatives by the City can impact the University, and University initiatives can impact the City at large, it is essential that clear lines of communication be maintained between City and University staff and officials. An established and regular forum should be provided to insure that planning and construction initiatives by either party are presented to the other party with an opportunity to provide early input. This cooperation should include development proposals, transportation improvements, and policy changes. The City will seek to support and sponsor educational programs which encourage the use of alternative methods of transportation. Within Fayetteville, an increase in the use of alternative transportation is not likely to be driven by necessity. If citizens are to use alternative transportation, then the means to do so must be available, and they must choose to want to use them. Changing peoples' view points on transportation can not be achieved by chance. Citizens will need to be informed of the • opportunities and benefits of alternative transportation. City sponsored activities such as "Transit M UW 2•JSadoc Repo.' Io-05-01 Fun.] Repro, hx Bucher, Willis eg RatlifCorporation 88 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 5 — Multi -Modal Plan • Awareness Week", or "Bike to Work Day" can help citizens actually experience an alternative form of transportation. Brochures depicting the City trail system, or the regional bus routes and schedules can put vital information into citizens' hands. Often, educational field trips for school children are effective means of communicating new multi -modal services to an entire family. City staff shall conduct site plan reviews with an emphasis on walkability, and bicycle and transit accessibility. Site plan reviews have typically focused on subdivision regulations such as lot size, building setbacks, and greenspace to floor area ratios. The consideration of walkability should be incorporated into the review and approval process. Walkahility review should include consideration of on -site, the site perimeter, and accessibility to adjacent off -site major pedestrian generators such as transit stops, libraries, parks, schools, churches, apartments, and retail shopping. Considerations should include directness of the sidewalk system, completeness of the system. aesthetics at the pedestrian scale of the system, security, amenities, and pedestrian crossing safety. Consideration of transit and bicycle accessibility should include connectivity to bike and transit routes, and opportunities for bike racks and bus shelters. include multi -modal improvements in the City Capital Improvement Program. Because alternative transportation improvements generally do not provide significant relief of traffic congestion, they tend to be overlooked in the assigning of capital improvement funds. Therefore, inclusion of such projects in the Capital Improvement Program must be a matter of policy. It is recommended that a minimum of 15 percent of the Capital Improvement Program be • assigned to multi -modal enhancements. Construct traffic improvements with a multi -modal emphasis as a part of each project, where possible. Where traffic improvement projects are scheduled for construction, provide a multi -modal emphasis in the design. For example, construct intersection traffic capacity improvements with enhanced visibility of pedestrian crosswalks and with enhanced pedestrian signal technology. The major street typical sections each include elements addressing pedestrian and/or bicycle needs. Allow and encourage land use densities and developments that provide for a multi -modal orientation. Demand for alternative transportation is closely linked with land use densities. The City should be responsive to development initiatives that propose higher densities, when the development plan emphasis is directed from auto use toward transit, bicycle, and walking. An example of this might be allowing a greater density of residential development adjacent to the University, when the site is served by transit, and connected to the University with adequate sidewalks. install alternative transportation improvements at major generators from a multi -modal perspective. Major generators such as hospitals, schools, and shopping districts are ideal locations for interfacing multi -modal transportation. Where an alternative transportation improvement such as a bus shelter is installed adjacent to one of these major generators, seek to locate the improvement adjacent to other modes of travel, such as adjacent to a bike lane or a park and ride parking area, • and add other mode amenities, such as a bike rack to the installation. MU 2.359worn9pomiao5u5 Fit.J R99on &x Bucher, Willis & Raili (Corporation 89 j C 2 I fll -� • - • — _ i i ' "��a_ i-.- - III if �fJ y 1 ! 7 L -1 —t I 't3— 7 I \i `i �i a - T - - — _ i � � r rC I; — Tt1-- iiii: yI wN333 _ o.3 U, n Q 00 p I I /L J /--- • \ - J1 J J Ifir✓ I ��-i I , • ` `� / Lj .-y- vim, __ `--- LA a sw am r. V tJ 0 0 • ct S • • r r VI V J rc C = � O S kil I I �. 1 \ -- N _ ,J 1 -s h / ' _ _ _ 71 1 \ •1 ,• I^' i n 5 T Y Tl -� M' ( Ir JT p. ii ' 3 i7 j- ----- L7LTJ i. i rr I t. /J I I ��L (�D (D F TTR 1 yj LS FF 1 ---rJ l r 1 �, // �1 4 r a. an Z a.as mm z C 2 Li' ti Z ~ a = _ � a ti A 'a ? 0 0 1 'I � 'a % f� 'Ir 111 ✓I I __ �I I `i ] _ X43_ }-r^ I tr. - - W l j -`.-- t. ~mot P I - - s--- — -- '- -' ---- - - -'a �. -- _ -y -,`,r� 7 F -r �.\ r II - _ - II i - - 4 J C r r. C J PH Gin' of Fapeneville. Arkansas Traffic and Trairsportaliwr Slut/v Chapter 6 — Traffic Calming Polity 6. TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY Key Findings: This chapter of the report outlines the procedure for a proactive action the City could take to protect neighborhood roadways from traffic diverted from congested arterials. Traffic calming measures may be appropriate in Fayetteville where there is a documented need to: • Reduce neighborhood cut through traffic • Reduce traffic speeds through neighborhoods • Accentuate pedestrian or bicycle use • Control intersection traffic flow The traffic calming policy provides guidelines for the following activities: • Requests for traffic calming consideration. • Documentation of traffic calming. • Identification and approval of traffic calming strategies. • Programming of traffic calming improvements. • • Design of traffic calming projects. • Evaluation of traffic calming projects. INTRODUCTION The encroachment of external traffic through neighborhood areas is an issue of concern to citizens in Fayetteville. This policy addresses a procedure through which neighborhoods can be considered for filtering external traffic through traffic calming measures. Traffic calming is the management of traffic through the use of roadway design features. Management of traffic can include grouping traffic, diverting traffic, altering speeds. and encouraging a change of emphasis in transportation mode. Traffic management through traffic calming is most effective if the features are both warranted and properly designed. Traffic calming solutions may be warranted where there is a demonstrated need for traffic calming. and where solutions can be identified that will address the need. The needs to manage traffic through traffic calming devices might include the following: ❑ Reduce neighborhood cut through traffic ❑ Reduce traffic speeds through neighborhoods o Accentuate pedestrian or bicycle use o Control intersection traffic flow • Bucher. Willis & RatlifCorporation 97 Ii I:p0:.1.VdrclRcpon' I"!! 1 F"I Report doe Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 6 - Traffic Calming Policy • Not only must the needs be perceived by the neighborhood, but they must also be documented to be substantive. In order for traffic calming strategies to be effective, traffic data collection and analysis must validate that calming needs are legitimate. These traffic studies may include: o Speed studies o Vehicle and pedestrian counts o Through -traffic surveys o Accident records o Intersection capacity analysis Effective solutions for valid needs also require that the selected traffic calming strategy be appropriate for the need, e.g., a strategy to reduce traffic speed and not to divert traffic should be used if the documented problem is excessive speed. Once an effective strategy for traffic calming has been selected, it should be properly designed in accordance with the relevant design parameters. These should include consideration of: o Traffic volume ❑ Design speed ❑ Americans with Disabilities Administration (ADA) compliance o Design vehicle characteristics • Although warranted and properly designed traffic calming strategies can have the desired benefits of managing traffic, they also can create disadvantages to adjacent streets and neighborhoods and to the traveling public at large. Traffic calming could have the potential of shifting an existing traffic problem to another street or neighborhood. Traffic calming may also increase delay for emergency response vehicles, and can increase long term maintenance costs for the City. Because of the controversy and potential disadvantages, traffic calming should be implemented only with the majority consent of those directly impacted. This policy therefore provides guidelines for the following traffic calming activities: o Requests for traffic calming consideration ❑ Documentation of traffic calming need ❑ Identification and approval of traffic calming strategies ❑ Programming of traffic calming improvements o Design of traffic calming projects o Evaluation of traffic calming projects I Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 98 M VOul )!ado��ARon�io-0!al ftnl Rq,on doe Ciq' of Fapenet"ille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studr Chapter 6 - Traffic Calming Policy l J REQUESTS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING CONSIDERATION Traffic calming consideration can be initiated in two ways: ❑ City staff may initiate a study to verify if traffic calming is appropriate to solve a specific concern with respect to traffic. pedestrian, or bicycle safety or operations. This concern may be identified through staff monitoring, or through citizen complaints. o Adjacent property owners may initiate the request for a traffic calming study. This may be initiated upon receipt by the City Engineer of a petition signed by at least one member of seventy-five percent (75%) of the property ownerships facing the street(s) on which the traffic calming study is requested. A block shall consist of every developed property having frontage on the street to be studied between successive intersecting streets. A typical traffic calming petition shall include, at a minimum, a description of the street or streets which are to be included in the calming study and the signature of at least 75% of the property owners on those strect(s). Where more than one person is listed as owner for each property, only one person shall be entitled to vote or sign a petition. Likewise, if multiple properties are owned by the same person or persons, the owner(s) will only be entitled to one vote or signature on the petition. This definition of property owner shall apply throughout this policy document. The city staff assigned to administer traffic calming studies will review the petition for validity, and will assess whether other streets may be impacted by implementation of traffic calming strategies. The city staff will define the area of potential impact resulting from the traffic calming • implementation on a case by case basis. DOCUMENTATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING NEEDS All traffic calming studies shall address at a minimum the following issues: o Purpose of the study o Emergency vehicle response ci Improvement maintenance o Physical and operational conditions of the street(s) ❑ Impacts to other streets Other issues that may need to be addressed include: ❑ Traffic speed o Traffic volume o Through -traffic ❑ Accident experience o Vehicle -pedestrian conflicts ❑ On street parking • Bucher, Willis & Rail Corporation 99 IA _W:. n9' iR.pMUO.O O3 Fins Rnon Oo, City of Fgpetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 6 - Traffic Calming Policy • City staff shall be responsible for conducting traffic calming studies in accordance with these guidelines under the supervision of the City Engineer. If City staff so elects, the study may be outsourced to a qualified traffic engineering consultant. It is estimated that a typical traffic calming study will require between 50 and 120 manhours to complete. The traffic data that will be required will include: o 24 hour directional traffic counts o Spot speed samples (minimum required will be not more than 4 hours total sample, or 100 vehicles, whichever comes first). a If through traffic has been identified as the primary issue, record of license plates entering and leaving neighborhood on the subject street during the same time period in 5 minute increments, for the purpose of correlating plate numbers by time to determine through vehicles. A minimum one hour peak sample shall be obtained. ❑ Review of three years' accident records at the subject location. o Pedestrian crossing counts, if applicable. A rating system will be utilized to compare competing local traffic calming projects. Table 6-I provides rating criteria for local streets, and Table 6-2 provides rating criteria for collector streets. Table 6-1 Local Streets Rating Criteria dt^•f . R ; �7 is l ' •i " r;- Criteria Points. _ Basis , ft • 5 pts assigned for every mph greater than S mph above Speed 0 to 40 the posted speed [(85'p percentile speed limit - 5 mph - posted speed limit) x 5 pts] Volume 0 to 40 ADT divided by 100 No Sidewalks 0 to 5 S pts if no continuous sidewalk Traffic Accidents 0 or 5 1 pt for each accident/year at one location School Crossing 0 or 10 10 pts if children must cross street to get to school Total Points Possible 100 • Bucher, Willis & RatliffCorporation 100 AI E'aJ Nepon doe Citi• of Fgretreville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation .Studp Chapter 6 - Traffic Calming Policy n LJ Table 6-2 Collector Streets Rating Criteria Criteria Points Basis 5 pts assigned for every mph greater than 5 mph above Speed 0 to 30 the posted speed ((851" percentile speed limit - 5 mph - posted speed limit) x 5 pts] volume 0 to 20 5 pts for every 1,000 ADT on any one street Traffic Accidents 0 to 15 1 pt for every 2 accident/year at one location No Sidewalks 0 or 10 10 pts if no continuous sidewalk Residential Density 0 to 10 1 pt for every 50 dwelling units/mile School Crossing 0 or 10 10 pts if children must cross street to get to school Pedestrian Generators 0 or 5 5 pts if pedestrian generator Total Points Possible 100 1r1 A traffic calming study must score a minimum of 60 points in order to be considered for traffic calming improvements. IDENTIFICATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING STRATEGIES City staff shall present to the residents living within the area of potential impact the results of the traffic calming study and rating, at a meeting called for that purpose. Where traffic calming may be appropriate, as determined by a rating 60 or greater, the City staff shall present relevant strategies as options for traffic calming, as provided in the attached strategy toolbox. The Appendix C strategy tool box is subdivided into two phases. Phase I includes signing, marking, and other enforcement techniques. Phase II tools includes traffic calming strategies involving designed features. The advantages and disadvantages of each strategy will be presented at the meeting. A vote will be conducted at the public meeting to identify the preferred strategy. A ballot will be sent out to all residents in the area of potential impact presenting the preferred option for endorsement of the preferred strategy. Support of sixty percent (60%) or more of the property owners in the area of potential impact is required before the City will give further consideration to traffic calming implementation. • Bucher, Willis Ratliff Corporation 101 AI oc\R,pn\IpOSdI Fuul Repon Eu Cut' of Farettevi le, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 6 - Traffic Calming Policy PROGRAMMING OF TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS Once each year, City staff will prioritize those traffic calming strategies within the City that have been approved within their area of impact. Prioritization will be based on the rating system. The City will program priority traffic calming improvements within the capital improvement budget, as approved by the City Council. Those traffic calming improvement locations not selected, will remain in consideration for up to three years. DESIGN OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS The design of traffic calming devices must meet the following criteria: ❑ The posted speed may not he more than thirty (30) miles per hour. ❑ The street shall have an ADT of less than 4,000. ci Limited to streets having only one lane of through traffic in each direction. ❑ Streets must not be primary emergency routes. ❑ At the discretion of the City Engineer, certain traffic calming measures may not be used if they would create an unsafe condition for motorists driving at normal speeds under average driving conditions. ❑ Streets must not be through truck routes unless an acceptable alternative route is • identified and approved. Design of traffic calming features shall accommodate a single unit truck. EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS Six months following the completion of the traffic calming improvements, the City staff will undertake a follow-up study to determine if the traffic calming features have achieved the initial purpose of the project. If unacceptable impacts are identified, corrective measures may be taken. Traffic calming measures may be removed after the evaluation period for any of the following reasons: Emergency response is significantly impacted. ❑ The problem for which the traffic calming was implemented has been transferred to another street. At least sixty percent (60%) of the property owners in the defined area of impact sign a petition to remove the traffic calming measures. This option will result in complete removal of all measures. All property owners within the defined neighborhood will be assessed for the removal of the calming measures. This procedure for removing traffic calming devices will not be considered for a minimum of three years following completion of the construction. • Bucher, Willis & RadiffCorporation 102 \I �hO`�1`a��R,p+TiYOaLI iwl Repn sx Cur of Fareueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7- Access Management Policy • 7. ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICY Key Findings: This chapter of the report presents design guidelines for managing direct access onto major streets. The recommended access management guidelines needed to accomplish the general goals stated in the Unified Development Ordinance for vehicle safety includes: • Intersection spacing. • Traffic signal spacing. • Driveway spacing and density. • Driveway clearance from intersections. • Intersection sight distance. • Driveway geometric standards. • Median openings. • Two way left turn lanes. • Auxiliary turn lanes at non signalized locations. • Frontage roads. • INTRODUCTION The Master Street Plan in Chapter 2 provides discussion of the importance of protecting the function of major streets. Confusion of function through allowing direct property access onto arterial streets can create sufficient traffic flow friction so as to divert through traffic volumes onto neighborhood streets. A key to prevention of this phenomenon is to preserve the mobility function of arterial streets through access management. The purpose of an access management policy is to provide guidelines, which when applied to new major streets, will protect the function for which they were intended. This will not only maintain mobility and safety on the arterial street, but will also protect adjacent neighborhoods from the encroachment of through traffic. While application of these guidelines would enhance mobility and safety on existing arterial streets, they would also limit the access to which adjacent property owners are accustomed, and on which they may depend. It is not practical to mandate complete compliance of these guidelines onto an existing arterial with existing access points. However, as opportunities arise through capital improvements and land redevelopment proposals. implementing as many of the guidelines as is practical is desirable. In addition to the guidelines prepared in this document for new construction, guidelines have also been compiled for infill along existing arterial streets. The application of the access management guidelines should move the community towards achieving these goals: • u Improve roadway safety Bucher, Willis & Rail Corporation 103 AI J.`00: )!Nde[`Rmn'IPO!4J row Re " Cite of Farelieville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studr Chapter 7 -Access Management Pallet • O O EXI! Improve traffic mobility Protect the integrity of local neighborhoods Create better conditions for transportation modes Protect the taxpayers' investment in the major street system ;TING ACCESS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA The Unified Development Ordinance contains a limited number of access management requirements in section 166.08 Design standards, as follows: ❑ Access. Safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels. ❑ Access Control. Local streets and driveways shall not detract from the safety and efficiency of bordering arterial routes. ❑ Traffic control. There should be a minimum number of intersections. o Distance from intersection to curb cuts. Curb cuts shall not be allowed closer than 50 feet to an intersection for a local street and 60 feet for collector and arterial streets. ❑ Distance between curb cuts. The minimum distance between curb cuts shall be 25 feet for a local street and 30 feet for a collector and arterial street except for single family residential lots in which the requirement is 10 feet between curb cuts. • Also. section 172 .04 Parking lot design standards includes under Entrances: ❑ One-way. If the driveway is a one-way in or one-way out drive, then the aisle widths shall be 12 feet wide up to a maximum of 15 feet wide. o Two-way. For two-way access, each entrance lane shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide and a maximum of 15 feet wide. Whenever more than two lanes are proposed, entrance and exit lanes shall be divided by a curbed, raised, landscaped median. The median shall be 10 feet wide if three lanes are being proposed or 15 feet wide if four lanes are proposed. ❑ Major thoroughfares. Driveways that enter the major thoroughfare at traffic signals must have at least two outbound lanes (one for each turning direction) and one inbound lane. ❑ Curb radius. All commercial driveways should have a minimum curb radius of 25 feet. This Access Management Policy is intended to provide specific access management guidelines for the general street design principles contained in the Unified Development Ordinance, and to expand and revise the entrance design standards. ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Functional Classification System Access management guidelines are related to the intended function of a roadway, as approved in the City Major Street Plan. The guidelines must be appropriate to protecting the intended roadway function. Guidelines for access management have been prepared for new arterial streets. collector streets, and local streets. A separate set of guidelines have been prepared for existing Bucher. Willis & Rail/if Corporation 104 RI @D .J!edx�0.epm�i aOJ-0J Final RN — City of Fgyetterille, Arkonsa.s Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7 —Access Management Policy • arterial streets that have already degenerated to a lower function of providing direct property access, but still have some infill properties where some access management techniques can be applied. Distance Between Intersections Establishing a minimum distance between intersections for different classifications of street preserves traffic flow and ensures that a hierarchy of streets is maintained. Table 7-1 summarizes the desirable and minimum street intersection spacing along arterial and collector streets. Table 7-1 Recommended Intersection Spacing cation .1 • Arterial Street Collector Street Distance Between Traffic Signals 1320 660 330 165 Establishing minimum and desirable spacing between traffic signals ensures efficient traffic flow on signalized arterial streets. Traffic signals spaced too closely compounds vehicle delay at each signal, and traffic queues may extend back through adjacent signals, causing "grid lock." Table 7-2 presents the recommended traffic signal spacing. Table 7-2 Recommended Traffic Signal Spacing ;.• - ..:: 1. i .I r♦. .4... . r, r 'V • Street Classification. Desirable. Spacing (ft) Mimmum5pacing.(ft)l %) Arterial Street (New) 2640 1320 Arterial Street (Existing) 2640 660 Collector Street 2640 660 Driveway Spacing and Density The spacing of driveways onto a street should vary with the function of the street. Short distances between driveways and greater numbers of driveways introduce more potential points for vehicles to conflict, thus introducing traffic flow friction to the street. and greater accident potential. The Table 7-3 Recommended Driveway Spacing is intended to replace the current City requirements for distance from intersections to curb cuts, and distance between curb cuts for arterial and collector streets. The existing City requirements for local streets may remain applicable. Bucher, Willis & Rat/iifCot poration 105 'I row Rm Ciq' of Fapeue;'ille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7 -Access .41anngetnent Policy • Table 7-3 Driveway Spacing from Street Corners Existing ' - ` . FS g `;. , ' r. -' Street Classification ' desirable Spacing.- Minimum Spacing .'. Spacing'':,: :.1; :z>-.•.;-. i On No Driveways No Driveways Arterial Street (New) Permitted Permitted On Arterial Street (Existing) 60' Special Criteria Special Criteria On Collector Street (New) 330' 165' On Collector Street (Existing) 60' Special Criteria Special Criteria Special Criteria for Driveways In the cases where an existing arterial street or collector street has been developed to allow direct property access, or a street that allows direct property access has taken on the function of an arterial street or collector street, it is not practical to expect that all existing access will be eliminated. In the case of an existing arterial street or collector street, the spacing of access should be managed in a way that would still provide right of entry to the property, in the manner least detrimental to the traffic integrity as follows: For property redevelopment or new development along established arterial streets or collector streets. there shall not be more than one driveway permitted for any one ownership. except where • the necessity of separate access to the street is evident. More than one driveway may be permitted if a traffic analysis demonstrates that more than one driveway will improve traffic operations without jeopardizing traffic safety. Any driveways so permitted must meet the requirements summarized in Table 7-4 and depicted in Figure 7-I. Joint access between properties should be encouraged instead of separate drives, where possible. 0 Bucher. Willis d. RatliffCotporation 106 M _ W: J!>doclRepvn o.o'4JJ FmsP Repo.. Ox Citr of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7 -Access Management Policy • Table 7-4 Driveway Spacing Special Criteria .Land Use Classification •Dimension , r• 1 Proposed (Existing) Standards " ••I • Dimension Reference q,. .> ,i . (Refer Figure 1) ; Residential{; .Commercial`.p=rIndustrial" Width W Minimum 10' 24'(24') 24'(24') Maximum 24' 30'(30') 30'(30') Radii (Curved or Flared) R Minimum 5' 15'(25') 25'(25') Maximum 10' 25' 50' Minimum Spacing (For Multiple Drives)"' From Property Line P R R R From Street Corner C 125'(60') 125'(60') 125'(60') (On Collector) From Street Corner C 250'(60') 250'(60') 250'(60') (on an Arterial) • Between Driveways P+P 100'(10') 100'(30') 100'(30') (on a Collector) Between Driveways P+P 200'(10') 200'(30') 200'(30') (on an Arterial) • Measured from extension of tangent. R" is the width of the flare or curb return utilized at the location. To be applied only if multiple drives are demonstrated needed through a traffic study. Property Line a a (Comer Cleararwe II.P-�(Distance to , W R , (Rounded Property Line) (width Radius) R Radius) _ —� Public Street Figure 7-1 Driveway Spacing Special Criteria • Bucher. Willis & RadifCorporation 107 AI RaiOO!d) Few ke ry J Cirp of Fayetteville, Ark'ans'as Truffle and Transpormlion Surd; Chapter 7 -Access Alnnagenrent Pnlicr • Driveway Clearance from Intersections Vehicle accidents frequently occur because of speed differentials. e.g., the vehicle in front slowing down while the vehicle behind is speeding up. This is especially true where driveways are located to close to an intersection. The areas adjacent to the intersection that includes vehicle acceleration. deceleration, and queuing, as well as pedestrian movements are called the functional areas of the intersection. These areas experience a greater number of accidents because of the speed differentials, and because of the greater number of turning vehicles that may conflict with other vehicles or pedestrian. Direct access driveways should not be allowed in intersection functional areas. Where driveways are permitted. they shall meet the corner clearances identified in Table 7-4. Intersection Sight Distance Adequate sight distance for an intersection or driveway is defined as a sufficient distance for a motorist entering a street to assess the safety of pulling onto the street and accelerating, without posing a hazard to vehicles already on the street. New driveways and streets should provide adequate sight distance, as summarized in Table 7-5 and depicted in Figure 7-2. Table 7-5 Intersection Sight Distance ' �r i'�T1Ql�(wJ�'.IL1J0"F r 4rt�i'�r -�.'lT^'�t...r��tt�,,✓t u'. postediSpeed{(MPH 4.g KMin.•SightlDistance(feet)f(C)"'1 "..ii�{ Fr.. Y�3 Y.. :L. ..'f?»1 .Y� Yt� �T^f-. _P'x/ . iy '. v', .I 30 335 • 35 390 40 445 45 500 50 555 • Bucher. Willis R' Rat! (if Corporation 108 \I eW:.Jdr[`M,yntIIUUJLJ Fm.' X.ynn Eo, Cite of Fgreneville, Arkansas Traffic and Tratisportution Study Chapter 7- Access Management Policy Departure Sight Triangle Exhibit [1 Line III L Sight Line ICI ,p IJ �: J it I. III Figure 7-2 Intersection Sight Distance Driveway Geometric Standards Insufficient driveway geometry can lead to slow driveway entrance and exit speeds. This leads to introducing greater traffic flow friction. The width, turning radius, throat length, grade, and approach angle can affect driveway speeds. Table 7-6 summarizes these parameters for new driveway construction. Table 7-6 is shown graphically in Figure 7-3. Table 7-6 Driveway Geometric Standards "t "Dimens(on• - `�.' t `+;`cr Land; Use`Class(flcatton - -r •r �� v }. I n V. V. ' [ :1i,;vr♦ + —Y:' Y t r i�? " Residential _.�r.�, Commerciale. Industrlalr-,i• Width (W) Minimum 10' 30' 40' 50' Radii (Curved or Flared) (R) Minimum 5' 15' 25' Maximum 10 25' 50' Change in Grade 10% 6% 6% Minimum Throat Length (T) 25' 25' 50' Maximum Skew 15 degrees 15 degrees 15 degrees \I `:00: J)odoe'Rtponl l W 41 final Rep+n doe Racher, Willis & RailiiCorporation 109 City of'Fupc'ttevile, Arkunsas Traffic and Transportation .Study Chapter 7- Access Management Policy • R Curved Radll---, LI-I I �—R Flared Redw Public Sreat Driveway Plan View RoeQwey Crown-� \ Charge NGade�— Public Sblet _ Drtveway Ns Throat Driveway Profile View Figure 7-3 Driveway Geometric Standards Medians • Medians provide physical and visual channelization for traffic enhancement of a corridor through landscaping applications.They the number of potential conflict points along a street by physically in an out of driveways. Too many median openings or closely detract from the purpose of medians to reduce the number and spac 7-7 summarizes the recommended median opening spacing. They can provide aesthetic are frequently used to reduce restricting turning movements spaced median openings can ing of vehicle conflicts. Table Table 7-7 Recommended Median Opening Spacing n-. .. r. - .•.' j✓4. A? ' p.. w' f u''.' - i, A+-HwR\'V 1pti•.. .... S'.. SteeetClassificationro ; Nr Full;Opening;l,__'.3DlrectionalsOpening,: k ... Arterial Street (New) 1320' 660' Collector Street Not applicable Not Applicable Two Way Left Turn Lanes (TWLTLs) Two way left turn lanes may be considered where a significant percentage of the existing driveway spacings do not meet the driveway spacing criteria in Table 7-4. However, two way left turn lanes do not function well once a certain traffic volume threshold has been reached. If design year daily traffic forecasts exceed 28,000 for four lane streets or 17,500 for two lane streets, construction of raised medians should be considered instead of two way left turn lanes. Furthermore. two way left turn lanes do not function well if they have insufficient width. Two way left turn lanes shall have a minimum width of 12 feet and a desirable width of 14 feet. • Bucher. Willis R Ratliff Corporation 110 .-I.' is um�oo>or tiw Repo., mx City of Fgreueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7—Acress Managentenr Polie3, • I Auxiliary Turn Lanes (Non -signalized locations) Some high volume driveways should have dedicated left or right turn lanes to reduce conflicts with through traffic. This is particularly true on routes with posted speeds 35 mph or greater. The need for auxiliary lanes is dependent on a combination of turning volume, through traffic volume, and speed. Table 7-8 provides a matrix for identifying when a left turn lane would be warranted for construction on a major street. The directional volume represents the heaviest direction of volume on the major street. Table 7-8 is shown graphically in Figure 7-4. Table 7-8 Left Turn Lane Warrant ; 35 MPH ,k.; 45 MPH r 'r Left Turn • Directiona P'. Left Turn-- Directional , Left Turn ^..:;DuecLonal Volume: ` Volume - • Volume - _� Volume (vehicles per Volume fr�l •(vehicles perms,"' Volumer�rT+t ��(vehlcles•per (per hour) hour per lane) (D?C-hour) - hour per, lane] (per. hour) ,.I r,•r'hour Per lane); (VI). (Vol •(V) •.: (Vo)•`. ?. .(yi) .u.. •'r(V�).• �1 10 400 10 350 10 300 20 300 20 225 20 150 30 225 30 150 30 100 40 175 40 100 40 100 50 150 50 100 50 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 Auxiliary left turn lanes should provide sufficient vehicle storage room for vehicle queuing and for deceleration. Table 7-9 provides the recommended minimum left turn lane length for various speeds. The length includes vehicle queue storage of two vehicles, deceleration length, and taper length. A graphical representation of Table 7-9 is given in Figure 7-4. Table 7-9 Minimum Left Turn Lengths Posted Speed (rnph). Turn Lane Length (feet)•(4)'.':'d 55 420 50 350 45 290 40 250 35 210 Right turn lanes should be provided where: ❑ The posted speed on the major street is 35 mph or more, AND ❑ The traffic volume on the major street exceeds 10,000 vehicles per day. AND • ❑ The number of right turn vehicles during the peak hour exceeds: Bucher, Willis & RatlifCotporation III KI F,iul Rc on drc Cur of Fgrenenille, Arkansas Traffic' and Transportation Stud;' Chapter 7- Access Management Policy •> 30 on two lanes with posted speed 45 mph and over > 40 on four lanes with posted speed 45 mph and over ➢ 80 on two lanes with posted speed under 45 mph > 110 on four lane with posted speed under 45 mph Table 7-10 provides recommended minimum right turn lengths based on posted speed. The lengths include deceleration and taper lengths. Unlike left turn lanes, right turn lanes do not need to include queue space for turning traffic. Figure 7-4 depicts the minimum right turn lengths described in Table 7-10. Table 7-10 Minimum Right Turn Lengths ( . Posted Speed (mph) • .-.:s TurnlLane.l.erigth (feet)(L„) 55 380 50 310 45 250 40 210 35 170 • Dedicated right turn lanes should also be strongly considered where: ❑ Poor internal site design and circulation leads to backup on the mainline. o Businesses with short drive through lanes arc prime examples. ❑ The peak hour turning traffic activity is unusually high (e.g. greater than 10 percent). ❑ The driveway or minor public road is difficult to see. ❑ The driveway entrance is gated. ❑ Right turning traffic consists of an unusually high number of trailers or other large vehicles. ❑ The intersection or driveway angle is skewed greater than 15 degrees. ❑ Rear end collision experience is unusually high at a location. The desirable width for auxiliary turn lanes is 12 feet, but should not be less than I I feet Frontage Roads Frontage roads that are constructed too close to the mainline road may contribute to more conflicts than they relieve. The Transportation Research Board recommends frontage roads be placed at least 300 feet from the major street for which they are intended to provide alternative access. • Bucher, Willis X RailifCorporation 112 \I'IU0:.I'vpo•RcpmiIUo5OJ F,"I R,pon 0.x Cit1of Fgpeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 7 —Access Management Policy VL —�) ► Public Street VD ,,r LR I LL 0 Figure 7-4 Graphic Layout of Table 7-8 to 7-10 • Bucher, Willis& RmlifCorporation 113 AI Fund Xmon Em City of Fgpetteyile, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Chapter 8 - Development Assessment Policy • 8. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY Key Findings: This chapter of the report delineates a policy statement consistent with the Unified Development Code which ties costs of transportation improvements to those benefiting from the improvements. The key items of the Development Assessment Policy include the following action items: • Identify Priority Growth Areas within and outside the City limits where it is economically efficient to provide full City services and set a long range schedule for their development. • Compute the cost for all City services within each Priority Growth Area, including transportation improvements. • Evaluate alternative methods of correlating the demand for City services with properties. Acreage and estimated traffic generation based on the comprehensive plan zoning may be considered as candidate factors. • Establish a financing mechanism for improvements in each Priority Growth Area, such as excise taxes, impact fees, or Community Facility Districts. • Require a traffic impact analysis of new developments in accordance with the guidelines in the Development Assessment Policy, to be administered by the City. The results of the • analysis should identify traffic improvements which the developer is responsible to provide to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from his development. In accordance with the City's Minimum Street Standards, traffic impacts from new developments should be related back to the costs to mitigate traffic impacts. INTRODUCTION As the City of Fayetteville continues to expand geographically, the demand for new transportation infrastructure will come into financial competition with the demand for existing infrastructure maintenance and reconstruction in the establish areas of the City. For growth to continue to he adequately served with an adequate street system, those who benefit most directly will need to bear an increasing share of the cost of construction. This policy statement presents options whereby the developers of properties can help finance the construction of the street system needed to serve their property. DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCING The Master Street Plan in Chapter 2 identifies a system of major streets that will be needed to accommodate future land development within and beyond the current city limits of Fayetteville. That plan provides for the dedication of right of way and construction of arterial streets and collector streets. Section 166.07 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Required Off -site • Improvements, states in paragraph A2, "The subdivider shall be required to bear that portion of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 114 ,' \.`00I.)' cvnMlO SL) tuul Rc on Mc Arkansas Traffic and T 8 - Development Assessment Polity' • the cost of off -site improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the subdivision." In paragraph A3 it states, "In determining that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which the subdivider shall be required to bear, the Planning Commission shall consider acreage within the proposed subdivision as a percentage of all the acreage which, when fully developed, will benefit from the offsite improvements." These statements from the Unified Development Ordinance associate the costs of arterial streets, collector streets, and other transportation and utility improvements with the properties served by the improvements. The ordinance leaves the determination of the proportion of costs assigned to each property to be determined by the Planning Commission based on proportional acreage benefited by the improvements. While this ordinance gives sufficient authority to the Planning Commission to provide for the funding of the major street system construction, it does not provide sufficient specific information as to the total cost of the improvements, or as to the number of total acres tributary to the arterials. The correlation of costs and tributary acres should be completed well in advance of development. While the preparation of this kind of analysis is beyond the scope of this policy. it is nevertheless an important component of the future financing of the major street system. The City should undertake to relate major street costs and acres of land served by each street segment. This relationship should then be used as a basis for assessing property owners for their fair share of infrastructure improvement costs. While the use of acreage does provide a rational method of correlating property ownership with responsibility for infrastructure improvements, it does not address the issue that some land uses generate more traffic than other land uses per acre. An alternative methodology for the City to consider would be to relegate proportional cost of improvements based on trips generated by • various land uses as proposed in the comprehensive plan zoning, rather than acres of land. This methodology would allow for increased assessment from developments that proposed upzoning from those shown in the comprehensive plan. In addition to the issue of fair share of costs, future financing of public roads must also consider the timing of infrastructure improvements as it relates to development. The development of properties served by a single arterial street may occur over a number of years. The first property to develop can not be responsible to pay all the costs for the arterial construction. However. those properties not yet ready to develop may not be in a position to contribute to the roadway improvements at the time the first development needs to have the arterial street in place to serve the property. One solution to this dilemma would be to schedule the expansion of the arterial system and other public infrastructure improvements. The City would identify the year in which each segment of the arterial system would be expanded. The City would not undertake to expand the arterial system prematurely. but would concentrate on improving the existing major street system within the developed areas of the city first. This approach is consistent with smart growth principals of concentrating transportation financing resources on enhancing the existing system, and managing urban sprawl. Should a development be proposed beyond the urban fringe, the developer would be responsible to front the cost of the major street system improvements until that time scheduled by the City for arterial street improvements. TARGETED FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Throughout the country, cities and counties have developed tools to ensure that adequate infrastructure —in particular major thoroughfare roads —are provided without jeopardizing the financial heath of local jurisdictions. The fees are referred to in different ways in different states, • most common of which is an "impact fee." Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 115 M Emil Ripon lrc Cii;r of / gpettet'ille, Arkansas Traffic and Trunsporuuion Study Chapter 8 - Development Asses.anent Polio' • The City should consider a range of financing options which arc called by various names in various states: Transportation Development Districts (TDD) in Missouri; Special Assessment Benefit Districts in Kansas; Community Facility Districts (CFD) in Florida; and Community Development Districts (CDD) in California and Arizona. Community Facility Districts are special purpose municipal entities that are established to fund infrastructure in specified geographic areas that will benefit from the services that are provided. In many ways CFDs are a miniature form of municipal government. Depending upon state enabling legislation, CFDs can be established with the consent of more than a majority and sometimes two-thirds of the property owners and voters in the proposed districts, and are managed by a Board of Directors appointed by the City Council. The CFD fund is established through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The City must do two things to foster cost effective incentive based investment programs that target growth to designated areas: Update the Fayetteville Comprehensive Plan to establish "Priority Growth Areas" that relate to the phasing of development. The growth areas would be identified geographically. In addition to physical boundaries, man-made infrastructure, such as the interstates and other major roads, would define the Priority Growth Areas. The phasing of development would be based upon a study of economic trends as to where development is occurring in which phase. 2. Based on the phasing of development and the ability of the City to extend utilities and other infrastructure —in particular major thoroughfare roads —the City of Fayetteville should adopt policies for incentives and prioritize investments that fund infrastructure • with public resources. For example a Community Facilities District (or similar Arkansas mechanism) would be extended to the Priority Growth Areas that can be most cost effectively served by the City of Fayetteville in a near -term strategy. Other growth areas that cannot be cost effectively served at this time would be offered the CFD financing at a later date —in the "next phase." In short, the recommendation is to first identify growth areas by phase where infrastructure can be cost effectively extended, and second, extend financing incentives to stimulate growth in those areas as a priority over other areas TRAFFIC STUDY Section 1-13 of the Minimum Street Standards discusses the need for a traffic study. "A formal Traffic Study may be required in connection with a development if, in the opinion of the City Engineer and/or Planning Director, it is required to properly determine future street loadings and/or to determine cost shares between the City and the Owner/Developer. A Traffic Study may also be required as a condition of development by the Planning Commission." The purpose of a traffic study based on this paragraph is to determine traffic impacts resulting from a development and to relate those impacts to traffic mitigation costs. Determination of traffic impacts includes issues of access, on -site traffic circulation, pedestrian circulation, need for auxiliary lanes, traffic control, truck turning maneuvers, safety, and forecast traffic volumes. Developments as small as a convenience store with gas pumps, or a large mixed land use development, both produce impacts with regard to these issues. While a small single use • development may present fewer impacts than a large multiuse development, the basic issues need Bucher, Willis R RailiffCorporation 116 M LaO:�I�NMCRepon�iUO�L1 FiW lk woe City' of Fgretteville, Arhanxas Traffic and Trunsportalion Study Chapter 8 - Development Assessment Policy • to be addressed for each. The complexity of traffic studies can be expected to vary greatly. but should all provide basic information as follows: ❑ Level of service for site ingress and egress ❑ Demand for auxiliary turn lanes o Vehicle queue lengths ❑ Access spacing o Access sight distance ❑ Impact to adjacent major intersections o Onsite traffic circulation, including trucks ❑ Pedestrian circulation The methodology used to evaluate each of these pertinent factors should follow the practices recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The basic steps in assessing traffic impacts include the following: ci Obtain existing peak hour traffic counts at the site -adjacent major intersections. Counts should be no more than two years old. Both morning and afternoon peak hours should generally be considered. ❑ Estimate trips generated by the site. The most current edition of the ITE publication Trip Generation should generally provide the basis for the estimation, unless more specific • empirical data is available. ci Distribute forecast trips in and out of the site. The methodology for estimating the distribution of site generated traffic to the surrounding community can vary, but should be logical and defendable. ❑ Assign forecast trips to the public street network. o Conduct capacity and queuing analysis for adjacent major intersections for existing and forecast am and pm peak hours, and for all ingress and egress to the site for forecast conditions for am and pm peak hours. o Suggest mitigation for adjacent major intersections and ingress and egress where level of services has deteriorated to E or F for forecast conditions. o Address compliance with City policies for access management . ❑ Address onsite traffic and pedestrian circulation functionality. This would include truck turning analysis. ❑ Attached all calculations and assumptions in a technical appendix adequate for complete review by the City. The results of this analysis will provide documentation for City consideration that the proposed development meets the intent of the Unified Development Ordinance. While the burden of addressing these issues lies with the developer, it may be most cost and time effective if the City assumed the responsibility in each case for the completion of the traffic assessment, and charged the developer for the completion of this service. This approach to evaluating traffic impacts can expedite schedule, in that a study would not he both prepared by • the developer, and then reviewed by the City. Also, if the City as the review agency conducted Bucher. Willis & Ratliff Corporation 117 \I VW2.3 . c'X.po^u 4p!Ll Final Report dec Citp offFgreuerille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Saudi Chapter 8- Development 4 ssessmeta Polk; the study. then the conclusions would be the same as if the developer completed the study, and the City in its review capacity requested revisions for acceptance. This process would save the developer additional cost. For budgetary purposes, a typical traffic impact study can range from 50 manhours for a single use site to 120 manhours for a complex multiuse development. The City may elect to have these services outsourced to a qualified professional, but in that case should maintain the administration of the traffic consultant, rather than the developer administering the study preparation. RECOMMENDATIONS The adoption of this Development Assessment Policy is intended to provide a first step in implementing the Unified Development Ordinance as it relates to assess private developments for public services from which they benefit. The following items are recommended to implement the Development Assessment Policy: ❑ Identify Priority Growth Areas within and outside the City limits where it is economically efficient to provide full City services and set a long range schedule for their development. ❑ Compute the cost for all City services within each Priority Growth Area, including transportation improvements. ci Evaluate alternative methods of correlating the demand for City services with properties. Acreage and estimated traffic generation based on the comprehensive plan zoning may be • considered as candidate factors. ci Establish a financing mechanism for improvements in each Priority Growth Area, such as excise taxes, impact fees, or Community Facility Districts. ❑ Require a traffic impact analysis of new developments in accordance with the guidelines in the Development Assessment Policy, to be administered by the City. The results of the analysis should identify traffic improvements which the developer is responsible to provide to mitigate traffic impacts resulting from his development. • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 118 M •:w:.3 O &cw k$"5 O3 rail R.µn dot City of Fayeneviiie, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 9- Smart Gruwvh Pulinr • 9. SMART GROWTH POLICY Key Findings: This chapter of the report outlines broad principals for development growth which are intended to promote quality of life in the community. City policies related to development and transportation should promote quality, well planned growth that is economically efficient and sustainable. These policies can be grouped together under the label of "smart growth." Smart growth policies recommended for Fayetteville include: • Identify transportation system deficiencies within the developed areas of Fayetteville as the highest priorities for improvement. • Identify Priority Growth Areas on the urban fringe where City services can be most efficiently provided, according to a schedule determined by the City. • Identify strategies for financing new infrastructure by those who will most benefit from it. • Implement proposed Master Street Plan design standards for major streets that place an increased emphasis on provision for pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Implement proposed Master Street Plan standards that accommodate both typical suburban development and neo-traditional neighborhood development. • Adopt an Access Management Ordinance to protect the safety and mobility of major • streets. • Adopt a Traffic Calming Ordinance to protect quality of life in neighborhoods. • Identify Development Opportunity Districts that present unique opportunities for development and adapt City design standards to fully benefit from the unique qualities of the Development Opportunity Districts. • Identify strategies for improving transit service within the community. • Identify strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. • Identify unique demands for neighborhood preservation. • Foster a multi -modal approach to transportation improvements. • Foster a multi -modal transportation orientation to land development. • Foster a multi -modal transportation approach to interagency cooperative efforts. INTRODUCTION To implement the community's desire to promote quality, well planned growth, the City of Fayetteville should follow "Smart Growth" principles when implementing the Traffic and Transportation Study over the years to come. These principles should be adopted into the Fayetteville Comprehensive Plan as goals, objective and policies. They have served as a guide to • the specific recommendations herein and when collectively implemented could have a significant and long lasting impact on the future of Fayetteville. Bucher. Willis & Ratliff Corporation 119 , 'mu Repvi dv Cm' of Fal'eneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 9 - Smart Growth Policy • These principles which are promoted by the professional planning organization, the American Planning Association (APA), are summarized below: ❑ A recognition that every level of government, federal, state, regional and local, plays an important role in adopting and implementing policies that support Smart Growth. ❑ A regional view of community developed through regional planning process and implementation. Smart Growth recognizes the interdependence of neighborhoods and municipalities in a metropolitan area and promotes balanced, integrated regional development. o Integration of land use and transportation planning to provide increased transportation choice. Transportation planning should include alternatives to the automobile, such as public transportation, bicycles and walking. Development must be pedestrian friendly. Land use planning must support the success of non -automotive transportation modes. ❑ Efficient use of land and infrastructure results from compact building, infill development and reducing the amount of land needed to satisfy street and parking standards. Efficient use of public and private infrastructure starts with creating neighborhoods that maximize the use of existing infrastructure. In areas of new growth, roads, sewers, water lines, schools and other infrastructure should be planned as part of overall growth and investment strategies. Regional cooperation for large infrastructure investments is required to avoid inefficiency and redundancy. ❑ A greater mix of uses and housing choices in neighborhoods and communities focused • around human -scale, mixed use centers accessible by multiple transportation modes. Mixed -use developments include housing, varied by type and prices, integrated with commercial development and places of employment. Human -scale design, compatibility with the existing urban context, and quality construction contribute to successful compact, mixed -use development and also promote privacy, safety, visual coherency and compatibility among uses and users. o Protection of environmental and cultural resources sustains agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources; integrates ecological system into the fabric of development; encourages innovative storm water management; is less consumptive and more protective of natural resources; and ensures air quality and water quality and quantity for future generations. ❑ Planning processes and regulations at multiple levels that promote diversity, equity and Smart Growth principles. Local governments have long been principal stewards of land and infrastructure resources through their guidance of land -use policy. Smart Growth respects that tradition and recognizes the important leadership and partnership role that Federal and State governments play in the advancing Smart Growth principles among local governments. ❑ State and federal policy structure and programs that supports compact development and land conservation. Governmental programs and policies have in many cases contributed to the problem of sprawl. These policies and programs need to be re-examined and replaced with programs and policies that support Smart Growth, including cost effective incentive -based investment programs that target growth -related expenditures to locally designated areas. ❑ Increased citizen participation in all aspects of the planning process and at every level • of government to ensure that planning outcomes are based in collective decision -making. Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 120 AI V0y}.J5 t'RepmIOOOI f.ni Reyes, Uot Cut' of Faretteviiie, Arkunsas Traffic and Transportation Study Chapter 9 - Smart Growth Policy • SMARTGROWTH OBJECTIVES The application of these smart growth goals as they relate to transportation objectives in Fayetteville can be summarized as follows: ❑ Identify transportation system deficiencies within the developed areas of Fayetteville as the highest priorities for improvement. o Identify Priority Growth Areas on the urban fringe where City services can be most efficiently provided, according to a schedule determined by the City. ❑ Identify strategies for financing new infrastructure by those who will most benefit from it. ❑ Implement proposed Master Street Plan design standards for major streets that place an increased emphasis on provision for pedestrian and bicycle travel. o Implement proposed Master Street Plan standards that accommodate both typical suburban development and neo-traditional neighborhood development. o Adopt an Access Management Ordinance to protect the safety and mobility of major streets. ❑ Adopt a Traffic Calming Ordinance to protect quality of life in neighborhoods. o Identify Development Opportunity Districts that present unique opportunities for development and adapt City design standards to fully benefit from the unique qualities of the Development Opportunity Districts. • o Identify strategies for improving transit service within the community. ❑ Identify strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. . ❑ Identify unique demands for neighborhood preservation. o Foster a multi -modal approach to transportation improvements. o Foster a multi -modal transportation orientation to land development. o Foster a multi -modal transportation approach to interagency cooperative efforts. Identify transportation system deficiencies within the developed areas of Fayetteville as the highest priorities for improvement. The analysis of the existing major intersections and streets and comparison of the forecast major street volumes revealed existing and anticipated deficiencies in the major street system within the developed areas of Fayetteville. These streets are serving the existing population and businesses of the City, and should be ranked as the highest priorities for street improvements. Along with improving existing streets as the highest priority, infill land development should be encouraged in lieu of Greenfield development. Bucher, Willis R• Ratliff Corporation 121 KI 1.`0O:. lsodot'AeFen\10.0601 Fiw Re drc Cit1• of Fayeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Siudl- Chapter 9 - Smart Growl/s Policy Identify Priority Growth Areas on the urban fringe where City services can be most efficiently provided, according to a schedule determined by the City. In as much as not all growth within the City will be infill, it is important that the City predetermine when and where growth will be encouraged along the urban fringe, and that financial incentives and disincentives be offered to manage growth according to the City's plan. Priority consideration should be given to areas where all city services, including fire and police protection, trash pickup, parks, schools, streets, sewers, water, and other utilities can be most economically and efficiently provided. Recommendations in the Development Assessment Policy described in Chapter 8 call for a study to identify Priority Growth Areas, and to develop costs and financial responsibilities for City services, including transportation improvements. Identify strategies for financing new infrastructure by those who will most benefit from it. The Development Assessment Policy identified several techniques for financing of infrastructure improvements by those who will most benefit from the improvements. These techniques are called by various names in various jurisdictions. They essentially include: o A determination of the costs for the needed services. o An identification of the properties primarily benefited by the services. o A proportional distribution of costs based on benefits. o A financing mechanism assessing the costs back to the benefactors. • Implement proposed Master Street Plan design standards for major streets that place an increased emphasis on provision for pedestrian and bicycle travel. Typical sections for new major street construction developed as part of the Master Street Plan in Chapter 2 provide a greater emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian travel than in the previous Master Street Plan. All new major street typical sections provide for off street multipurpose trails, or for sidewalk in combination with sufficient width for on street bicycle traffic where traffic volumes are lower. Implement proposed Master Street Plan standards that accommodate both typical suburban development and neo-traditional neighborhood development. Both traditional suburban subdivisions and neo-traditional neighborhoods function most successfully if the overall major street system has been developed with a balanced functional hierarchy of arterial, collector, and local streets. The major street system can be laid out so as to accommodate either type of development. The layout of the street system within the subdivision or neighborhood is only one component of what distinguishes the two types of development. The other primary component is the arrangement of land use within the neighborhood. In a typical suburban subdivision, the more intense land uses such as office and retail are oriented away from the residential uses out toward the principal arterial streets. In a neo-traditional neighborhood. the more intense land uses are located in the center of the neighborhood, fronting the neighborhood's central collector system. If a properly configured major street stem has been adopted, a neo- traditional neighborhood can be created by reconfiguring the land use mix within the neighborhood through a revision of the zoning map in the comprehensive plan. The development of neo-traditional neighborhoods can be encouraged through offering financial incentives to • developments incorporating neo-traditional elements. Bucher, Willis & RadijjCo poration 122 fI CDabP>do[`R,pv1\IDO'O3 Emil kcpci doc Ciq' of Fareueville, Arkansas Traffic and Trutnporlalion Slut!;' Chapter 9 - Smart Growth Policy • Adopt an Access Management Ordinance to protect the safety and mobility of major streets. When collector and arterial streets fail to function as intended, traffic will began to use local streets for collector and arterial functions. Protecting and preserving the original function of major streets is the most effective way of preserving the quality of life in abutting neighborhoods. Since arterial streets are primarily intended to move traffic it is important that direct property access onto arterial streets be prohibited, or at worst, limited. Providing direct access points onto an arterial street creates points at which vehicle conflicts may occur as vehicles slow down to turn, or enter a faster moving traffic stream. These conflict points contribute to accident potential and to friction in the traffic flow. An access management ordinance would regulate how and when access onto an arterial or collector street could be provided. Adopt a Traffic Calming Ordinance to protect quality of life in neighborhoods. There will be occasions where the deterioration of arterial street function is irreversible, and the resultant traffic patterns include infiltration of through traffic into neighborhood streets. In such circumstances, it will be beneficial for City staff to have a mechanism in place to study the impacts of the traffic infiltration and make recommendations for its alleviation. The traffic calming ordinance would provide a procedure for identifying and evaluating the problem, developing and implementing a solution, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. Identify Development Opportunity Districts that present unique opportunities for development. • A Development Opportunity District is any area that presents unique or special opportunities for development, because of topography, infrastructure, utilities, etc. It might for instance be an undeveloped lake front, or a site conducive to industrial development because of highway or rail access, or an opportunity for historical preservation. The City of Fayetteville should identify such unique districts or corridors where standards concerning access management, landscaping, traffic calming, and related development issues are adopted in unique ways for each district. For example, the area surrounding the University of Arkansas campus may need a different traffic calming and different landscaping scheme than the commercial corridor along College. The recommendation of the Smart Growth Policy is to first identify unique districts, and then second, adopt development standards for those unique districts. The ordinance relevant to implementation of this concept would be amendments to the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in the City of Fayetteville. These could be applied through overlay districts specific to the needs of each Development Opportunity District. The multi -modal plan element of this study discussed in Chapter 5 identified several strategies for improving transit service within the community. Those strategies included: ❑ Conduct a community preference survey to determine public opinion of how transit service could be improved. o Identify locations for park and ride lots. ❑ Increase communication with the community as to transit routes, schedules, and fare structures. ❑ Identify transit routes and destinations for system expansion. • Bucher, Willis & Rail iJJCo'poration 123 M VW..J!Vdoc cpon1IO-OM3 nW X.pwt Ex Cilt) o/jFayetrenille, Arkansas Traffic and Trunsporlation Stud Chapter 9 — Smarl Growth Policy • Identify strategies for improving transit services within the community. Fayetteville possesses a wealth of opportunities for transit service, including both fixed route services and on -demand services. As the community continues to grow, the City should be sensitive to opportunities for expansion and enhancement of the existing systems and to partner with the University, AHTD. the MPO, and with other communities in the region to share resources and integrate systems. Identify strategies for improving bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. The multi -modal plan element of this study identified several strategies for improving the opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the community. Those strategies include: o Identify locations for bicycle racks and lockers at major destinations. ❑ Continue to expand the number of completed links in the City and regional trail systems. ❑ Continue to expand the number of completed links in the City's sidewalk system. ❑ Provide pedestrian and bicycle links between major pedestrian destinations, including schools and parks. Identify unique demands for neighborhood preservation. Fayetteville has developed into a series of neighborhoods, each reflecting a character that makes • those neighborhoods unique. The traffic calming policy in Chapter 6 developed as an element of this study provides a structure by which neighborhoods can request assistance of the City in identifying cut through traffic, high speeds through residential areas, and excessive traffic volumes that can impact the quality of life in the neighborhood, and in mitigating traffic impacts. Improvements to the existing street system should be sensitive to the context in which they are made. Foster a multi -modal approach to transportation improvements. City designers should be sensitive in the design of any transportation improvement to look for opportunities to enhance alternative transportation mode opportunities. For example, in the design of an intersection improvement to increase traffic capacity, an emphasis should also be placed on enhancing the visibility and safety of the pedestrian crossings., or to include a bus pullover and shelter in the design. Foster a multi -modal transportation emphasis to land development. As site development plans are prepared. they should provide an increased emphasis on walkability. and accessibility by transit and bicycle. Densities should be permitted that would encourage use of transit in lieu of provisions for automobiles. Foster a multi -modal transportation approach to interagency cooperative efforts. The transportation system in Fayetteville can be impacted by the decisions of several government agencies. including AHTD, the University. the MPO, neighboring cities, and the City of Fayetteville. Cooperation between these partners is essential for all modes of transportation, • including transit, bicycles, walking, and automobile. Bucher, Willis & Radi/JCorporation 124 �� :dv .a.w��o-o.o� r,w Rrn m. Ci(p of rgyetamille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study References 0 REFERENCES "Best Practices for Colleges and Universities: Transportation Management." http://www epa clov/NE/assistance/univ/pdfs/brnps/ComeI[Transportation pdf City of Edmonds Transportation Element: 2002 Update, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, December 2002. City of Marysville Transportation Element: 2002 Update. Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, December 2002. Connell's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. May 2002. http://www.parkinu.cornelLedu/ComSol 2003.ydf "Demand Management Strategies." Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http:/Avww.vlpi.org/tdm/idm96.htm Fayetteville Public Schools G.I.S. Program. "Events." http://fayar.net/GIS/Events.htm Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP). "Chapter 4: Multi -Modal Planning." JCCOG 2002-2027 Lone -Range Multi -Modal Transportation Plan: for the Iowa City Urbanized Area. Johnson County Council of Governments, May 2002. Kansas City Walkability Plan. "Appendix C — Pedestrian LOS Analysis." "Key Factors Determining TOD Success." http://www.globaltelemaiics.com/apa99.htm • Lincoln and Lancaster County: 2025 Comprehensive Plan. "Future Conditions — Mobility & Transportation." May, 2002. Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Level of Service Handbook. Systems Planning Office. Florida Department of Transportation, March, 2003. Northwest Arkansas Heritage Trail Plan. htty://tvtvw.mvarpc.com/heritage trail plan.htm "Springdale. Arkansas: A Consumer's Guide to Accessible Housing." Sources for Community Independent Living Services. Inc. http://www.arsources.org/documents/sprinedale housing guide.pdf Tooley, Gattis. and Watts. MBTC 1103: The Northwest Arkansas Transit Assessment Study. University of Arkansas, March 2000. htip://wwty mackblackwell.ore/research/finals/arc 1103/combl I 03.html "Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Description." Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/idm/tdm45.htin "Chapter 20.120: Transportation Demand Management" Program. City of South San Franscisco, California. http://www.ordlink.corn/codes/sosanfran/index.hini University of Arkansas. "Transit and Parking: Paratransit Service." http://www.uark.edu/depts/parking/ps/ps.htrn University of Arkansas Transportation Master Plan. Walker Parking Consultants, October, 2001. • Bucher, Willis & RatliifCotporation 125 &I V 00:.1! Vvb,`Arydn I OU!+1) F,ul Rwon do' Cih' of Fairneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transporlolion Study Appendix A • APPENDIX A: Fayetteville Peer City Questionnaires and Results Bucher, Willis & RadifCoiporation A -I T1T,rYl MNon SC City of Faq•enenille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • List of Comparison Cities (College towns similar in size to Fayetteville) Ames, Iowa (47.000) Iowa State University (25.000 students) Planning and Housing 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, IA 50010 (515)239-5400 Athens, Georgia (126.000) University of Georgia (30.000 students) Planning Department 120 W. Dougherty St., Athens, GA 30601 (706)613-3515 acczone@co.clarke.ga.us Auburn, Alabama (33.000) Auburn University (22.000 students) Auburn Planning Department 171 N. Ross St.. Auburn. AL (334)887-4970 Champaign, Illinois (63.000) • University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign (34,000 students) 102 N. Neil Street, Champaign, IL 61820 (217)351-4486 • College Station, Texas (53.000) Texas A & M (44.000 students) P.O. Box 9960, College Station, TX 77840 (979)764-3500 Columbia, Missouri (69,000) University of Missouri (24,000 students) Columbia College (1000 students) Stephens College (1000 students) 701 E. Broadway, Columbia, MO 65205 (573)874-7239 planning@ci.columbia.mo.us Grand Forks, North Dakota (45.000) University of North Dakota (10,000 students) Tallahassee, Florida (124,000) Metropolitan Planning Organization Florida State University (30,000 students) 255 N. 4'h St.. Rm 202. Grand Forks, ND 58206 300 S. Adams St., Tallahassee, FL 32301 (701)746-2660 (850)891-8600 planninentaleov.coin Iowa City, Iowa (61,000) University of Iowa (28,000 students) (319)356-5240 Ithaca, New York (29,000) Cornell University (20,000 students) Ithaca College (6000 students) 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)274-6550 plann ing(a)ci.ithaca.ny.us Lawrence, Kansas (78,000) University of Kansas (25,000 students) Lawrence -Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044-0708 (785)832-3150 Manhattan, Kansas (45,000) Kansas State University (22.000 Students) City of Manhattan Community Development 1101 PoyntzAvenue Manhattan, Kansas 66502 (785) 587-2412 Norman, Oklahoma (80,000) University of Oklahoma (27,000 students) Department of Planning and Community Development (405)366-5433 planning@ci.norman.ok.us Springfield, MO (140,000) Southwest Missouri State University (16,000 students) Department of Planning and Zoning P.O. Box 8368, Springfield, MO 65801 (417)864-1037 AI _'00!.IeVNx`Repm`OV4lAl Dr,R Im,I Reps &.c Bucher, Willis & Rail if Corporation A-2 Cur of Fgrerteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • Fayetteville Preliminary Peer City Questionnaire Agency: Agency Contact: Title: Survey Contact (if different than above): Title: Survey Contact Phone No. Project Name: Fayetteville, AR - Citywide Transportation Study Client: City of Fayetteville, AR Intent: Simple data collection to select peer cities for identifying best practices and transportation policies applicable in Fayetteville. Please respond quickly to this survey using estimates or best guesses if necessary rather than spending a lot of time to develop hard answers. Where available please feel free to provide additional information. I. What's your student population? Traditional Non-traditional 2. What's your faculty/staff population? • 3. What are the expectations for number of students into the future? If you expect growth/decline, please give raw numbers for change and timeframe. Raw Numbers: Time Frame: 4. What is your estimate of the percent of students that are driving/using transit/bicycling/walking to campus? Drive: % Transit: Bike: % Walk: 5. What percent of students are parking on campus? % 6. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to transportation planning? Formal Informal U None 7. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to encourage alternative mode use (bike, `pedestrian. -%transit other) ((-select as applicable) or '-%facilitate multi -modal transfer (E -select as applicable)? U Formal %Informal 'None If formal or informal, select all that apply. .•'Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas JBike racks on buses JBike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildings • -%Other: Bucher, Willis & RadifCo poration A-3 AI :W:.3 c c''R "O 2.0) DnR F'n4 ReponO Cirr of rureuerille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • 8. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking on campus? UYes circle all that apply: Permits U Meters U Gated UOther: UNo. If yes, 9. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking adjacent to campus (in neighborhoods)? U Yes -%No. If yes, select all that apply: UOn-street parking permits Meters —%Monitoring :Other: 10. Does your university operate a transit system or shuttling system other than municipal? -i Yes U No. If no, skip to question #14. 11. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to planning/facility/operations between on -campus transit and other city/regional transit operators? U Formal U Informal U No. If yes, select all that apply: Planning U Facility Intermodal/exchange center :Operations Transfers between systems 12. Do you use your on -campus shuttle to serve periphery/off-campus ((-circle as applicable) • parking lots? UYes U No 13. Identify your fare structure (Circle all that apply): Pay per use — Cost: U Student -fee based (free) U Pass: 131 -monthly %Quarter/semester Annual U Other: U Student -fee based and a pass Other: 14. Do you have a strategy for carrying vehicular traffic through campus, or around the periphery of campus? j Through UAround U Both U Neither 15. Are there Smart Growth issues that might relate? Smart Growth in this context means best management practices in coordinating transportation planning and land use planning such as encouraging the use of multiple -occupancy private automobiles, and reducing congestion at peak demand hours. U University expansion plans %Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans Intermodal/exchange center planning Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes U Incentives for not driving • %Telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses Bucher, Willis 4 Ratliff Corporation A-4 1.1 .2 2.i Qyp�fpwan'AnLJ OJ Dan Final R.{on Ax C/(I' of Fgpeiteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Siudl. Appendiv A • Parking fees Other: 16. Does your university and/or municipal planning agency have an approval process to cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements and U require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles? u Yes UNo • • 17 Who has jurisdiction of roadways? Within campus: Surrounding and adjacent to campus: THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. Return to: Attn: Charlie Schwinger Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 7920 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 641 14-2021 Feel free to send additional information by mail to the above address or by email to cschwingerrrt bwrcorn.com. Contact Charlie by phone at (800) 748-8276 with any other questions or comments. AI UW:.3'V,t'Arym`O'+-0:.O3 D,.R 1.i%1 R.ypt Ix Bucher. Willis & Ratlif Ca,poration A-5 City of raretteville. Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studi' Appendix A • Peer City Survey —Summary The University of Arkansas is similar to other agencies responding to the preliminary survey by having the following characteristics: • UARK falls just below average with regard to total projected student population. • (JA RK's percent of students that are driving, using transit, and walking to campus are among the average. • The formal versus informal approach to encouraging alternative mode use is split fifty-fifty among survey respondents. UARK follows typical respondents in encouraging transit and by implementing transit stops at parking facilities. activity centers, and high student resident areas. • UARK is similar to other universities with its formal program to deal with parking on campus using permits and meters. Many universities also use gates as an additional means of managing parking. • UARK is among most other surveyed universities in not having a formal program to deal with student parking adjacent to campus (in neighborhoods). Among the agencies surveyed, these types ofprograms were generally city administered • Most universities, including UARK, operate a transit system or shuttling system other than • municipal. • UARK is similar to most agencies surveyed in engaging in aformal approach to planning/facility/operations between on -campus transit and other city/regional transit operators with interface in planning, with facilities (intermodal/exchange center), and in operations (transfers between systems). • Most universities, like UARK, use an on -campus shuttle to serve periphery/off-campus parking lots. • The majority of systems. including UARK, use the student fee based (free) fare structure. However, several systems do have a pay per use or pass system. • Regarding Smart Growth issues, UARK is similar to other universities in having university expansion plans and by implementing parking fees. • When asked if the university and/or municipal planning agency has an approval process to cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements and require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles. UARK responded "yes' as did most agencies. However, most survey respondents affirmed that they cooperatively review and approve plans/improvements and require site plan details, while UARK did not affirm to doing these two items. • Universities generally have jurisdiction of roadways within campus while cities generally have jurisdiction of roadways surrounding campus. • Bucher, Willis . Ratliff Corporation A-6 AI "OJ:.layyKucpo,,.Op0:.03 On F.MI Nrpon Ax Ciq- of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stink Appendix A • Differences between UARK and other agencies include: • Most surveyed universities have a larger student population than the University ofArkansas (UARK). • Similar to UARK's smaller student population. UARK's faculty/stafpopulation is also the smallest among the surveyed universities. • UARK's percent ofstudents bicycling to campus is one of the lowest among agencies surveyed. • The percent ofstudents parking on campus is relatively high compared to other cities surveyed. • Wizen asked if the campus has engaged in a formal or informal approach to transportation planning, most universities have a formal approach. UARK is among just a few of the agencies surveyed with an informal approach to transportation planning. • Most other universities have aformal approach to encourage bicycle and pedestrian alternative mode use, as well as implement bike racks at entry points, student center, and classroom buildings. • The University ofArkansas has a strategy for only carrying vehicular traffic around campus. not through. Most surveyed universities have a strategy for carrying traffic through and • around campus. • Regarding Smart Growth issues, most of the surveyed agencies have region/municipal transit/bike/pedestrian plans. Also, several universities also apply development regulations, provide incentives for not driving, have telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses, and operate vanpools. • UARK and only afew other universities are engaged in intermodal/exchange center planning. Key items of significance are UARK's low ranking for percent of students bicycling to campus; a lack of a formal approach to encourage bicycle and pedestrian alternative mode use; the lack of bike racks at entry points, student center, and classroom buildings; and the lack of region/municipal transit/bike/pedestrian plans. UARK's Garland Transfer Facility is noteworthy as many universities have not initiated intermodal/exhchange center planning. • Bucher, Willis & Ratlif%Corporation A-7 M UW2.3'940c.Rrynr0Q02.OJ Dnf F'nel Repwi E c Cih' of Fq;etterille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • • Peer City Survey - All Survey Responses 1. What's your student population? Traditional, Non-traditional. University of Arkansas 16,035 Ames, Iowa 18,000, 8,000 Iowa State University 25.000, 2,750 CyRide (Iowa State University) 22,000, 5.000 University of Georgia 32.000 n/a Auburn University 19.504. 3,346 Texas A & M 45,000 University of Missouri 22,000, 3,000 University of North Dakota 12,423 University of Iowa 23,500, 6,000 Cornell University 19,000 University of Kansas - Parking 28,849 University of Kansas 21,874, 3,908 University of Oklahoma 12,000, 14,000 Springfield, Missouri n/a 2. What '.r your faculty/stafpopulation? University of Arkansas 3.557 (840, 2,717) Ames, Iowa 11,000 Iowa State University 6.000 CyRide (Iowa State University) 6,200 University of Georgia 10,000 Auburn University 4,000 Texas A & M 15,000 University of Missouri 10,000 University of North Dakota 5.315 University of Iowa 13,500 (includes University Hospital; 1,700 faculty) Cornell University 9,000 University of Kansas - Parking 4,765 University of Kansas 9,774 University of Oklahoma 4.500 Springfield, Missouri n/a M 2m:.3!cwaonwa:.a Dc. R raw R.wr me Bucher, Willis & Rath9'Corporation A-8 Citir of Fgpetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Appendix A • 3. What are the expectations for number ofstudents into the future? Ifyou expect growdr/decline, please give raw numbers for change and timeframe. Raw Numbers, Time Frame. University of Arkansas 22,500 by 2010 Ames, Iowa 27,000, 10 years Iowa State University numbers expect to remain constant in foreseeable future CyRide (Iowa State University) 26,000 total, over three years University of Georgia no change Auburn University 30,000, 20 yrs Texas A & M 500, Annually for 5 years University of Missouri +3,000, 5 years University of North Dakota 14,500, 2005 University of Iowa +500, 3 years Cornell University Stable University of Kansas - Parkin — University of Kansas (no publicly released figures) expected to maintain or rise some. next few years University of Oklahoma 2,500, 3 years Springfield, Missouri n/a • 4. What is your estimate of the percent of students that are driving/using transidbicycling/walking to campus? Drive (%), Transit (%J Bike (%). Walk (%) University of Arkansas 50%. 25%, 2%, 23% Ames, Iowa 25%, 15%, 10%, 50% Iowa State University 25%, 25%, 10%, 10% CyRide (Iowa State University) 20%, 30%, 2%, 48% University of Georgia 80%, 10%, 5%, 5% Auburn University 67% ark - includes those who drive to campus to drop off friends or after zone enforcement hours, 28%, 3%, 2% Texas A & M 50%, 35%, -5%, -10% University of Missouri 50%, 30%, <5%, 15% University of North Dakota 85%, 5%, 5%, 5% University of Iowa 30%, 25%, 10%. 35% Cornell University 6%, 25%. 10%. 59% University of Kansas - Parkin — University of Kansas 45%, 24%, 6%, 25% University of Oklahoma 55%, 20%, 10%, 15% Springfield, Missouri n/a Bucher, Willis & Rails f Corporation A-9 M V W}. )!O W�onWQ4J .OJ Dtsf pntl Repo' Ax Cm' of Fareiie;'ille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Studp Appendix A • 5, What percent of students are parking on campus? University of Arkansas 75% Ames, Iowa 10% Iowa State University 50% (25% residential, 25% commuter) CyRide (Iowa State University) 15% (includes football stadium not on central campus) University of Georgia 80% Auburn University Over 40% (we issue 15,343 permits for only 9,037 student parking s aces. A ermit is a "huntin license' TexasA&M 100% University of Missouri 50% University of North Dakota 90% University of Iowa 8% Cornell University 6% commuter. 6% resident University of Kansas - Parking -33% University of Kansas 42% University of Oklahoma 35% Springfield. Missouri n/a 6. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to transportation planning? Formal, Informal. None. 0 0 University of Arkansas Informal Ames, Iowa Informal Iowa State University Formal CyRide (Iowa State University) Formal University of Georgia — Auburn University Formal. Informal Texas A & M Formal University of Missouri Formal, Informal University of North Dakota Formal University of Iowa Formal Cornell University Informal University of Kansas - Parkin — University of Kansas Formal University of Oklahoma Formal Springfield, Missouri n/a AI VW:.JJ>NrcJRepenOp-0:-0J Dun Final R`pwn &M Bucher, Willis 8' RatlifCorporation A- 10 Cih' of Fgpet:eville, Arkansas Traffic unel Transportation Study Appendix A • 7, Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to encourage alternative mode use (bike, pedestrian, transit, other) or facilitate multi -modal transfer? Formal. Informal. None. Ifformal or informal, select all that apply: Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas. Bike racks on buses. Bike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildings, Other. • • University of Arkansas Informal, Transit. Facilitate multi -modal transfer, Transit stops at arkin facilities/activi centers/hi h student resident areas Ames. Iowa Informal, Bike, Pedestrian, Transit, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at entry ints/student center/classroom buildings Iowa State University Formal, Bike, Pedestrian, Transit. Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas. Bike racks at ent ints/student center/classroom buildin s CyRide (Iowa State Formal, Pedestrian, Transit, Transit stops at parking University) facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at ent oints/student center/classroom buildin s University of Georgia Formal, Informal, Bike. Pedestrian, Transit, Other, Facilitate multi - modal transfer, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks on buses. Bike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildings. Other - carpooling _______________________ Auburn University Pedestrian, Transit, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at entry nts/student center/classroom buildin s Texas A & M Formal, Bike, Pedestrian, Transit, Facilitate multi -modal transfer, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centersthigh student residency areas, Bike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildin s University of Missouri Bike, Pedestrian, Transit, Facilitate multi -modal transfer, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centersthigh student residency areas, Bike racks on buses. Bike racks at entry pointststudent center/classroom buildings University of North Informal, Transit, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity Dakota centers/high student residency areas University of Iowa Formal, Bike, Pedestrian, Transit, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildings, Other - Reduced rate bus asses on Ci transit s stem Cornell University Formal - Bike, Pedestrian, Transit. Facilitate multi -modal transfer, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks on buses; Informal - Bike racks at entry oints/student center/classroom buildings University of Kansas - None Parking University of Kansas Formal, Transit, Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at entry nts/student center/classroom buildin s University of Oklahoma Formal, Transit. Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks at entry oints/student center/classroom buildin s Springfield, Missouri n/a Mv002.IwWrcRepon Oca:.a1 "nil Emil Rwa. Gx Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation A -I City of Fayetteville, Arkun.sas Traffic and Trunsportation Stud;' Appendix A • 8. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking on campus? Yes, No. Ifyes. select all that apply: Permits, Meters, Gated, Other. University of Arkansas Yes, Permits, Meters Ames, Iowa Permits, Meters, Gated Iowa State University Yes, Permits, Meters, Other — Shuttle Service CyRide (Iowa State University) Yes, Permits, Meters, Gated University of Georgia Permits. Meters, Gated Auburn University Yes, Permits Texas A & M Yes, Permits, Gated, Other - Enforcement University of Missouri Yes. Permits, Meters University of North Dakota Yes, Permits. Meters, Gated University of Iowa Yes, Permits, Meters Cornell University Yes, Permits, Meters, Gated University of Kansas - Parking Yes, Permits, Meters University of Kansas Permits, Meters, Gated University of Oklahoma Yes, Permits, Meters Springfield. Missouri n/a 9. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking adjacent to campus (in neighborhoods)? Yes, No. Ifyes. .select all that apply: On -street parking permits, Meters. Monitoring, Other. • Cl University of Arkansas No Ames, Iowa Yes, Meters, Monitoring Iowa State University No CyRide (Iowa State University) No University of Georgia No, Monitoring (by city) Auburn University No Texas A & M No University of Missouri No University of North Dakota Yes, Monitoring University of Iowa No Cornell University Yes — City Administered, On -street parking permits, Meters, Monitoring University of Kansas - Parking No University of Kansas No University of Oklahoma No Springfield. Missouri n/a At Onrt Iris, RN>, Ax Bucher, Willis R Ratl/Corporation A-12 Ciii' of FaYeueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Srudl• Append&r A • 10. Does your university operate a Transit system or shuttling system other than municipal? Yes. No. Ifno. skip to question k14. University of Arkansas Yes Ames, Iowa No Iowa State University No CyRide (Iowa State No University) University of Georgia Yes Auburn University Yes Texas A & M Yes University of Missouri Yes University of North Yes Dakota University of Iowa Yes Cornell University No — But we are a one-third partner in the local municipal transit system, along with the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. As such we will address Q11 -Q13. University of Kansas - Yes Parking University of Kansas Yes University of Oklahoma Yes Springfield, Missouri n/a • 1l. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to planning/facility/operations between on -campus transit and other city/regional transit operators? Formal, Informal, No. Ifyes. select all that apply: Planning, Facility- Intermodal/exchange center, Operations - Transfers between systems. University of Arkansas Formal, Planning, Facility — Intermodal/exchange center, Operations — Transfers between systems University of Georgia Formal, Informal, Planning, Facility — Intermodal/exchange center, Operations — Transfers between systems Auburn University Formal Texas A & M Informal, Planning University of Missouri Formal, Planning. Operations — Transfers between systems University of North Informal, Planning, Facility — Intermodal/exchange center Dakota University of Iowa Formal, Planning, Operations — Transfers between systems Cornell University Formal, Planning, Facility — Intermodal/exchange center, Operations — Transfers between systems (one system eliminates this_need_altogether) University of Kansas - — Parkin University of Kansas Informal, Facility — Intermodallexchange center, Operations — Transfers between systems University of Oklahoma Formal, Planning, Facility — Intermodal/exchange center, Operations_— Transfers between s stems • Bucher, Willis & RadifCorporation A-13 .� gym: h.omuao^nao�.03 D,.n hew Rewn a. Clip' of Ful eNerille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Appendix A • 12. Do you use your on -campus shuttle to serve periphery/of-emnpus parking lots? Yes, No. University of Arkansas Yes University of Georgia Yes Auburn University No Texas A & M Yes University of Missouri Yes University of North Dakota Yes University of Iowa Yes Cornell University Yes — all part of municipal system University of Kansas - Parking No University of Kansas Yes University of Oklahoma Yes 13. Identify your fare structure: Pay per use — Cost: : Student fee based (free): Pass: Bi-monthly. Quarter/semester, Annual, Other: Student fee based and a pass: Other. • • University of Arkansas Student -fee based (free) University of Georgia Student -fee based (free) Auburn University Student -fee based (free) Texas A & M Student -fee based (free), Other - $100K from administration and $100K from parking revenues in addition to student fee University of Missouri Student -fee based (free) University of North Student -fee based (free), Student -fee based and a pass Dakota University of Iowa Student -fee based (free) Cornell University Pay per use — Cost: $0.75 (this represents a 25% volume discount that Cornell - as the single largest customer - receives. Cornell paid for 1.7 million of the 2.6 million rides, system -wide. last year.), Pass - (Cornell sells its own student pass at roughly a 57% discount off the systems own pass. Cornell then pays by the ride [see above]. The pass costs $75/semester or $150 full year.), Quarter/Semester, Other - There is also a faculty/staff pass, provided at no charge for those commuters who choose not to buy an individual parking permit University of Kansas - Pay per use — Cost $1.00 per ride, Pass: Quarter/Semester - Parking $65/semester, Annual - $120, Student -fee based and a pass - $16/semester all students, no free ass University of Kansas Pay per use — Cost:$1.00, Pass: Quarter/Semester, Annual, Student -fee based and a pass University of Oklahoma Pay per use, Student -fee based (free). Pass: Quarter/Semester, Other %J 200:.JR{poR pO-0.-0) R fl FinS Repon doc Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation A-14 Ciq' of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendic A • 14. Do you have a strategy for carrying vehicular traffic through campus, or around the periphery of campus? Through. Around, Both, Neither. University of Arkansas Around Ames. Iowa Around Iowa State University Both CyRide (Iowa State University) Around University of Georgia Both Auburn University Neither - Our current administration is dedicated to pedestrianization of the core of campus, so a strategy should develop as a matter of course. Texas A & M Around University of Missouri Both University of North Dakota Both University of Iowa Both Cornell University Neither University of Kansas - Parkin — University of Kansas Both University of Oklahoma Both Springfield. Missouri n/a • • Bucher, Willis K RatliCorporation A- 15 AI t'0U?.i5Q Xw VP42-0) fl.. n Fiw aspen roe Citl' of Fai'etteville, Arkunssas Traffic and Transportation Studs' Appendix A 15. Are there Smart Growth issues that might relate? Smart Growth in this context means best management practices in coordinating transportation planning and land use planning such as encouraging the use of multiple -occupancy private automobiles, and reducing congestion at peak demand hours. University expansion plans, Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans. Intermodal/exchange center planning. Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes. Incentives for not driving. Teleconvnute/telecourses/.rate!lire campuses, Parking fees, Other. University of Arkansas University expansion plans, IntermodaVexchange center planning, Parkin fees Ames, Iowa — Iowa State University University expansion plans, Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, Intermodal/exchange center planning, Parkin fees CyRide (Iowa State No University) University of Georgia Incentives for not driving Auburn University Other - University Master Plan Texas A & M University expansion plans. Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, Incentives for not driving. Telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses, Parking fees University of Missouri Other - We try and keep our parking issues from impacting the city, University of North University expansion plans, IntermodaVexchange center Dakota planning, Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes, Parking fees University of Iowa University expansion plans, Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes, Incentives for not driving,driving,_Parking_fees,_Other_-_vanpool Cornell University University expansion plans, Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes, Incentives for not driving, Parking fees, Other - High parking fees to discourage single -occupant vehicle commutin University of Kansas - — Parkin University of Kansas Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans. Telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses, Parking fees University of Oklahoma Parking fees Springfield, Missouri University Expansion Plans, Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, Intermodal/exchange center planning, Telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses, Other — Special parking permits for on -street parking in residential neighborhoods near campuses Bucher, Willis & RatliCorporation A- 16 M Drift f,n& Repm Crc Clip of Fui eneville, Arkunsa.c Traffic and Transportation Study Appendir A • 16. Does your university and/or municipal planning agency have an approval process to cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements and require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles? Yes. No. • C� University of Arkansas Yes Ames, Iowa No Iowa State University No CyRide (Iowa State No University) University of Georgia No, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smartrowth rinci les Auburn University Yes Texas A & M Yes University of Missouri Yes, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles University of North Yes, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital Dakota improvements, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart rowth rinci les University of Iowa Yes, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements Cornell University Yes, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles University of Kansas - — Parkin University of Kansas Yes, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles University of Oklahoma No Springfield, Missouri Yes, Cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements, Require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles Bucher. Willis X RatlifCorporation A- 17 Ci(r of Fu,'eueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Append& A 0 17. Who has jurisdiction ofroadways? Within campus. Surrounding and adjacent to campus. University of Arkansas University of Arkansas and Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, City of Fayetteville Ames, Iowa State, City Iowa State University University and State, City CyRide (Iowa State University) University, City University of Georgia UGA Physical Plant, local government Auburn University AU Dept. of Public Safety, City of Auburn Texas A & M University. Cities University of Missouri State, City, and University within campus University of North Dakota University, City University of Iowa University City Cornell University Mostly Cornell, but some City of Ithaca, some Town of Ithaca, and some Village of Cayuga Heights; Cornell, City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights. Town of Dryden; Some roads have multi le jurisdictions. University of Kansas - Parkin — University of Kansas University, City of Lawrence University of Oklahoma University, City Springfield, Missouri City of Springfield, City of Springfield 0 • Bucher, Willis d RadiffCorporation A- 18 M 1:00=.J' . c' lwn`Oo-0:.0) Dn0 Fm. Rtoon O c Ciq' of Furetteville, Arhunsu.c Traffic and Transportation Siadr Appendix A • Peer City Survey — Graphs and Tables I. What's your student population? Traditional, Non-traditional. • 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 1 25,000 20,000 15000 10,000 5,000 0 ' N F iift . . •' --- . -:-- - .. • Total Student Population 2. What's your faculty/rtaffpopulation? 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 I •T' .- — — • _ Fes'-, — _. --.. _ ...-.: M1 L•0J: 1!odx,Jgc., 00: dl Oc. 1',r Repun 1 • Faculty/Staff Population Bucher, Willis d- Ratliff Corporation A- 19 Cih' of FGPetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • 3. What are the expectations for number of students into the future? Ifyou expect growth/decline, please give raw numbers for change and timeframe. Raw Numbers, Time Frame. • Sc 4( 3( 2( is 4. What is your estimate of the percent ofstudents that are driving/using transit/bicycling/walking to campus? Drive (vlo), Transit (%J Bike (%), Walk (%) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% M \2 :-3!QtiRryenOcO_L] Dn Fmd Reyaa Sc • Percent Dri4ng I Bucher, Willis N& RatlifC'orporation A-20 Arkansas Traffic and K • r 1 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% I II III mmIm • Percent Biking M 2OQ2.J5pdxUgon'OtO?LJ Drift foul Repo.. fl.Percent Percent Using Transit Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation A -2I City of Fa;'ettevile, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stuuh• Appendir A is r • 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% .I I _n. ,.. • - _ 11y:. �.t- -_ T t ♦ ♦ . • Percent Walking 5. What percent ofstudents are parking on campus? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% M 1301.J'q' iR,Ou,`OGL!.03 Omit f mM Repon 0x ♦ Percent of Students Parking on Campus llucher. Willis X Rail/if Coporation A-22 Citr of Fareueville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Append&r A 6. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to transportation planning? Formal. Informal. None. Formal Informal Both GiveritjofMcrkansas Ames. Iowa X Iowa State University X CyRide (Iowa State University) X Auburn University X TexasA&M X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X University of Iowa X Cornell University X University of Kansas X University of Oklahoma X Bucher. Willis & RadifjCorporation A-23 M \2 .r3Paxwmmvwu:m aft Fuw R, on - City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Surd)) AppendLv A Li 7. Has your campus engaged in a formal or informal approach to encourage alternative mode use (bike, pedestrian, transit, other) or facilitate multi -modal transfer? Formal, Informal. None, Ifformal or informal. select all that apply: Transit stops at parking facilities/activity centers/high student residency areas, Bike racks on buses. Bike racks at entry points/student center/classroom buildings. Other. Transit stops at Bike parking racks at facilities/ entry Fac- activity points/ ilitate centers/ student multi- high Bike center/ modal student racks Class- In- PS- trans- resident on room Formal formal None Bike estrian Transit Other fer areas buses bld s Other iyecsitvCof ' ansas Ames, Iowa X X X X X x Iowa State University X X X X x x CyRide (Iowa State University) X X X X X X J.Jniversity of or is X X X X X X X X X X ubum University X X X X TexasA&M X X X X X X X University of Missouri X X X X X X X University of North Dakota X X X University of Iowa X X X X X X X Cornell University X X X X X X X X X University of Kansas X X X X University of Oklahoma X X X X r1 LJ Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation A-24 kI IT,ft F''w Repo. J Cit,' of Fureneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud,' Appendix A I 8. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking on campus? Yes, No. If yes, select all that apply. Permits, Meters, Gated, Other. Permits Meters Gated Other phaersi of Arkansas Ames, Iowa X X X Iowa State University X X X CyRide (Iowa State University) X X X University of Georgia X X X Auburn University X Texas A& M X X X University of Missouri X X University of North Dakota X X X University of Iowa X X Cornell University X X X University of Kansas - Parkin X X University of Kansas X X X University of Oklahoma X X 9. Do you have a formal program to deal with student parking adjacent to campus (in neighborhoods)? Yes, No. if yes, select all that apply: On -street parking permits, • Meters. Monitoring. Other. Yes No niversof Arkansas Ames, Iowa X Iowa State University X CyRide (Iowa State University) X University of Georgia X Auburn University X TexasA&M X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X University of Iowa X Connell University X University of Kansas - Parkin X University of Kansas X University of Oklahoma X • Bucher, Willis & RatlifCorporation A-25 M'.IW3 1!0�poeAryv:'WO1Q3 Daft r',W Kepon Ax Citr of lvq'etteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • 10. Does your university operate a transit system or shuttling system other than municipal? Yes. No. If no. skip to question 914. Yes No niTers df Arkansas Ames, Iowa X Iowa State University X CyRide (Iowa State University) X University of Georgia X Auburn University X TexasA & M X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X University of Iowa X Cornell University X University of Kansas - Parkin X University of Kansas X University of Oklahoma X 11. Has your campus engaged in aformal or informal approach to planning/facility/operations between on -campus transit and other city/regional transit • operators? Formal. Informal. No. Ifyes, select all that apply: Planning. Facility- Intermodal/exchange center, Operations - Transfers between systems. Formal Informal Planning Facility Operations nivers o Arkansas University of Georgia X X X Auburn University X TexasA & M x X University of Missouri X X X University of North Dakota X X X University of Iowa X x x Cornell University X x x X University of Kansas X X X University of Oklahoma X X X x • Bucher, Willis X Rat/if/Corporation A-26 %I V`00l )0Wec`Aepon`Do-O. 01 DnR T•S Rq,oO Ex Citp of Fayettevile, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Siudv Appendir A • 12. Do you use your on -campus shuttle to serve periphery/off-campus parking lots? Yes. No. Yes No nn[ersi of Arkansas University of Georgia X Auburn University X TexasA & M X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X University of Iowa X Cornell University X University of Kansas - Parkinx University of Kansas X University of Oklahoma X 13. /dent fi' your fare structure: Pay per use — Cost: : Student fee based (free): Pass: Li -monthly, Quarter/semester, Annual, Other: Student fee based and a pass; Other. Pay per Student -fee Pass Student -fee based Other use based (free) and a pass Five i of Arkansas University of Georgia X • Auburn University X -TexasA & M X x University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X X University of Iowa X Cornell University X x University of Kansas - Parkin X X X University of Kansas X x x University of Oklahoma X X X • Bucher, Willis R Rat4fJCorporation A-27 AI_�}.1}>dx*gm'OVO}03 Dnll Inul Re - Cite of Fayeneville. Arkansas Traffic untl Transportation .Study AppendLr A • 14. Do you have a strategy for carrying vehicular traffic through campus. or around the periphery of campus? Through, Around. Both. Neither. Through Around Both Neither nt ersi of& h ansas Ames, Iowa X Iowa State University X CyRide (Iowa State University) X University of Georgia X Auburn University X TexasA & M X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X University of Iowa X Cornell University X University of Kansas X University of Oklahoma X 15. Are there Smart Growth issues that might relate? Smart Growth in this context means best management practices in coordinating transportation planning and land use planning such as encouraging the use of multiple -occupancy private automobiles, and reducing congestion at peak demand hours. University expansion plans. • Region/municipal transit/bicycle/pedestrian plans, buermodal/exchange center planning. Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes. Incentives for not driving, T elecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses. Parking fees, Other. University expansion plans Region/ municipal transit/ bike/ ped plans Inter- modal/ exchange center planning Develop- ment regulations Incentives for not driving Tele- commute /tele- courses/ satellite campuses Parking fees Other p niversi of Arkansas Iowa State University X X X X University of Georgia X Auburn University X TexasA & M X X X X X University of Missouri X University of North Dakota X X X X University of Iowa X X X X X X Cornell University X X X X X X University of Kansas X X X University of Oklahoma X Springfield, Missouri X X X X X • Bucher. Willis & RatlifCorporation A-28 MI 2®2.33Q,yK•Aqun'Ood:-0J Dnfl rmd Rq.n - Citr of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • 16. Does your university and/or municipal planning agency have an approval process to cooperatively review and approve university plans/capital improvements and require site plan details that address transportation needs and/or smart growth principles? Yes, No. Yes No Cooperatively Review and Approve Plans/Improvements Require Site Plan Details I!ihiversitVl�flSrkansas Ames, Iowa x Iowa State University X CyRide (Iowa State University) X University of Georgia X X X Auburn University X TexasA&M X University of Missouri X X X University of North Dakota X X X University of Iowa X X Cornell University X X X University of Kansas X X University of Oklahoma X Springfield, Missouri X X x • 17. Who has jurisdiction of roadways? Within campus, Surrounding and adjacent to campus. Within Campus Surrounding Campus University State City or Cities City or Cities University nive of Arkansas Ames, Iowa X X Iowa State University X X X CyRide (Iowa State University) X X University of Georgia X X Auburn University X x Texas A & M X X University of Missouri X X x University of North Dakota X x University of Iowa X x Cornell University X X X X University of Kansas X x Universi of Oklahoma X x Springfield, Missouri X X • Bucher, Willis d- RadifCorporation A-29 M c 2.35c &c\ teponOQ0}.0) Daft F,n.I R.ywi ox Citl• of FaFelleville. Arkansas Traffic and Transportation StuckAppendfr A • Favetteville Follow-up Peer City Questionnaire Agency: Agency Contact: Title: Survey Contact (if different than above): Title: Survey Contact Phone No. Project Name: Fayetteville. AR — Citywide Transportation Study Client: City of Fayetteville, AR Intent: To identify alternative mode best practices and transportation policies applicable in Fayetteville. Your agency is one of seven agencies selected to identify best practices and transportation policies for Fayetteville. Your city and university (or universities) were selected due to high alternative mode use within your jurisdiction. Your urgent response (by June 6'") is appreciated. Please feel free to provide any information deemed beneficial. We are sending this to both the city and the university (or universities). Please feel free to solicit additional information from local transit agencies. I. Please attach specific city or university policies oriented to increase alternative mode use. As discussed in the preliminary peer city questionnaire, these policies may involve: • • parking control/fees in downtown/campus • limiting availability of parking • intermodal/exchange centers • multi -modal transfer • transit provider coordination/transfers • fare structure • transit promotion/expansion • placement of transit stops • provision of shuttle buses to serve periphery parking lots • park -and -ride lots • commuter ride -share • incentives for not driving • telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses • bike racks on buses • bike racks at stops/key locations • provision of trails or sidewalks • pedestrian activity centers/precincts • allowing certain levels of congestion • land use restriction/control • transportation/land use coordination • transit -oriented development • university expansion • regional or location specific policies • development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes • development/plan approval process • • other policies that may be applicable Bucher. Willis & RadifCorporation A-30 M Draft r,n.I Report Eoc City of Fgpettevillc, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study AppendLv A • THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. Return to: Attn: Charlie Schwinger Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 7920 Ward Parkway Kansas City. MO 64114-2021 Feel free to send additional information by mail to the above address or by email to cschwinger(abwrcorp.com. Contact Charlie by phone at (800) 748-8276 with any other questions or comments. • • Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation A-31 AI V00_.)!a1 '.Rep V)AJ:A3 O,efl FmI Repo, Sc Arkansas Traffic and Ti A • Follow-up Pcer City Policy Survey — Summary A follow-up survey was conducted based on information obtained from various city, university, and transit agencies in the preliminary peer city survey. Seven city/university geographic areas were chosen based on high transit usage, high percentage of bicycling or walking to campus. low percentage of parking on campus, and low percentage of students driving to campus. The seven areas included: • City ofAmes. Iowa and Iowa State University • City of College Station, Texas and Texas A&M University • City of Columbia. Missouri and the University of Missouri • Iowa City, Iowa and the University of Iowa • City of Ithaca, New York and Cornell University • City of Lawrence, Kansas and the University of Kansas • City of Norman. Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma Data from the preliminary survey was primarily from University respondents supplying information regarding estimated alternative mode use and university facilities, policies, and programs that encourage alternative modes and discourage single -occupant vehicle travel to or through campus. The target for the follow up survey was primarily the cities in order to provide alternative mode best practices and transportation policies applicable in Fayetteville. The surveyed agencies were asked to provide best practices and policies involving one or more of the following items: • • Parking control/fees in downtown/campus • Limiting availability of parking • Intermodal/exchange centers • Multi -modal transfer • Transit provider coordination/transfers • Fare structure • Transit promotion/expansion • Placement of transit stops • Provision of shuttle buses to serve periphery parking lots • Park -and -ride lots • Commuter ride -share • Incentives for not driving • Telecommute/telecourses/satellite campuses • Bike racks on buses • Bike racks at stops/key locations • Provision of trails or sidewalks • Pedestrian activity centers/precincts • Allowing certain levels of congestion • Land use restriction/control • Transportation/and use coordination • Transit -oriented development • University expansion • Regional or location specific policies • Development regulations in support of a balance of transportation modes • Bucher, Willis & RailiETCorporation A-32 M V W:. )lador'a,pn wul.ol 1hid Fiat Fenn Crc Ciq' of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix A • • Development/plan approval process • Other policies that may he applicable Responses were received from the following agencies: • CyRide (the transit provider for Iowa State University in the City ofAmes, Iowa) • City of Columbia. Missouri • Iowa City. Iowa • City of Ithaca. New }'ork • Cornell University • City of Lawrence. Kansas Policies as provided by survey respondents have been incorporated into the Multi -modal component of the Traffic and Transportation Study. In addition, the documents supplied by survey respondents are separately provided to the City. • Bucher. Willis & RadifCorporation A-33 'I k:W2.Iw6K kcpon'LOL:-0J Ur.n rivl Rei Ax Cite of Fai eneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study Appendix B • APPENDIX B: Sample User and Provider Preference Surveys Bucher. Willis R RatliJJCorporation B -I AI l`W2.Jap�ppt•R€ flt1OO'O) Fivl Re�ondoc City of Fayetterille, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Slut/l' Appendix B • Example User Preference Survey CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP TELEPHONE SURVEY I. HOW DO YOU USUALLY TRAVEL WITHIN THE CITY? DRIVE IN AUTOMOBILE RIDE WITH SOMEONE 2. DO YOU HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE'? YES NO WHAT IS YOUR AGE? UNDER 16 16-20 21-34 35-59 60-64 65 & OVER 4. SEX OF INTERVIEWEE MALE FEMALE • 5. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL HANDICAPS? YES NO 6. WHAT KIND OF RESIDENCE DO YOU LIVE IN? SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE MOBILE HOME CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT UNIVERSITY DORMITORY 7. WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT STATUS? UNEMPLOYED HOMEMAKER EMPLOYED STUDENT RETIRED 8. IHOW MANY CARS OR TRUCKS DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE? 9, HOW MANY MEMBERS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD ARE OVER 16, INCLUDING YOURSELF? 10. ARE THERE PERSONS OVER 60 YEARS OLD IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? YES NO II. IF YES. HOW DO YOU GET AROUND? DRIVE OWN CAR • RIDE WITH SOMEONE Bucher. Willis & RatCorporatiorr B-2 .N V yp}.)teyya Rep+n W V}-01 Du OO F.n. Reran M1,c City of Fgpettenile, Arhan.sa.c Traffic and Transportation Study AppendLr B • TAXI DIAL -A -VAN WALK 12. HOW MANY MEMBERS IN YOUR FAMILY ARE EMPLOYED? 13. HOW MANY TRIPS DOES YOUR FAMILY MAKE FROM YOUR HOME IN A DAY? 14. HOW MANY TRIPS DOES YOUR FAMILY TAKE IN A WEEK FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE: WORK SCHOOL SHOPPING SOCIAL AND RECREATION TOTAL I5. HOW MANY SHOPPING TRIPS DOES YOUR FAMILY MAKE A WEEK TO THE FOLLOWING SHOPPING AREAS? DOWNTOWN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL NORTH WAL-MART OR TARGET SOUTH WAL-MART OTHER TOTAL • 16. IF BUS SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, IIOW MANY BUS TRIPS PER WEEK WOULD YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS MAKE FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES? WORK SCHOOL SHOPPING SOCIAL AND RECREATION TOTAL 17. IF YOU WOULD RIDE THE BUS, WHAT TIME OF THE DAY DO YOU THINK THE BUS SERVICE SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR YOU? 7-9AM 9AM-4 PM 4-6 PM AFTER 6 PM 18. WOULD YOU RIDE THE BUS TO SHOPPING ON THE WEEKENDS? YES NO 19. WHICH TYPE OF I3US SERVICE WOULD BEST SUIT YOUR NEED? FIXED ROUTE & FIXED TIME SERVICE DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE 20. HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO WALK TO CATCH A BUS? DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE ONE BLOCK TWO BLOCKS THREE BLOCKS • FOUR BLOCKS OR MORE Bucher. Willis & Ratli/JCorporation B-3 AI cw:. 3s0m%Amo^'aaa:.UJ Ih.R Fintl R.µn Mc CiiP of FaYeneville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Study AppendLv 8 • 21. DO YOU THINK PARKING IS A PROBLEM IN THE SHOPPING AREAS IN FAYETTEVILLE? YES NO 22. 14OW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY TO RIDE A BUS? FREE 0-.25 25-.50 .50 - .75 .75 & OVER 23. DO YOU THINK THE CITY SHOULD USE LOCAL TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE CITY BUS SYSTEM? YES NO 24. DO YOU KNOW THAT THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE HAS TWO EXISTING TRANSIT PROVIDORS: OZARK REGIONAL TRANSIT AND RAZORBACK TRANSIT? YES NO 25. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME? • UNDER $28,000 $28,000 - $42,000 $42,000 & OVER 26. ARE THESE BUS STOP AMENITIES VERY IMPORTANT< SOMEWHAT IMPORTANF< NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU? BENCHES SHELTERS LIGHTING SECURITY CAMERAS SCREENS TO SHOW BUS ARRIVAL TIMES BIKE RACKS • Bucher. Willis && Railii fCo poration B-4 %I Lpp:.3 Qw.c'k,ponwa243 Dnf F.n4 Rcpon Joc Ci;F of Fayetteville, Arkansas Traffic and Transportation Stud;' Appendix 8 0 Example Existing Transportation Service Provider Survey CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDER SURVEY I. WHAT TYPE OF SERVICE DO YOU PROVIDE? FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ON DEMAND 2. WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF SERVICE? 3, HOW MANY TRANSIT VEHICLES DO YOU OPERATE? 4. HOW MANY DAYS A WEEK DO YOU OPERATE? 5. WHAT ARE YOUR DAILY OPERATING HOURS? 6. HOW MANY RIDERS DO YOU HAVE ANNUALLY? 7. HOW MANY RIDERS DO YOU HAVE MONTHLY? 8. DOES YOUR RIDERSHIP FLUCTUATE SEASONALLY? YES NO 9. IF YES. WHEN DOES IT FLUCTUATE? • 10. WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE? II. ARE RIDERS REQUIRED TO PAY A FARE? YES NO 12. IF YES, WHAT IS THE COST TO RIDE? 13. HOW DO YOU PAY FOR THE COSTS OF PROVIDING YOUR TRANSIT SERVICE? 14. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY ELDERLY PATRONS? 15. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY DISABLED PATRONS? 16. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY COLLEGE AGE PATRONS? 17. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY STUDENTS? 18. DO YOU SERVE PRIMARILY LOWER INCOME PATRONS? 19. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY PATRONS TRAVELING TO MEDICAL DESTINATIONS? 20. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY PATRONS TRAVELING TO EMPLOYMENT? 21. DO YOU SERVE MOSTLY PATRONS TRAVELING TO DO SHOPPING? 22. ARE YOU ABLE TO MEET THE CURRENT DEMAND FOR YOUR SERVICES? 23. IF YOU HAD ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR TRANSIT VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL WHERE WOULD YOU PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICE? • Bucher. Willis R RatliCorporation B-5 1I vw:.3 94oc..Re,alOO2-U3 Dim R In,.' Rq wt Ax City of Fa ettenipe, Arkansas Traffic• and Transportation Study Appendix C • APPENDIX C: Residential Traffic Calming Toolbox LJ I Bucher, Willis R Radi/f Corpm onion C -I \I :IRL. V a hv' Ra ,! IN L2 Ot Urall I':yal Rq...I Appendix C. Residential Traffic Calming Program Toolbox • PIIASP. I. _ _.. _. ......._ __..__.2 Do Nol tinier Sign ........ i (inc-Way Sign ._...... ........ ... _ 4 Turn I'n)hlhlnon.... .... ___... ._._.... 5 I'arenicnl \larking. ......... (, Slued \Innnnnng'Iruler .. 7 NcighborMkd Slktd Watch ..... _ _....... _._.. _.. '__.__.N Police Pnlincenunt _ _...... _......_ 9 PHASE II - HORIZON I:\l. DIiI I.I:CI ION.. .... In Bulh.(luls __. II Center Inland Narruwmg....... ... ... _.. I I Clncane..... _ ............................................. _....... ........ _.. I I hoken5Iow Poinit..... 14 Full Closure. ...... 15 Full Urn•ncr ............. 16 Gatcwac'I rcatmenl 17 Median Barncrs..__... ......... ........ _... IF U.al>Iedian ....... _.... _...._ ....... ......... _.. .... Io Semi. Di%enen 20 Traffic Circle ._..... _... _ . _ _..._ ___. 21 *I wn.I :IIM Slow Prmll 22 PIIASI:II . Vh.R IICAI. UI.I I.I:CI ION_.. _... _ _. _._...... 21 Raised ('rosswalks..... _ _....... ._ . 2a Raised Interxxouns _. _ _ ... .__ 25 Speed Ilunlp.rIahlcs.. _ ._...... 26 • • PHASE I • Ike Not Enter Sign .... ......... ............... One -Way Sign ............... I'tun P rohihnio2........ _....... Pavement Markings.... .. ....... ............... Swcd Monnonng'Rader .................._................................... _........ Neighh rhtxd Sliced Watch ...._...... .. ....... Police Holimement ..... ...... • C-2 • Do Not Enter Sign • Description: Restrict access Pumose: The purpose of a this sign is to indicate to drivers that they are not permitted to proceed straight ahead. When used as a traffic calming measure, it is intended to discourage through traffic from short cutting along a street. The sign may be accompanied by a supplementary plate sign indicating the time(s) of the day and the days of the week when the regulation applies. Potential Advantages: May result in significant reductions in traffic volumes Potential Disadvantages - No significant effect on vehicle speeds. - Restricts resident access. C.1 E • One Way Sign Description: Directional movement sign. Purpose: The purpose of a One -Way sign is to indicate to drivers that traffic is allowed to travel only in the direction of the arrow on the street or section of street. When used as a traffic calming measure, the intent of a One -Way sign is to prevent through traffic from short cutting along a street. Potential Advantages: - Vehicle -vehicle and vehicle -pedestrian conflicts at intersections are reduced as there are fewer turning movements. - Reduction in traffic volume. Potential Disadvantages - Removal of traffic travelling in the opposing direction can result in an increase in vehicle speeds. - Reduction in traffic volume may be partially offset by an increase in traffic in the remaining direction. ONE WAY ONE WAY Turn Prohibition • Descriotion: Turn Prohibition sign Purpose: The purpose of a Right (Left) Turn Prohibition sign is to indicate to drivers that they are not permitted to turn right (left). When used as a traffic calming measure, this sign is intended to prevent traffic from short cutting along a street. The sign may be accompanied by a supplementary plate indicating the time(s) of the day and the days of the week when the regulation applies. Potential Advantages: - May result in significant reductions in traffic volumes where supported periodically with police enforcement. Potential Disadvantages - No significant effect on vehicle speeds. - Restricts resident access. • 1 103 Street d Eby C -s • • Pavement Markings Description: Stop bars, yield bars, turn arrows, delineators, lane markings, crosswalks. etc. Purpose: To delineate and to transmit to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians important information necessary to safely travel upon the City's street. Potential Advantages: - Low initial cost. - Quick application. Potential Disadvantages - Maintenance cost. - May not be visible when covered with snow. • c. e • Speed Monitoring Trailer • Description: Portable radar speed meter capable of measuring vehicle speed and displaying the speed of the motorist. Purpose: Educate residents and drivers about vehicle speeds. Potential Advantages: Speeds may be reduced during short intervals where the radar trailer is located. An effective public relations and educational tool. Potential Disadvantages: • Not an enforcement tool. Not effective in modifying long-term habits. Effect on speed limited to the vicinity of the trailer. Not effective on multi -lane roadways. • I C-7 • Neighborhood Speed Watch • Description: Residents use radar equipment to identify speeding vehicles. Pumose: To slow vehicle traffic, educate drivers about vehicle speeds. and allow residents to take an active part in the program. This program does not issue speeding tickets. Potential Advantages: - Reduces speed by increasing driver awareness about speeding on residential streets and about safety. - An effective public relations and educational tool. Potential Disadvantages: - Not an enforcement tool. - Not effective in modifying long-term habits. • r -a • Police Enforcement • Description: Increased enforcement of speed limits on problem local streets. Pumose:To reduce traffic speed and increase traffic safety. Potential Advantages: - Visible enforcement could reduce speed by increasing driver awareness about speeding on residential streets and about safety. - The approach is flexible and can be tailored to suit needs. - Response can be quick and effective. Potential Disadvantages - Long-term benefits of speed reduction are unsubstantiated without regular periodic enforcement. - It may be difficult to provide enforcement to the extent and with the frequency that residents desire. C.9 • 0 PHASE II - HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION Fiulh-(7 W e ................ ... ('enter bland Narrowing ('hicanes ....... _.. _.. _. _.. _ _.... .. .....13 Chuken'Sluw I'ninls.. ....... ............ ......... ....... _.... ....... 1 d Full Closure. ......... _. .... ......... ..._ _....... _. 15 FullDiccner ................................. ............ _......... ..... _........ In Gatewav Treanncm ...... .. ....... ..... _..17 Median Ramer.......... ............ ........ .... .......... I F ()al Median _....... .... _... ........... ......._ _.... .__.. 19 Scmi-Dicenen........ ...... ........... . _...... .._. _. 20 Traffic Gmlc..... ..... _ _.._.. ........ _...21 Iqo-Iarw Slow Porn(. _....... ......... _... rr • ( -10 • • Bulb -Outs Description: The lane is narrowed at an intersection or mid -block by extending the curbs on one or both sides of the street toward the center of the roadway or by building detached raised islands to allow for drainage and bike lane passage. May be used in conjunction with striped crosswalks. Purpose: To slow traffic at intersections and to improve pedestrian safety. Potential Advantages: May reduce vehicle speed. May reduce cut -through traffic. Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians. Minimal impact to emergency vehicles. Does not restrict access for residents. Can be designed to restrict truck entry. Can be aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). Potential Disadvantages - Needs to be designed to accommodate bicyclists. - Can impact drainage (depending on design and location). - Curbside parking must be prohibited at the bulb, thus eliminating at least one space at each bulb location. Low impact on mid -block speeding. - Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped. - Can impede legitimate truck movements. • C - II • • Center Island Narrowing Description: Constructed or painted islands located before an intersection or mid - block along the centerline of a street. Purpose: To reduce traffic speed by narrowing the roadway with a median, and to increase pedestrian safety by providing a refuge halfway across the street, so that only one direction of traffic need be crossed at a time. Potential Advantages: May reduce traffic speed. Improves pedestrian safety. Does not restrict emergency vehicle access. Can be aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). Does not restrict access for residents. Potential Disadvantages: - Will impact parking. - May eliminate the possibility of future bike lane installation on street by narrowing the travel lane. • C-11 • Chicanes Description: Curb extensions or islands that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves. Purpose: To slow vehicle speed mid -block using horizontal deflection. Potential Advantages: - May reduce speed. - Does not restrict access to residents. - Can be aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). Potential Disadvantages: - May increase conflicts between motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. - May create opportunities for head-on collisions on narrow streets. - Will slow down emergency vehicles. - Loss of curbside parking. • c: -U • Chokers/Slow Points • Description: Curb extensions on one or both sides of the street that narrow the street at that location. They may be designed to alter the path of travel or to create single lane, one-way traffic. Purpose: To reduce vehicle speed mid -block and to increase pedestrian safety. Potential Advantages: - Reduces vehicle speed (more effective when used in senes). - Reduced crossing distance for pedestrians thereby increasing pedestrian safety. - Aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). - Provides visual obstruction. - Minimal impact to emergency vehicles. Potential Disadvantages: - May create conflict between opposing drivers. - May impact emergency response times. - Reduces curbside parking. • (.14 • Full Closures • Description:Complete closure of a street either at an intersection or at a mid - block location. Purpose: To restrict access. Potential Advantages: - Effective at reducing traffic speeds and volumes. - Can allow bicycle and pedestrian through -movements. - Can be designed to allow emergency vehicle access. - Aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). Creates effective dead -ends that may encourage pedestrian activity. Potential Disadvantages: - May increase trip length. - May create confusion for users unless signed properly. C: -Is I Full Diverter • Description: Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection blocking through movement. Purpose: To reduce traffic volume. Potential Advantages: - Reduces traffic volume. - Can be designed to preserve emergency vehicle access. - Can be designed to allow pedestrian and bicycle through -movement. Potential Disadvantages: - Can increase trip length. - Restricts access to residents. • • C.I6 Gateway Treatment • Description: A short median at the entrance to a residential street. Purpose: To slow vehicles as they turn into the street and to limit the exit to a single lane Potential Advantages: - Reduced entry speed. - Prevents drivers from forming a second lane and so reduces some cut - through traffic. - Improved aesthetics if well landscaped and maintained. Easier an safer crossings for pedestrians. - Minimal impact on emergency vehicles. - Does not restrict resident access. Potential Disadvantages: - May require some minor widening on narrower street. Makes turns by service vehicles and emergency vehicles more difficult. - Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. • C.-17 Median Barriers • Description: Islands located along the centerline of a street and continuing through an intersection to block through movement across a major street. Purpose: To prevent cut -through traffic. Potential Advantages: Makes the intersection safer by reducing the number of conflicting turning movements. Can be designed to allow through -movement for cyclists. Reduces local street volumes. Aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). Potential Disadvantages: May shift traffic to other locations where turn opportunities exist. - May inconvenience local residents. - May impact parking on the major street depending on lane width. - Blocks emergency vehicle access and delays emergency response. • (-IS • Oval Median • Description: An oval median with trees located midblock, Puroose: To slow vehicles as they pass around the oval median Potential Advantages: Will reduce vehicle speeds. - Improved aesthetics if well landscaped and maintained. - Easier an safer crossings for pedestrians. - Minimal impact on emergency vehicles. - Does not affect resident access. Potential Disadvantages: - Requires widening of the road into the planter strips. - Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. - Loss of on -street paring at and on the approaches to the median. a • r I') • Semi-Diverters Description: Barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two-way streets. Purpose: To reduce traffic volume in the diverted direction. Potential Advantages: Restricts movement into a street while maintaining access and movement within the street block for residents. Reduces cut -through traffic. Self -enforcing. - Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians. - Aesthetically pleasing (if landscaped). - Emergency vehicles can travel in restricted direction. - Can be designed to provide two-way access for bicycles. Potential Disadvantages: - May increase trip length for some residents. - No impact on vehicle speeds mid -block. - Restricts access to residents. • (:2) • Traffic Circle Description: Islands of varying dimensions placed in intersections around which traffic circulates. Purpose: To slow vehicle speeds at intersections using horizontal deflection and a visual deterrent to higher speeds. Potential Advantages: - Reduces vehicle speeds. - Improves safety. - Visually appealing. Creates a visual obstruction that deters through traffic. Does not restrict access for residents. Potential Disadvantages: Effect on vehicle speed limited to device's immediate vicinity. May increase emergency vehicle response time. May limit truck and bus access. Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. Automobile drivers lines of sight may be reduced if landscaped. May promote deliberate violation of proper movement. • • C-21 Two -Lane Slow Point • Description: Two triangular islands with angled median in between. Purpose: To slow vehicles as they pass through the slow point. Potential Advantages: - Reduced speeds. - Improved aesthetics if well landscaped and maintained. - Easier an safer crossings for pedestrians. - Minimal impact on emergency vehicles. - Does not restrict resident access. Potential Disadvantages: Maintenance responsibility if landscaped. ' 1 • C-22 • 0 • CJ PHASE II - VERTICAL DEFLECTION Raised Cru>.walk.__.. ._. _._ __... Raised Intcrscaionz.... Speed IIutnp/I ahla C-2? 24 .....__ 25 .. _. _.....__.__ 26 Raised Crosswalks Description: Raised pavement that can be combined with crosswalk markings and/or signage to provide pedestrians with a level street crossing. May be used mid -block or at intersections. Purpose: To reduce vehicle speeds mid -block and to improve pedestrian safety. Potential Advantages: May reduce vehicle speeds. - May improve safety for pedestrians by making them more visible. - Does not affect resident access. - Attractive if constructed with pavers. Potential Disadvantages: - May impact emergency vehicle response. - May disrupt drainage depending on design. - May increase noise. - May give pedestrians a false sense of security. • C.24 • • Raised Intersections Description: Flat raised areas covering entire intersections with ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other textured materials on the flat section. Purpose: To slow vehicle traffic at an intersection. Potential Advantages: Slows vehicles in intersections and therefore makes conflict avoidance easier. Highlight intersection. Improves pedestrian safety. Aesthetically pleasing if well designed. Effective speed reduction at intersection. Does not restrict resident access. Potential Disadvantages: - May increase emergency response time. - May increase turning difficulty. - Increases maintenance. - Impact on speed limited to within approximately 200of intersection. Far more disruptive on large vehicles. May increase noise due to acceleration and braking. May disrupt drainage. r-- r ,__.�__._.l 1. 1. a rn (-25 Speed Humps/Tables Description: Raised section of pavement across the roadway with curved transitions. Humps are generally 3.5- high and 12long. Elongated speed humps (speed tables) are generally 3"-4 high x 22' long. Impacts on vehicle speed vary with size of device. Purpose: To reduce vehicle speed. Potential Advantages - Reduces vehicle speed. - Can reduce vehicular volumes. - Does not restrict parking. - Requires minimum maintenance. - Does not restrict resident access. Potential Disadvantages: - May increase emergency response time. - Increases maintenance. - Impact on speed limited to within approximately 200 of treatment. - Far more disruptive on large vehicles. - May increase noise due to acceleration and braking. - May disrupt drainage. c-26 A