EAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDYEAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Introduction This Parking and Traffic Study has been prepared for Tri-County Regional

Midwest Engineering Associates, Inc.

EAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDY

December 1, 2017


Midwest Engineering Associates, Inc. Page 1


EAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING AND TRAFFIC STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 a. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 4 b. Public Input ....................................................................................................................................... 5 c. Four Corners District Vision ............................................................................................................. 6

2. Parking Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 a. Existing Parking Inventory ............................................................................................................... 7 b. Parking Counts ................................................................................................................................. 8 c. Parking Capacity .............................................................................................................................. 9 d. Parking Demand ........................................................................................................................... 11 e. Concept Development .................................................................................................................. 16 f. Accessible Parking ........................................................................................................................ 22 g. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23

3. Traffic Study ......................................................................................................................... 24 a. Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 24 b. Crash Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 26 c. Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 27

Existing Traffic Counts ...................................................................................................................... 27 Generating Future Traffic volumes .................................................................................................. 29 Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 29 Roundabout ....................................................................................................................................... 32

d. Concept Development .................................................................................................................. 32

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 TRAFFIC REPORTS



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location Map & Study Limits .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Parking Blocks ................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Existing Parking Inventory .............................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 March Parking Counts .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 April Parking Counts ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6 Parking Occupancy (April) .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 7 Parking Occupancy (March) ......................................................................................... 10 Figure 8 Parking Demand (Parking Generation) ......................................................................... 12 Figure 9 Parking Required (Ordinance) ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 10 Private Parking Allocated by Property ........................................................................ 14 Figure 11 Public Parking Allocated by Property .......................................................................... 14 Figure 12 Potential Parking Shortage by Business ..................................................................... 15 Figure 13 Proposed - Block 1A ................................................................................................... 16 Figure 14 Proposed - Block 1B ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 15 Proposed - Block 1C ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 16 Proposed - Block 1D ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 17 Proposed - Block 2 ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 18 Proposed Block 4 & 4A ............................................................................................... 20 Figure 19 Proposed - Block 1C (South Face) & Block 3 ............................................................. 21 Figure 20 On Street Accessible Parking ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 21 Off-Street Accessible Parking ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 22 Proposed Parking Inventory ....................................................................................... 23 Figure 23 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 24 Figure 24 Crash Tables .............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 25 Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 26 Intersection LOS ......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27 Arterial Speed ............................................................................................................. 30 Figure 28 95% Queue Lengths ................................................................................................... 30 Figure 29 Traffic Signal vs. Roundabout ..................................................................................... 32 Figure 30 Proposed - Railroad to Main St. .................................................................................. 34 Figure 31 Proposed - East Approach Of Main St. ....................................................................... 36 Figure 32 Diagonal Public Parking & Cole St. Extension ............................................................ 38 Figure 33 Perpendicular Public Parking & Almiron St. ................................................................ 39 Figure 34 Pedestrian / Bicycle Bridge ......................................................................................... 39 Figure 35 Proposed - East Of Cole St. ....................................................................................... 40 Figure 36 Springfield Rd. - Signalized ........................................................................................ 43 Figure 37 Springfield Rd. – Roundabout ..................................................................................... 44 Figure 38 Proposed - East Of Springfield Rd. ............................................................................. 46



1. Introduction

This Parking and Traffic Study has been prepared for Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and the City of East Peoria to identify and recommend potential parking improvements within the historic Four Corners District (District) and transportation improvements along Washington St.

Existing businesses within the Four Corners District have expressed their parking concerns to the City. The purpose of the Parking Study is to understand the parking problem and to provide alternatives to address parking needs.

Sections of Washington St. west and east of the District have been improved by previous projects. To the west, the Technology Boulevard project that created the Levee District resurfaced Washington St. up to the railroad crossing. To the east, I-74 Reconstruction Project improved the Washington St. interchange, which included Washington St. improvements up to the entrance to the First Baptist Church. The limits of the study will address the unimproved section in between these projects. As such, the Traffic Study limits begin at the railroad crossing west of US 24 / IL 29 / IL 116 (Main St.) and end with the intersection of Springfield Rd. up to the I-74 improved pavement. For the purpose of this Study, Main St. was considered a north-south road and Anna St., Cole St., Almiron St. and Springfield Rd., etc. were considered east-west roadways. Figure 1 illustrates the site location.

FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP & STUDY LIMITS



a. Existing Conditions

The area adjacent to Washington St. within the project limits is primarily commercial with some residential development. A summary of existing conditions follows:

Washington St. is an urban, minor arterial, there is no on street parking within the project limits and Washington is not a designated truck route.

There are 4 signalized intersections within the study limits: Main St., Anna St., Cole St. and Springfield Rd. All other intersections are stop-controlled on the side streets (i.e., the minor approaches).

There are approximately 36 entrances and three stop-controlled side-streets within the 2,900’ roadway section, resulting in an average 66 access points per mile.

ADT varies along Washington St.

o West of Spinder Dr. – 5,650 vpd (2014 ADT)

o Spinder to RR Crossing - 9,020 vpd (2014 ADT)

o RR Crossing to Main St. – 9,150 vpd (2013 ADT); peak in 2013 and lowest in 2010 with 6800 vpd

o Main to Cole – 10,750 vpd (2014 ADT); peak in 2007 with 12,300 vpd and lowest in 2014

o Cole to Springfield - 11,500 vpd (2014 ADT); peak in 2007 with 12,800 vpd and lowest in 2010 with 11,300 vpd

o East of Springfield - 10,500 vpd (2014 ADT); peak in 2008 with 12,000 vpd and lowest in 2014

There is one school (Central Junior High School) located outside but near the project limits.

Sidewalks exist along both sides of the road and vary from 5’ to 10’ (to the face of curb)

There are no existing bike trails along Washington St. The nearest Bike Trail is 500’ to 800’ north of Washington St. and is accessible via Main St. or Springfield Rd.

CityLink has two bus routes along Washington St., Route #8 East Peoria Sunnyland and #9 East Peoria Eastside.

The Washington St. right of way width varies from 60’ to 76’.

The project is located within the SE quarter section of Section 32 and the SW quarter section of Section 33.

During a heavy rain event it was observed that storm water runoff ponds in front of most entrances, especially for the properties east of Cole Creek.



b. Public Input

In order to determine the needs of the various users a public meeting was held on February 27, 2017. The scope of the project was presented along with a few ideas of alternates to be considered (i.e., reducing lanes). The following is a summary of the comments that are within the scope of this Study:

Washington St. o Reduce Washington St. to 2 lanes with a center turn lane o Add on street parking to Washington St. o The shared through-right turn lanes on the west and east approaches to the Main

St. intersection should be right turn only to avoid through vehicles blocking right turning vehicles.

o Reduce Speed Limit to 20 MPH o Driving west towards the Spinder Dr. intersection is awkward and you can get

caught in the COSTCO left-turn lane. Cole St.

o Turning Traffic Always blocks one lane Springfield Rd.

o There isn’t room for a roundabout o Encourage traffic at the Springfield Rd. intersection to avoid using Washington

St. and use Springfield Rd. to access Main St. Parking

o Parking is a problem during business hours; one comment specified 11am to 1pm and 3-6 pm

o East Peoria Professional Bldg. is not fully leased o Significant problem with 100 Block patrons parking in the East Peoria

Professional Bldg., especially during the day (100 Block residents do not appear to contribute as they are gone during the day)

o The Mel Hasty Retirement Center has been short on parking since the parking along Springfield Rd. was removed.

o An alternate layout for McKinley St. was provided along with the suggestion to allow parking along Washington St. except during the hours or peak traffic volumes...

o Drivers do not obey parking signs. o The Tea Room clients are elderly and need closer parking, open 10am to 2 pm.

Physical Defects o Inlets (drains) are lower than the adjacent pavement o Sidewalks in the middle of the McKinley block are in bad condition

Other o Main St. will always be pedestrian unfriendly o A pedestrian / bicycle bridge over Cole Creek connecting McKinley Streets would

provide a link to additional parking. o Concerned about adding additional traffic on McKinley, cars already go the

wrong way.



The following comments were out of scope for this Study:

Line up Kroger with Anna St. to eliminate jog, may require building demolition. The Study should include I-74 and the Levee District. Redevelop the entire block: buildings, roads, etc. Mel Hasty address is on Main St. but you cannot see Mel Hasty from Main St. Relocate Long John Silver’s / A&W - City purchase lot for expanded parking, cleans and

opens up area (lots of litter from A&W), provides needed parking, McKinley St. could be eliminated (it's unsafe).

None of the comments were individually addressed. The comments within the scope of this study were factored into developing the proposed concepts.

c. Four Corners District Vision

It is very unlikely that all of the comments from the public meeting or the needs for each user can be wholly satisfied. Tradeoffs that cannot be based on engineering judgement are often required. A Vision for the Four Corners District would facilitate deciding which tradeoffs should take place. The following is a list of potential core values for the vision of the Four Corners District (in no order of priority):

Provide a corridor identity to the Four Corners District. Provide safe pedestrian circulation and crossings. Safely accommodate multiple modes of travel, including bicycles and transit Improve the walkability of the corridor to encourage pedestrian presence Providing connectivity with the Levee District Increase economic sustainability of the Four Corners District

These core values, when prioritized, can be utilized by the City to weigh the benefit of a potential improvement against the necessary tradeoffs. These core values were utilized in developing concepts for the parking and traffic study.



2. Parking Study

a. Existing Parking Inventory

The Parking Study is limited to the parking bounded by Main St. to the west, Springfield Rd. to the North, Cole Creek to the east and Washington St. to the south. The number and characteristics of the existing parking available within the study limits was inventoried. For discussion purposes the study area was divided into block sections, see Figure 2 Parking Blocks. One of the sides of a block is called the block face. The parking inventory was mapped on Figure 2 and summarized in Figure 3 Existing Parking Inventory. The existing parking is a mix of on street, off-street, public and private parking. The public parking along McKinley St. is posted as a 2 hour parking limit. Excluding handicap accessible parking, existing parking restrictions for public spaces are posted as follows:

Angled parking along McKinley is limited to 2 hours Parallel parking along McKinley is limited to 1 hour Parking for the “law office” only is posted on the Law Office building Parking for the “dance studio and barber shop” only is posted next to the entrance to

these businesses FIGURE 2 PARKING BLOCKS



FIGURE 3 EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY

b. Parking Counts

Parking counts were taken twice for this project. The first counts were completed with traffic cameras that were set up at various locations Tuesday through Thursday on March 14, 15, 16, in 2017. The first counts appeared low, so a second count was taken on a Friday during a warm weather day on April 7, 2017. The counts taken in April were approximately 30% greater than the counts in March. Additionally, the first count did not include block 1D, which was added after public input regarding parking problems at the Mel Hasty Retirement Center (Center).

FIGURE 4 MARCH PARKING COUNTS

4 1A 1B

March

Parking

Count

South

Face

West

Face

Off

Street

North

Face

Off

Street

Off

Street

Off

Street

Off

Street

South

Face

Off

Street

East

Face

Off

Street

West

Face

Off

Street

11:00:00 AM 1 3 6 5 ‐‐ 17 2 21 3 29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 4

12:00:00 PM 5 1 4 6 5 23 7 18 12 29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 4

1:00:00 PM 3 1 3 5 7 25 6 18 13 30 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 4

2:00:00 PM 2 1 2 2 6 24 8 20 7 25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 4

3:00:00 PM 5 0 6 1 5 19 3 13 7 22 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 4

4:00:00 PM 2 0 4 2 4 18 6 16 7 25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 4

5:00:00 PM 2 0 3 2 2 24 4 14 4 20 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3 4

Block No.1D2 3 1C 4A

On Street vs. Off-Street Parking

Block No.

Off Street

Face Total

East North South West

2 18 7 7 32

3 12 6 18

4 41 41

1A 15 15

1B 43 43

1C 43 17 60

1D 28 3 31

4A 4 10 14

Total 204 50 254

Public vs. Private Parking

Block No.

Private Public Total

2 18 14 32

3 12 6 18

4 41 41

1A 15 15

1B 43 43

1C 43 17 60

1D 28 3 31

4A 4 10 14

Total 163 91 254



FIGURE 5 APRIL PARKING COUNTS

c. Parking Capacity

The parking counts were utilized to calculate the parking occupancy, which can isolate areas of parking congestion and or identify available capacity. A general rule of the industry is that a parking occupancy around 85% to 90% is considered over capacity. For this study, a parking occupancy greater than 85% was considered over capacity and are indicated with a red ‘x’. An occupancy between 85% and 70% was considered approaching capacity and is indicated with a yellow ‘!’. The occupancy results are summarized in Figure 6 Parking Occupancy (April) and Figure 7 Parking Occupancy (March).

FIGURE 6 PARKING OCCUPANCY (APRIL)

4 1A 1B

April

Parking

Count

South

Face

West

Face

Off

Street

North

Face

Off

Street

Off

Street

Off

Street

Off

Street

South

Face

Off

Street

East

Face

Off

Street

West

Face

Off

Street

11:00:00 AM 3 2 1 4 10 32 11 20 15 31 1 9 2 4

12:00:00 PM 1 2 1 6 9 39 13 27 12 30 2 10 2 4

1:00:00 PM 6 5 3 6 9 28 14 27 12 25 3 11 1 4

2:00:00 PM 2 4 2 4 9 34 9 24 17 25 2 17 1 4

3:00:00 PM 3 5 4 4 8 33 9 17 14 23 2 12 2 4

4:00:00 PM 4 1 3 4 9 27 8 21 10 20 1 15 1 4

5:00:00 PM 1 2 0 3 6 22 7 16 7 12 2 13 2 4

4A1D1C32Block No.

11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM

Block 1A Off Street 73% 87% 93% 60% 60% 53% 47%

Block 1B Off Street 47% 63% 63% 56% 40% 49% 37%

Block 1C Off Street 72% 70% 58% 58% 53% 47% 28%

East Face 33% 67% 100% 67% 67% 33% 67%

Off Street 32% 36% 39% 61% 43% 54% 46%

West Face 29% 29% 71% 57% 71% 14% 29%

Off Street 17% 17% 50% 33% 67% 50% ‐‐

Off Street 83% 75% 75% 75% 67% 75% 50%

North Face 67% 100% 100% 67% 67% 67% 50%

Block 1C South Face 88% 71% 71% 100% 82% 59% 41%

Block 4 Off Street 78% 95% 68% 83% 80% 66% 54%

Block 2 South Face 43% 14% 87% 29% 43% 57% 14%

West Face 20% 20% 10% 10% 20% 10% 20%

Off Street 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Block 2

Block 1D

Block 3

Block 4A

April



FIGURE 7 PARKING OCCUPANCY (MARCH)

As anticipated for a restaurant, Block 1A was at or near capacity from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Additionally, based on the increase of occupancy in Block 1B between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 PM, it appears that Long John Silver’s / A&W patrons are parking in Block 1B.

According to the counts, sufficient parking is available for the 1B and 1C Parking Blocks. However, it should be noted that the building was not fully occupied which would affect the count results. One public meeting comment stated that there are often 100 block patrons that parking the East Peoria Professional Building Parking Lot. The increase in parking around noon for Block 1B was explained with the presence of Long John Silver’s / A&W restaurant. There is also an increase in parking from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM in Block 1C that may be some 100 Block patrons. As such, concept development should address how to better sign or enforce parking restrictions for Block 1C off-street parking.

According to the counts, parking occupancy for the Mel Hasty Retirement Center was very low and indicated no parking problems. However, later discussion with the manager indicated that the parking counts may have been taken on the same Friday that many of their residents were attending the funeral service for a previous resident. The date of the funeral services was unable to be confirmed. Further discussion with the manager indicated that the parking shortage is a problem for visitors during the day and on weekends.

11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM

Block 1A Off Street 13% 47% 40% 53% 20% 40% 27%

Block 1B Off Street 49% 42% 42% 47% 30% 37% 33%

Block 1C Off Street 67% 67% 70% 58% 51% 58% 47%

East Face ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Off Street ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

West Face 43% 14% 14% 14% ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Off Street 100% 67% 50% 33% 100% 67% 50%

Off Street 33% 75% 92% 83% 75% 67% 50%

North Face 83% 100% 83% 33% 17% 33% 33%

Block 1C South Face 18% 70% 76% 41% 41% 41% 24%

Block 4 Off Street 41% 56% 61% 59% 46% 44% 59%

Block 2 South Face 14% 71% 43% 29% 71% 29% 29%

West Face 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 30%

Off Street 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Block 4A

Block 1D

Block 2

Block 3

March

BLOCK 1A

BLOCK 1B & 1C (OFF-STREET)

BLOCK 1D



Parking appears adequate for Block 2 west face and off-street. However, it should be noted that a few patrons of Attitudes and Nail Images (Salon) also parked in the City Lot. This preference to parking in the City Lot may be a result of the reluctance of using the small off-street lot provided for the Salon patrons. This tendency should be addressed in the concept development if it is taking public spaces away from other users.

The occupancy rates definitely indicate that the public spaces available in these blocks are approaching or at capacity for multiple hours of the day.

The south face of Block 2 only was at capacity for one hour over the entire 14 hours counted. There were only two other hours where these spaces were considered as approaching capacity but the occupancy was only 71% for each hour. It appears that these spaces are not heavily utilized. The possibility of using these public spaces to better serve the parking demand of others should be addressed in the concept development.

The off-street parking of Block 4A was at capacity (100%) during the entire 14 hours of the count. The parking demand for the CPA Building must be primarily met with the private spaces in the off-street parking because the public spaces along the west face were 90% to 80% empty during the entire count. The possibility of using these public spaces to better serve the parking demand of others should be addressed in the concept development.

d. Parking Demand

In addition to calculating occupancy to identify parking deficiencies, the parking demand was calculated for each property using two different methods. The first method uses the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, which anticipates parking demand based on studies taken for similar developments. The second method was to look at the East Peoria Ordinances to determine the parking required based on the development. Figure 8 Parking Demand (Parking Generation) and Figure 9 Parking Required (Ordinance) illustrate both the calculations and results of both methods.

BLOCK 2 (WEST FACE & OFF-STREET)

BLOCK 3 (NORTH FACE), 1C (SOUTH FACE) & BLOCK 4

BLOCK 2 (SOUTH FACE)

BLOCK 4A



FIGURE 8 PARKING DEMAND (PARKING GENERATION)

Property / Business ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition

Block No.

Name Quantity Unit Land Use Code Parking

Generated

1A Long John Silver’s /

A&W 2,026 Gross SF 934 211

1D Mel Hasty

Retirement Center 60 units 252 352

2 Single Unit

Residential Homes 6 units 210 11

1B & 1C

East Peoria Professional Bldg.

5,000 GSF per floor

(4 floors) 701 (Suburban) 77

4A & West Face 4A

CPA Building 2,250 Gross SF 701 (Suburban) 5.3

4 Law Office 1,880 Gross SF 701 (Suburban) 53

3 100 Block 29,400 Gross SF

Used Code Requirements 4

147

2 Salon 1,575 Gross SF (5 chairs)

4

South Face 2

Retail Building 2,760 Gross SF 14

Total 319

Notes:

1. +/- 10 space based on standard deviation. 2. Small data samples 3. No data available for single tenant office. Combined with EP Prof. Bldg. for a total of 87

spaces, less 77 for EP Prof. Bldg. only. Prorated the 10 spaces based on building size. 4. For all the retail and service businesses there was not an equivalent Land Use in the

Parking Generation Manual so the anticipated parking demand was determined only by parking requirements for these businesses.



FIGURE 9 PARKING REQUIRED (ORDINANCE)

Property / Business Parking Required by City Code

Block No.

Name Quantity Unit Parking Ratio Parking

Required

1A Long John Silvers,

A&W 2,026 Gross SF 1 per 50 SF 41

1D Mel Hasty

Retirement Center 60 units

7 per 10 units plus 1 for each employee

43

2 Single Unit

Residential Homes 6 units 2 per unit 12

1B & 1C East Peoria

Professional Bldg. 5,000

GSF per floor (4 floors)

1 per 250 SF 80

4A & West

Face 4A CPA Building 2,250 Gross SF 1 per 250 SF 9

4 Law Office 1,880 Gross SF 1 per 250 SF 8

3 100 Block 29,400 Gross SF 1 per 200 SF of retail

space 147

2 Salon 1,575 Gross SF (5 chairs)

1.5 for each chair 4

South Face 2

Retail Building 2,760 Gross SF 1 per 200 SF of retail

space 14

Total 358

The two different methods anticipate that approximately 319 to 358 spaces need to be provided compared to the 254 spaces provided resulting in a shortage of 65 to 104 spaces. To identify where the shortage is greatest, the number of available spaces were allocated by business. The allocation of parking spaces began with the private parking, which is the clearest to define. See the Figure 10 Private Parking Allocated by Property. The distribution of public spaces is not as clear as the private spaces since they are shared among the various businesses. An approximated distribution of the public spaces based on proximity to businesses and parking demand is shown in Figure 11 Public Parking Allocated by Property.



FIGURE 10 PRIVATE PARKING ALLOCATED BY PROPERTY

Property / Business Block Number Total Private

Spaces 1A 1B1 1C 1D 3 2 4A 4

LJS / A&W 15 6 21

EP Prof. Bldg. 37 43 80

Mel Hasty Center 28 28

Single Unit Res. 12 12

Salon 6 6

Retail Building 0

100 Block 12 12

Law Office 0

CPA Building 4 4

Subtotal Total

15 43 43 28 12 18 4 0 163

1. There is an existing egress agreement between blocks 1A and 1B and the layout of those lots do not clearly define the ownership of the parking spaces. The off-street parking lots in Blocks 1B and 1C combined provide 86 spaces, which exceed the 80 spaces required for the office building. As such, the 6 spaces in excess were considered to count towards the Long John Silver’s / A&W available parking.

FIGURE 11 PUBLIC PARKING ALLOCATED BY PROPERTY

1. No public spaces were allocated to the Long John Silver’s / A&W restaurant. It is presumed that public parking is too far and that patrons would overflow into the East Peoria Professional Building lot given that the parking space ownership between Blocks 1A and 1B are not clear.

2. No public spaces allocated, the parking demand is already met with private parking.

Property / Business Block Number Total Public

Spaces 1A 1B 1C 1D 3 2 4A 4

LJS / A&W1 0

EP Prof. Bldg.2 0

Mel Hasty Center3 3 7 10

Single Unit Res.2, 3 0

Salon2, 3 0

Retail Building5 7

5 41 76 100 Block5 17 6

Law Office5

CPA Building4 5 5

Subtotal Total

0 0 17 3 6 14 10 41 91



3. Anna St. is a very narrow, dead end roadway that is not inviting to any but those who must use it for access. While the residential properties and Salon demand could be met with private parking, it should be noted that there is nothing to restrict who can park on Anna St.

4. While the CPA Businesses share the public parking, the spaces directly in front of their building had very low occupancy rates. Since these spaces are far from any other businesses, 5 of these public spaces were allocated to the CPA Building to fulfill their parking demand. These 5 spaces were subtracted from the public spaces available to the other businesses that must share the public spaces.

5. The remaining businesses all require a significant number of public spaces to meet their parking needs. Some of the public parking is shown specifically allocated to a business based on location. This does not indicate a parking restriction but presumes that patrons of the other businesses are likely to park elsewhere first. The public spaces available in Blocks 4 and 4A cannot be specifically allocated to the 100 Block Businesses, the Law Office or the Retail Building.

Comparing the parking demand to where the provided spaces were allocated, the potential shortage in parking is calculated by business below:

FIGURE 12 POTENTIAL PARKING SHORTAGE BY BUSINESS

Property / Business Parking DemandNo. Spaces Provided (based on allocation)

Parking Balance (- shortage / + excess) Private Public Total

LJS / A&W 21 to 41 21 0 21 0 to -20

EP Prof. Bldg. 77 to 80 80 0 80 0 to 3

Mel Hasty Center 35 to 43 28 10 38 3 to -5

Single Unit Res. 11 to 12 12 0 12 0 to 1

Salon 4 6 0 6 2

Retail Building 14 0

76 88 -78 to -81 Law Office 5 to 8 0

100 Block 147 12

CPA Building 5 to 9 4 5 9 0 to 4

Subtotal Subtotal Total

319 to 358 254 -65 to -104

The parking occupancy did not document an overall parking problem but parking can fluctuate for various reasons and it is presumed that perhaps weather or season may have been an influencing factor. Based on public comments and the results of the parking demand analysis, there is a parking deficiency. The shortage appears greatest with Long John Silver’s / A&W, the 100 Block Businesses, the Retail Building and the Law Office.



e. Concept Development

In order to maximize the number of parking spaces a number of improvements were proposed. One suggestion from the Public Meeting was to relocate Long John Silver’s / A&W elsewhere within the City and create a public parking lot. However, none of the recommended improvements includes the City purchasing a parcel and converting it to public parking. This is a feasible option but was not included since it would be rated low as to how well it meets the vision of the District.

The Long John Silver’s / A&W parking lot in Block 1A is fairly constrained by the location of the building, the drive-through and the existing right-of-way. The Long John Silver’s / A&W business may not see parking as a problem since parking in Block 1B appears available, and is not clearly prohibited. It appears that LJS / A&W prioritizes drive-through operations over parking needs since 2 spaces are marked reserved for waiting drive-through vehicles. The Long John Silver’s / A&W business should be approached to make sure both these spaces are required or if they could be relocated. Alternate locations are available if the parking lot is made one-way. Increasing the number of available spaces within Block A and clearly restricting the non-shared spaces within Block 1B will reduce the number of Long John Silver’s / A&W patrons that utilize the East Peoria Professional Building parking.

The proximity of the Long John Silver’s / A&W entrance to the Springfield Rd. and Main St. intersection is very close. This creates conflicts between the turning movements at the intersection and movements in and out of the parking lot. It is preferred that the entrance be located further east, opposite the CVS entrance. It was apparent from parking counts that the parking spaces east of the entrance were underutilized. This is likely due to the distance from the door and the lack of accessibility to these spaces, i.e., drivers do not like dead end parking aisles where they cannot circulate. Moving the entrance would allow for one-way traffic through the parking lot and would create alternate drive-through waiting spaces. It also would eliminate the dead end but would require all drive-through traffic to exit via McKinley St. In order to limit the traffic on McKinley St., McKinley could provide two-way traffic for a very short section near Main St., see Figure 19 Proposed - Block 1C (South Face) & Block 3

BLOCK 1A & 1B

FIGURE 13 PROPOSED - BLOCK 1A



The East Peoria Professional Building parking lot in Block 1B is already laid out efficiently. There is room within the existing ingress / egress easement area by extending the middle row of parking stalls of Block 1B to the raised median. This would make the eastern drive-aisle a dead end but would create 5 additional spaces. Another option to maximize public parking along McKinley St. would be to close the second entrance to the parking lot in Block 1B. A net loss of three spaces would be needed to close the entrance and provide a driving aisle within the parking lot. Closing this entrance and providing a landscaped buffer may deter patrons of the 100 Block businesses from utilizing the East Peoria Professional Building parking. The on street, public parking gained is discussed in the section for Block 1C (South Face).

As with Block 1B, the East Peoria Professional Building parking lot in Block 1C is already laid out efficiently. There were 2 trailers parked in two separate stalls during the entire traffic count. These trailers could be parked elsewhere since they appear to be parked for long-term storage. Additionally, there is a dumpster in the last stall of the northwest corner of the lot. If a pad could be poured west of the parking space in the grass area, the dumpster could be relocated and the space utilized for parking. The space gained by relocating the dumpster was not included as additional parking and was only noted should additional parking within the lot be desired.

Closing the Block 1C entrance off McKinley St. is proposed to create additional public parking along McKinley St. Closing this entrance and providing a landscaped buffer may deter patrons of the 100 Block businesses from utilizing the East Peoria Professional Building parking.

The fact that “East Peoria” is in the building name may confuse drivers and not clearly indicate that it is private and not public parking. Larger and clearer signage is recommended to prohibit 100 Block businesses from parking within Block 1C.

The parking lot in Block 1C could gain 4 spaces.

BLOCK 1C (OFF-STREET) FIGURE 14 PROPOSED - BLOCK 1B

FIGURE 15 PROPOSED - BLOCK 1C



The width of the pavement in the Mel Hasty Retirement Center parking lot is greater than the width of McKinley Street that provides the angled and parallel parking. It is unclear if the traffic in the Center’s parking lot is restricted to one way. If it was restricted to one-way, the lot could be striped similar to McKinley St. to provide parallel parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalk around the building. Block 1D could gain at least 6 additional spaces.

FIGURE 16 PROPOSED - BLOCK 1D

An alternate layout provides one-way parking with angled parking along both sides of the driving aisle. This layout would gain significantly more spaces but requires some reconstruction and loss of landscaped area. This alternate layout bumps into the existing sidewalk and lawn area. The impact can be reduced by not replacing the sidewalk and having pedestrians utilize the driving aisle. Sharing walking and driving space is a common efficient use of space where speeds and volumes are slow. One additional benefit is that snow cleared for the vehicles also provides a cleared path for pedestrians. This layout would provide 11 additional spaces.

Another alternate to provide additional parking spaces for Block 1D is to encourage a parking agreement between the East Peoria Professional Building and the Mel Hasty Retirement Center. The agreement would allow for the Center visitors to park within Block 1C on evenings and weekends. This does not address weekday business hour visitor parking but can alleviate some of the parking deficiency. New signage would be required to clearly indicate when parking is or is not allowed.

Parking Block 2 provides the required number of spaces per zoning code. A majority of the block is residential which just requires 2 off-street parking spaces for each single unit. The residential properties within Block 2 appear to have sufficient parking, albeit not necessarily convenient parking, available within garages or along driveways. In addition, the on-street parking is available for use. The on street parking does not meet current design standards for parking along a city street but it does meet the public alley parking standard that only requires a parked vehicle to leave 8 ft. clear. The on-street parking is already laid out as efficiently as possible.

BLOCK 1D

BLOCK 2



The two commercial properties located within Block 2 are Attitudes and Nail Images (Salon); and Little Grocery, Sara Kate’s Dance Studio and Barber Shop (Retail Building). Parking for the Salon is provided in a small off-street lot located east of the Salon. Customers may also park on Anna St. or within the City Lot located in Block 4 south of the Salon. The 6 spaces shown as existing within the Salon parking lot do not meet current design standards with respect to dimensions. The parking lot should be restriped to meet current standards, which would reduce parking within the small lot by 2 spaces. By making the lot more comfortable for drivers, less Salon patrons may utilize the space rather than parking in the available public spaces

For the Retail Building, half of the retail parking is located adjacent to the south side of the building. The remaining parking required is provided within in the City Lot to the south. The green space between the Retail Building and Cole Creek could be converted into off-street parking to provide 7 spaces. These spaces could replace the parking in front of the Retail Building that was proposed to be removed in order to maximize the amount of parking spaces within the City Lot.

FIGURE 17 PROPOSED - BLOCK 2

The proposed improvements do not result in a net decrease or increase in the total spaces within Block 2 but the number of public spaces is increased by 2.

The CPA Building has an off-site parking lot in Block 4A that is at capacity most of the day. However, the spaces in front of the building on the face of Block 4A are underutilized according to the parking counts. As such, there are no recommendations to increase parking for Block 4A but it is recommended to convert the perpendicular parking along the west face of Block 4 to parallel parking. Parallel parking results in fewer crashes than perpendicular or angled parking. From the parking counts, the remaining 3 spaces should be sufficient and the City Lot is close enough to provide additional parking spaces.

The City Lot in Block 4 provides angled parking and one-way aisles. As part of the Traffic Study it was recommended to make Anna St. one-way in and to relocate the signalized intersection to

BLOCK 4 AND 4A



Almiron St. As part of these improvements, the existing City Lot egress would become the fourth leg of the signalized intersection. This leg would provide the only point of egress for Blocks 1C, 1D, 2, 3, 4 and 4A, presuming Blocks 1A and B can access Main St. via a two-way McKinley St. In order to accommodate the traffic safely through the City Lot, channelization (e.g. curb) is required. A tight radius where traffic would turn from McKinley St. towards the Almiron St. Signal would discourage higher speeds. A median also is provided to prohibit turning vehicles from drifting into the opposite lane. Additional width is given around the radius to accommodate larger vehicles (garbage truck, deliveries, etc.).

FIGURE 18 PROPOSED BLOCK 4 & 4A

It is also recommended to limit the number of signs restricted for specific businesses within the public lot. The proposed improvements result in a net decrease of 7 spaces in Block 4A and no change in the number of spaces in Block 4.



As mentioned in the sections above, closing the entrances along McKinley for Blocks 1B and 1C maximizes the on street public parking along the south face of Block 1C. An additional 10 spaces are gained by closing both entrances.

There are no recommendations to increase the number of off-street spaces within Block 3. However, the parking could be reconfigured to provide more space adjacent to the buildings, to provide outdoor space and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Also, the off-street lots need to provide 1 accessible space based on the number of parking spaces provided. As a result, there is a loss of one parking space for the off-street parking within Block 3.

FIGURE 19 PROPOSED - BLOCK 1C (SOUTH FACE) & BLOCK 3

A significant amount of on street parking was gained around Block 3. Restricting Anna St. to one-way traffic allows for 4 on street parking spaces to be added along the east face of Block 3. Along the south face of Block 3, 14 spaces were gained by reducing the number of lanes and lane widths along Washington St. Two additional on street spaces were identified along the north face of Block 3.

A net gain of 29 spaces is proposed for Block 3 and Block 1C (South Face).

BLOCK 1C (SOUTH FACE) & BLOCK 3



f. Accessible Parking

The number of existing accessible parking spaces do not meet current ADA requirements. The concepts presented in the previous section were developed based on meeting ADA requirements. The parking requirements for off-street and on street parking were calculated separately since the requirements for each are quantified by lot and by block, respectively. For the size of parking within this scope of study the amount of accessible spaces required is the same for on street and off-street parking: 1 accessible space is required for each lot / block when up to 25 spaces are provided and 2 accessible spaces, when 26 to 50 spaces are provided. The figures below summarize the accessible spaces provided and required:

FIGURE 20 ON STREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING

Block Block No. Block Total

Existing No. of Accessible Spaces

Proposed No. of Accessible Spaces

1 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, & 3 52 0 3

2 2, 4, & 4A 10 0 1

Note: For the purpose of counting accessible spaces for on street parking, the blocks were grouped to consider Blocks 1A, B, C, D and 3 as one block and Blocks 2, 4 and 4A as the other block. FIGURE 21 OFF-STREET ACCESSIBLE PARKING

Lot No.

Prop. Spaces

No. of Exist. Accessible Spaces

No. of Prop. Accessible Spaces

LJS / A&W Lot 15 1 1

EP Prof. Bldg. Lot 48 2 2

EP Prof. Bldg. Lot 49 2 2

Retirement Center Lot 34 2 2

Private Block 3 Lot 12 0 1

Salon Lot 6 1 1

City Lot 40 0 2

CPA / Retail Bldg. Lot 8 0 1



g. Conclusion

The parking counts did not indicate a clear parking problem but this may be attributed to the seasonal variation in parking needs. Based on the calculated parking demand, there is insufficient parking up to 104 spaces. The proposed parking provides 39 additional spaces for a total of 293 spaces as shown below:

FIGURE 22 PROPOSED PARKING INVENTORY

One of the public comments suggested constructing a pedestrian / bicycle bridge over Cole Creek to connect the McKinley Streets. McKinley Street and Taylor Street on the east side of Cole Creek both provide very wide rights of way. The remainder of the parking shortage could easily be supplied within the Taylor Street right of way east of Cole Creek. Landscaping and a pedestrian / bicycle bridge is required to provide the necessary connectivity to make this additional parking viable for use by the businesses west of Cole Creek.

On Street vs. Off-Street Parking

Block No.

Off Street

Face Total

East North South West

2 16 7 2 7 32

3 11 7 14 4 37

4 41 41

1A 15 15

1B 45 45

1C 47 27 74

1D 39 3 42

4A 4 3 7

Total 218 75 293

Public vs. Private Parking

Block No.

Private Public Total

2 16 16 32

3 11 26 37

4 41 41

1A 15 15

1B 45 45

1C 47 27 74

1D 39 3 42

4A 7 7

Total 180 113 293



3. Traffic Study

The existing corridor of Washington St. is heavily weighted towards meeting the needs of vehicular traffic to the point where other modes of transportation are given very little priority. Additionally, the traffic load that Washington St. was designed for is no longer present. Therefore, the new roadway concept should balance the need of all users. First, the potential or desired users must be defined along with any other features desired to achieve a specific vision. It is also important to understand any existing deficiencies within the existing corridor. Comparing the existing roadway features to current design standards and crash analyses are quantifiable ways to identify deficiencies. After these are identified, the roadway concept can be developed.

a. Design Criteria

Washington St. is classified as an urban, minor arterial. As such, the existing corridor should conform to the design standards of an arterial, possibly with a few justifiable exceptions. The Bureau of Local Roads and Streets (BLRS) Manual, Chapter 32, Fig. 32-2E Geometric Design Criteria for Urban Two-way Arterials (New Construction/Reconstruction) would generally be used to determine the design criteria. The BLRS Manual, while it does acknowledge the need and provide for the safe design of sidewalks and bicycle accommodations, it is very restrictive and does not include design standards for New Urbanism. An alternate reference manual utilized for the proposed recommendations was the Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The following table compares the design criteria for both:

FIGURE 23 DESIGN CRITERIA

BLRS Design Criteria Urban Thoroughfare Criteria

Sid

ewal

k W

idth

s &

Bu

ffer

:

Adjacent to Commercial Properties with 0' Setback

No Specific Criteria, same as with > 5' setback

Edge: 1.5'

Furnishings/ Landscaping: 6' (4' constrained)

Throughway: 6' (4' min. Per PROWAG)

Frontage: 2.5'

Adjacent to Commercial or Residential Properties with greater than 5' setback

4' min. (5' desired) with a 2' min. buffer (paved or landscaped) between the

sidewalk and curb.

Edge: 1.5' (0' for no parking)

Furnishings/ Landscaping: 6' (5' constrained)

Throughway: 6' (4' constrained)

Frontage: 0' to 1' (along grass and walls, respectively)

Par

kin

g:

8' min. (10' desirable) 7' (8' where there is high turnover)



FIGURE 23 (CONT.)

BLRS Design Criteria Urban Thoroughfare Criteria

Lan

es:

2-4 lanes 2-4 lanes

11' min. (12' desirable) 10' - 11' (12' for higher speed, transit facilities)

30 MPH - 40 MPH Design Speed 25 MPH - 30 MPH Target Speed

200' - 330' Min. Horizontal Curve

Bik

e L

anes

:

5' min. to face of curb 5' min. (6' preferred) to face of curb

consider 6' min. width adjacent to parking

13' min. combined parking / bike lane width (F-F)

< 2,000 ADT - no specific accommodations, speeds 30 MPH or

less.

2,000 - 10,000 ADT - 14' min. shared

lane, 30 MPH or less. > 10,000 ADT - Consider a 6' min. width or a bidirectional side path

Since the Urban Thoroughfare Criteria aligns with the vision of the District, it was utilized as the limits for design minimums. A review of the existing roadway showed where Washington St. is substandard:

The obstruction-free zone of 1.5’ is probably exceeded with a number of the power poles located along Washington St.

A number of the existing sidewalk widths do not meet the 4’ min. sidewalk width, nor the 6 ft. min. width required when no buffer strip is provided.

A complete review of the study area to determine if accessibility is being met was not feasible for this study. It should be noted that the study area has not seen many hardscape improvements in recent years. As such, most of the Public Access Routes do not meet current ADA requirements. As part of any improvements, the adjacent curb ramps, cross-slopes, etc. will need to be improved to meet current requirements. With respect to building access, in accordance with PROWAG it is the responsibility of the business to provide handicap accessible ingress / egress. However, in order to provide a uniform feeling within the Historic District, it is recommended that the City address the building accessibility requirements during the design and construction of adjacent sidewalks.

The inlets have not been raised with previously overlays or have settled. This reduces the outside lane effective width and is problematic for cyclists.

Notes: Edge ‐ (area adjacent to curb for door swings and buffer traffic) Furnishings ‐ (space for benches, outdoor seating, bike racks, signal controllers, etc. ‐ keeps throughway clear) Throughway ‐ (pedestrian space) Frontage ‐ (space for business signage, door swings or to buffer the window shoppers) Buffer Note: any landscaping less than 4' is troublesome to maintain



b. Crash Analysis

A limited review of crashes that occurred within the study limits over the most recent 5 years’ worth of data was completed. The data is summarized in the figure below:

FIGURE 24 CRASH TABLES

Lighting Conditions Total

Darkness, Lighted Road

26%

Daylight 70% Dawn / Dusk 4%

Total 100%

Pavement Condition vs. Weather Dry Snow/Slush Wet Unknown Total

Clear 62% 5% 67% Cloudy/Overcast 1% 1% 2%

Other 1% 1% Rain 1% 22% 1% 23% Snow 6% 1% 7% Total 64% 6% 28% 2% 100%

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total 15% 21% 17% 28% 19% 100%

Crash Injury vs. Crash Type A-Injury B-Injury C-Injury PD Total

Angle 2% 12% 14% Fixed Object 9% 9%

Head On 3% 3% Other 1% 1%

Parked Vehicle 1% 1% Pedalcyclist 1% 1% Pedestrian 1% 1% Rear End 2% 1% 31% 34%

SS Opp. Dir. 1% 1% SS Same Dir. 8% 8%

Turning 1% 5% 2% 22% 29% Total 3% 8% 3% 85% 100%



The following observations summarize the crash data:

62% of crashes occurred on a clear day, dry pavement and 70% during daylight. These numbers indicate that environmental factors do not significantly contribute to crash rates.

Comparing the percentage of crash types of different weather and pavement conditions shows that rear end crashes make up 30% of the crashes that occur in clear weather on dry pavement compared to rear end crashes making up 50% of the crashes that occur in clear or rainy weather on wet pavement. This comparison does indicate potential issues with stopping on wet pavement. The observed ponding issue may contribute to this increased percentage of rear end crashes.

The percentage of crashes per year generally follows the change in AADT traffic volumes, highest in 2013 and lowest in 2010.

Comparing crashes against days of the week illustrates that crashes are highest on Mondays and Fridays and lowest on the weekend.

85% of crashes were property damage only as expected on a lower speed roadway. One pedestrian and one cyclist crash occurred within the 5 years of data. It should be noted

that both of these crashes occurred in the rain on wet pavement. As expected at locations with traffic signals, the percentage of angle, rear end and turning

crashes are higher. The percentage fixed object and sideswipe same direction crashes indicate a potential

problem. o The fixed object crashes may be high given the number of utility poles, traffic signals or

railroad signals within the study area and given their proximity to the edge of the road. About half of the fixed object crashes occurred on snow or wet pavement but the other half occurred on a clear day with dry pavement.

o Only 2 of the 7 sideswipe same direction crashes are unexplained, with respect to weather, driver error or avoiding other objects. These crashes may be a result of the narrower lanes but the data is not conclusive.

In summary, the crash data indicates potential problems with stopping on wet pavement or within ponded water and too many fixed objects adjacent to the travel way.

c. Traffic Analysis

EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS

In order to understand the existing traffic volumes and patterns, traffic counts were taken at the intersections of Main St., Anna St., Almiron St., Cole St. and Springfield Rd. on:

Tuesday January 24, 2017 Thursday January 26, 2017 Tuesday January 31, 2017



The counts are summarized below:

FIGURE 25 TRAFFIC COUNTS

Main St. (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)

Northbound Eastbound Southbound Westbound

Peak Hour L T R L T R L T R L T R

7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 130 993 192 29 54 45 45 631 75 144 143 59

3:45 PM - 4:45 PM 135 824 259 151 342 220 126 922 96 174 154 75

Anna St. / Kroger (Thursday, January 26, 2017)



7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 7 0 11 1 304 21 2 0 13 16 323 6

4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 25 0 56 1 632 83 7 4 48 59 355 4

Almira St. (Wednesday, February 2, 2017)



7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 5 0 9 1 316 5 6 0 17 10 331 10

4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 5 0 18 17 668 17 20 2 24 12 389 23

Cole St. (Thursday, January 26, 2017)



7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 71 81 298 24 280 22

4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 72 50 601 101 352 44

Springfield Rd. (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)

Southbound Eastbound Northbound Westbound


7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 10 26 31 12 285 42 80 76 232 86 199 6

4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 12 111 20 18 546 179 80 57 139 170 274 15

Two peak hours were evident, one in the morning from 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and one in the evening from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. The evening peak hour was generally higher than the morning peak hour.



GENERATING FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Kroger has plans to expand / reconfigure there store located adjacent to the project. As part of the future expansion, it is recommended to relocate the Kroger entrance on Washington St. and provide access to Washington St. via Almiron St. This eliminates the offset, signalized intersection at Anna St. / the Kroger entrance. The intersection of Almiron St. and Washington St. would be signalized. The north leg of this new signalized intersection would be the entrance to the City Lot in Block 4. Due to limited sight distance at Anna St. and the new signalized access to Washington St. it is recommended to also close Anna St. or make it an entrance only. All traffic volumes from Anna St. and the Kroger entrance were added to the traffic existing volumes at the Almiron St. intersection.

The existing traffic volumes were projected to include a growth rate to establish 20 year design volumes. Given the location of the project within a developed downtown, a 0.5% compounded annual growth rate was utilized.

CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The corridor of Washington St., from the Main St. intersection past the Springfield Rd. intersection, was modeled using Synchro and SimTraffic.

The existing signal timings for the intersection of Main St. and Washington St. were obtained from IDOT. It should be noted that these existing timings were not adjusted in any scenario since the signals are coordinated along Main St.

The corridor was analyzed for the existing condition, which includes existing geometry and existing traffic volumes, in order to establish a basis for comparison. A No Build 20 Year scenario was analyzed to determine the impact of future traffic volumes on the existing geometry. The Build 20 Year scenario was developed and analyzed to determine how the new geometry is impacted by the future traffic. The Build 20 Year scenario included changing Washington St. to a 3 lane section for the entire corridor beginning at Spinder Dr. (which was not analyzed) through and past the intersecting with Springfield Rd. The other major improvement included was the realignment of the Springfield Rd. intersection such that a split phase signal timing is no longer required. See Figure 30 through Figure 36 to see all the geometric changes included in the Build scenario. Two Build scenarios were completed for the intersection with Main St., one with provisions for an exclusive right turn lane on the east approach with no on-street parking and the other with a shared through-right turn lane and adjacent on-street parking. The traffic analyses are included in Appendix 1 Traffic Reports and summarized in the following figures:



FIGURE 26 INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection Level of Service

Main Mall/Anna Almiron Cole Springfield

Modeled Scenario AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Existing Conditions C C A B A2 A2 A A B B

No Build 20 Year C D A B A2 A2 A A B C

Build 20 Year (Rt. Turn, No Park.)

C D NA1 NA1 A3 A3 B B B B

Build 20 Year (No Rt. Turn, Park.)

C D NA1 NA1 A3 A3 B B B B

1. Mall/Anna intersection closed in this scenario. 2. Existing Almiron St. intersection stopped controlled. 3. Almiron St. intersection modeled as a signalized intersection in this scenario.

FIGURE 27 ARTERIAL SPEED

Arterial Speed (mph)

Eastbound Westbound

Modeled Scenario AM PM AM PM

Existing Conditions 17 11 18 17

No Build 20 Year 16 8 18 16

Build 20 Year (Rt. Turn, No Park.) 17 10 19 17

Build 20 Year (No Rt. Turn, Park.) 17 9 18 12

FIGURE 28 95% QUEUE LENGTHS

Main

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

Modeled Scenario L T R L T R L T R L T R

Existing Conditions 164 323 0 259 131 0 98 409 33 93 437 15

No Build 20 Year 191 426 0 344 154 0 138 470 32 118 511 23

Build 20 Year (Rt. Turn, No Park.)

184 629 231 315 147 0 139 450 91 121 489 22

Build 20 Year (No Rt. Turn, Park.)

184 629 231 315 422 0 139 450 91 121 489 22



Mall/Anna


Modeled Scenario

L T R L T R L T R L T R

Existing Conditions

0 135 0 35 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Build 20 Year

0 160 0 41 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Build 20 Year NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1

1. Mall/Anna intersection closed in this scenario.

Almiron



Existing Conditions NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2

No Build 20 Year NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2 NA2

Build 20 Year3 31 176 0 16 54 0 52 0 0 47 50 0

2. Existing Almiron St. intersection stopped controlled 3. Almiron St. intersection modeled as a signalized intersection in this scenario.

Cole




No Build 20 Year 0 86 0 0 52 0 53 0 0 0 0 0

Build 20 Year 0 443 31 35 223 0 148 0 0 0 0 0

Springfield




No Build 20 Year 22 202 66 182 190 0 0 124 32 0 124 0

Build 20 Year 9 393 31 61 136 0 90 64 33 16 133 0

The analyses illustrate that there was little to no change in the Levels of Service for the various intersections along Washington St. There was more significant impact to the arterial speeds, the greatest impact being on the eastbound traffic in the PM Peak Hour. This change in arterial speed demonstrates that the three-lane section will take users longer to travel through the corridor but the desired effect of slowing vehicles down is achieved.



The figures summarizing the 95% Queue lengths is the most revealing about specific impacts to future traffic. For the most part, queue lengths were nominally affected by the improvements and in some cases were improved. The most notable impacts were to the queue lengths for the eastbound and the westbound through lane at the Main St. intersection and the eastbound through lane of the Springfield Rd. intersection. These lengths were almost or more than doubled the existing queue lengths. This shows that during the peak hours it is likely for a vehicle traveling through on Washington St. to wait through one or more cycles before clearing the intersection. However, these projected queue lengths are not anticipated to impact upstream intersections and the goal of reducing speeds through the corridor would be achieved.

ROUNDABOUT

A separate traffic analysis was completed to determine if a roundabout was feasible at the intersection of Springfield Rd. and Washington St. It was determined that a single lane roundabout would accommodate the anticipated future traffic. All approaches to the roundabout would be single approaches except for the west approach, which would require an exclusive right turn lane to accommodate the volume of eastbound traffic that turns right onto Springfield Rd. In general, the levels of service and 95% queue lengths are better for a roundabout than a traffic signal.

FIGURE 29 TRAFFIC SIGNAL VS. ROUNDABOUT

Springfield - Build 20 Year


L T R L T R L T R L T R

Traffic Signal LOS A C A A A A D C A A C

95% Queue 9 393 31 61 136 0 90 64 33 16 133

Roundabout LOS C A B B A

95% Queue 233 51 152 177 48

d. Concept Development

The following desirable roadway design elements fulfill the vision of the District and were utilized in the development of roadway concepts:

Lower target speed On-street parking Wide sidewalks

Bicycle accommodations Bus stops with shelters

However, given the narrow corridor and the presence of existing buildings either at or closely to the existing right of way, not all preferred corridor improvements can be achieved. The following factors and potential trade-offs were considered for developing concepts:

Right-of-way constraints On-street parking may increase crashes and delays Reducing vehicle capacity (no. of lanes) versus wider sidewalks and on-street parking



Accommodations for large vehicles and higher turning speeds versus narrow lanes widths and smaller curb return radii for safer pedestrian crossings

The following sections summarize the existing conditions and needs based on the various sections of roadway. Recommendations are made based on those needs and available space within each section.

Railroad to Main St.

Existing Conditions Needs Recommendations

Side-Walk

North SW is only 6' wide and there is no buffer from vehicular traffic.

Need to create a more inviting pedestrian

connection between Historic Four Corners District and the Levee

District.

Add a green buffer to the north side of the road. With fewer lanes, more green space can be added to the south side, except adjacent to the

right-turn lane which will require a 6' sidewalk with no buffer.

South SW is 6' and a 5' buffer (currently paved)

is provided.

Parking NA With the available off-street parking there is no need for

on street parking. No parking provided.

Bike Lane

NA Provide connectivity for

bicycles.

Provide on street bike lanes or identify an alternate connection

between McKinley St. and the River Trail of IL.

No. Lanes

& Width

5 lanes @ 10'

The west approach to the Main St. intersection will require an exclusive left,

through and right turn lane to prevent queuing to the

railroad tracks.

Provide 4-lane section and add a raised median near the railroad tracks for a mid-block crossing

Misc.

Need to coordinate landscaped median with Fire and Police

A mid-block crossing was recommended due to the excessive length between the Spinder Dr. and Main St. intersections. This length should be shortened with a mid-block crossing to improve walkability and provide connectivity to the Levee District. It is shown west of the railroad due to the presence of existing entrances east of the railroad. Providing bike lanes would require narrower travel lanes and / or narrower sidewalks. West of the railroad, reducing the number of lanes is required if on street bike lanes are desired. It should be noted that additional traffic study of the Spinder Dr. intersection is recommended to determine if reduced lanes through the railroad crossing are feasible. It should be noted that IDOT will likely require 11’ min, width lanes on the approaches to Main St. The following table illustrates the options available:

RAILROAD TO MAIN ST.



Railroad to Main St.

Option 1 Option 2

SW Provide a 6’ wide sidewalk with a 4’ buffer on one side of the roadway and no buffer

along the other side.

Provide a 6’ wide sidewalk with an 8’ buffer on both sides of the roadway.

Parking No parking provided. No parking provided.

Bike Lane Provide 2, 5’ wide bike lanes. No bike lanes provided.

No. Lanes & Width

Provide a 4-lane section (11’-12’-11’-11’) roadway.

FIGURE 30 PROPOSED - RAILROAD TO MAIN ST.



East Approach of Main St.

Existing

Conditions Needs Recommendations

SW

North SW is 12’ near Main St. and Tapers

to 6’ before Anna St.

Need to create a more inviting pedestrian destination in front of the businesses along the

north side and establish connectivity between the City

Lot and the businesses.

A 10’ min. sidewalk should be provided on the north side adjacent to the zero offset buildings. This would allow for

some planters, displays, etc. and comfortable pedestrian space.

A 15’ SW is preferred.

South SW is 7' wide and there

is no buffer from vehicular

traffic.

Ideally, a green buffer would be provided along the south SW but with limited space a bike lane could provide the needed buffer from vehicular traffic.

Additionally, the adjacent landscaping, opposed to adjacent parking, provides

some green space.

Parking NA

Parallel parking could be utilized on the north side

adjacent to the zero offset buildings. It would also create opportunity for bumping out the

corner radii which would improve pedestrian crossings. Parking along the south side

would likely encourage j-walking and is not

recommended.

Provide parking along the north side.

Bike Lane


bicycles.

Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the dedicated

bicycle path.

No. Lanes &

Width 5 lanes @ 10'

The east approach of the Main St. intersection requires an

exclusive left-turn lane and a shared, thru-right, turn lane.

Provide a 3-lane section roadway.

Misc.

IDOT will likely require that the mast arms be relocated outside of the

intersection if there are any improvements suggested to the signals.

It should be noted that IDOT will likely require 11’ min, width lanes on the approaches to Main St. They may also require that the mast arms be relocated outside of the intersection. To implement the above recommendations three options were developed, each prioritizing something different.

EAST APPROACH OF MAIN ST.



East Approach of Main St. Intersection

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

SW

Improve SW width along the north side to 10’ min. and the south side to 9’ min. with no

green buffer space either side.

Improve the north SW width to 15’, which allows space for planters, etc. Add a 5’

wide landscape buffer to the south SW.

Improve SW width along the north side to 12’ min. which allows for a narrow planter space. Maintain SW along

south side with only the bike lane to provide a buffer.

Parking Provide 8’ wide parallel

parking along north side. Provide Bike lane OR Parking

- 8’ wide parallel parking along north side

- 2, 5’ wide bike lanes.

Provide 8’ wide parallel parking along north side.

Bike Lane Provide 2, 5’ wide bike

lanes. Provide 2, 5’ wide bike

lanes.

No. Lanes & Width

Provide a 3-lane section (11-11-11) roadway.

FIGURE 31 PROPOSED - EAST APPROACH OF MAIN ST.



West Approach of Almiron St.


SW

The sidewalk on the north side is 6’ wide, with no landscape buffer. The

adjacent parking is separated from the sidewalk with landscaped planters.

Need to create a more comfortable pedestrian

experience that provides a connectivity from the City Lot to

the 100 Block Businesses.

Create a park-like setting to provide connectivity to the 100 Block

Businesses.

The sidewalk on the south side is 6’ wide, with no

landscape buffer.

Need to create a more comfortable pedestrian

experience. Existing landscaping off right of way

does help.

With limited space, the bike lane could provide the buffer from vehicular traffic. The sidewalk

should be 6’ min. width, 8’ wide is preferred.

Parking NA

With the adjacent parking lot on the north side, off-street parking available on the south side, and limited ROW, on street parking

is not recommended.

No parking provided.

Bike Lane


bicycles.

Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the

dedicated bicycle path.

No. Lanes

& Width

4 lanes @ 10'

The west approach of the Almiron St. intersection requires exclusive left-turn, through and

right-turn lanes.

Provide a 4-lane section roadway.

Misc.

Right of Way is required on the south side (2’ to 6’).

To implement the above recommendations three options were developed:

West Approach of Almiron St.

Option 1 Option 2

SW Provide an 8’ wide sidewalk, no buffer. Provide a 6’ min. wide sidewalk, no buffer.

Parking No parking provided.

Bike Lane No bike lanes provided. Provide 2, 5’ wide bike lanes.

No. Lanes & Width

Provide a 4-lane section (10.5’ wide lanes) Provide a 4-lane section (10’ wide lanes)

Right of Way

Not Required 2’ – 6’ Required along south side of

roadway.

WEST APPROACH OF ALMIRON ST.



FIGURE 32 DIAGONAL PUBLIC PARKING & COLE ST. EXTENSION



FIGURE 33 PERPENDICULAR PUBLIC PARKING & ALMIRON ST.

FIGURE 34 PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE BRIDGE



East Approach of Cole St. (Bridge Section over Cole Creek)

Existing


SW 9’ sidewalk is provided on either side.

A 9’ sidewalk is the minimum width required for a sidewalk on a bridge

per BLRS. Maintain existing sidewalk.

Parking NA

Due to the proximity of the intersection and the restricted width

of the bridge, parking is not recommended.

No parking provided. (Sight distance does not appear adequate for on

street parking)

Bike Lane

NA Provide connectivity for bicycles. Provide on street bike lanes or

identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the dedicated bicycle path.

No. Lanes &

Width 4 lanes @ 10'

The east approach of the Cole St. intersection requires exclusive left-

turn and through lanes.

Provide a 3-lane section: (10’-10’-10’) w/ bike lanes

OR (11’-11’-4’(flush median)-12’)

w/o bike lanes

FIGURE 35 PROPOSED - EAST OF COLE ST.

EAST APPROACH OF COLE ST.



East of Cole Creek up to the Springfield Rd. Intersection

Existing


SW

8’ sidewalk is provided on the north side, with

no buffer.

The ROW at the bend in Washington St. does not curve with the roadway. The existing north sidewalk narrows to 4’

wide in order to fit within ROW.

Both sides of the road have a lot of paved surfaces adjacent to the sidewalk. Providing a

landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the adjacent parking lots would be more

inviting to pedestrians.

Maintain a minimum 8’ wide sidewalk is to provide two-way pedestrian traffic in

front of zero setback buildings.

Work with adjacent owners to create more green space adjacent to sidewalk.

A 6’ sidewalk is provided on the south side, with a 5’ paved or landscaped

buffer.

Maintain 6’ sidewalk and 5’ buffer widths but convert as much of the paved buffer

to landscaping.

Work with adjacent owners to create more green space adjacent to sidewalk.

Parking NA

Due to the many adjacent parking lots and the limited

ROW, on street parking is not recommended.

No parking provided, limited sight distance.

Bike Lane


bicycles.

Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the dedicated

bicycle path.

No. Lanes &

Width 4 lanes @ 10'

Provide a TWLTL to limit left turn impacts on the through

lanes. Provide a 3-lane section.

At the bend in Washington St., the right of way narrows. It is recommended to narrow the center turn lane at this location and provide a mid-block crossing. To implement the above recommendations three options were developed:

East of Cole Creek up to the Springfield Rd. Intersection

Option 1 Option 2

SW Provide an 8’ wide sidewalk with a 4’ buffer Match existing SW and Buffer to reduce

impact to storm sewer, etc.

Parking No parking provided.

Bike Lane No bike lanes provided. Provide 2, 5’ wide bike lanes.

No. Lanes & Width

Provide a 3-lane section (11-12-11) Provide a 3-lane section (10-10-10)

EAST OF COLE CREEK



West Approach of Springfield Rd. Intersection

Existing


SW

The north sidewalk is 4’

to 5’ wide, with no buffer.

The narrow sidewalk and lack of buffer adjacent to traffic is not


Provide an 8’ wide sidewalk, which is the minimum width to provide two-way

pedestrian traffic in front of zero setback buildings. See Note 2

A 6’ sidewalk is provided on the

south side in front of the Associated

Bank building.


inviting to pedestrians. Sidewalk does not meet ADA width

requirement in front of bank building due to presence of power

poles and traffic signals in the sidewalk.

Provide an 8’ wide sidewalk, which is the minimum width to provide two-way

pedestrian traffic in front of zero setback buildings. See Note 2

Parking NA

Due to the many adjacent parking lots and the limited ROW, on

street parking is not recommended.

No Parking Provided.

Bike Lane

NA Provide connectivity for bicycles. Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the dedicated

bicycle path. See Note 2

No. Lanes &

Width 5 lanes @ 10'

The approach requires exclusive left-turn, through and right-turn

lanes.

Provide a 4-lane section. See Notes 2 & 3.

Misc.

1. The existing signals and islands have no accommodations for pedestrian crossings (ramps, crosswalks, etc.).

2. Any widening of the west approach will have ROW impacts. See next figure. 3. The intersection would operate more efficiently if all approaches of the intersection were

realigned so that split phasing is not required.

WEST APPROACH OF SPRINGFIELD RD.



To implement the above recommendations, three options are provided. Each option varies with respect to the impact on adjacent properties.

West Approach of Springfield Rd. Intersection

Option 1 Option 2

SW

Along the south, provide an 8’ wide sidewalk (no buffer), which is the minimum width to provide two-way pedestrian traffic in front of zero setback buildings.

Along the north, provide a 6’ sidewalk, no buffer.

Along the north, provide a 6’ sidewalk and a 4’ buffer.

Parking No Parking Provided.

Bike Lane Provide 2, 5’ on street bike lanes. No bicycle accommodations provided.

Lane Widths Provide 10’ lanes.

Impacts

Requires full taking of East Peoria Cleaners Building.

Requires land acquisition from 259 E. Washington, Edward Jones and Addy,

Bush and Assoc.

No ROW required, no takings required.

FIGURE 36 SPRINGFIELD RD. - SIGNALIZED



FIGURE 37 SPRINGFIELD RD. – ROUNDABOUT

East Approach of the Springfield Rd. Intersection

Existing


SW

The north sidewalk is 4’

to 5’ wide, with no buffer.



With additional ROW available adjacent to the right turn lane, a 6’

min. width buffer should be provided with a 5’ min. width sidewalk.

An 11’ sidewalk is

provided on the south side in

front of Eysal’s

The paved sidewalk & adjacent parking at the corner in front of Eysal’s does not provide clear

separation between pedestrians and vehicles and is not inviting to

pedestrians.

Work with Owner to provide more

separation for pedestrians and vehicles as well as creating a more

inviting space.

Parking NA

Due to the many adjacent parking lots and the limited ROW, on

street parking is not recommended along Washington.

No Parking Provided.

Bike Lane

NA Provide connectivity for bicycles. Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as the dedicated

bicycle path.

No. Lanes &

Width 5 lanes @ 10'

The east approach requires an exclusive left-turn, through and

right-turn lane.

Provide a 4-lane section (10-10-10-10) w/ bike lanes

OR (11’-11’-12’-11’) w/o bike lanes

Misc. Note 2: The existing signals and islands have no accommodations for pedestrian crossings (ramps, crosswalks, etc.). All approaches of the intersection should be realigned so that split

phasing is not required.

EAST APPROACH OF SPRINGFIELD RD. INTERSECTION



East of Springfield Rd.


SW

The north sidewalks vary: - 9’ sidewalk, no buffer - 5’ sidewalk, 4’ buffer. The sidewalk is adequate

within this section. It is also inviting to pedestrians,

especially where a buffer is provided.

Match Existing, See Note 1

The south sidewalks vary: - 11’ sidewalk, no buffer - 7’ sidewalk, 4’ buffer - 6’ sidewalk, no buffer but 5’ of landscaping between sidewalk and ROW.

Parking NA

Due to the many adjacent parking lots and the limited ROW, on street parking is not recommended along

Washington.

No parking is provided along Washington St.

Bike Lane


bicycles.

Provide on street bike lanes or identify McKinley / Taylor St. as

the dedicated bicycle path.

No. Lanes &

Width 4 lanes @ 10'

Provide a TWLTL to limit left turn impacts on the

through lanes.

Provide a 3-lane section (10-11-10) w/ bike lanes

OR (11’-12’-11’)

w/o bike lanes

Misc.

1. The recommended section allows the roadway to be re-striped and reconstructed only where needed. Reducing the south sidewalk to a 6’ sidewalk with no buffer would allow for a wider 3-lane section or possibly one side of on-street parking but would require significantly more reconstruction (storm sewers, power poles, etc.).

EAST OF SPRINGFIELD RD.



FIGURE 38 PROPOSED - EAST OF SPRINGFIELD RD.

With a small increase in congestion, the lanes along Washington St. can be reduced to allow for a more pedestrian friendly corridor. Bicycles can either be accommodate on the street or along Taylor and McKinley St. with the construction of a pedestrian bridge. Overall, the change in congestion will mostly be noticed only during the peak hours when vehicles may have to wait through a couple cycles in order to clear the intersection. During non-peak hours the increase in delay should be nominal.

CONCLUSION

Documents

EAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDYEAST PEORIA FOUR CORNERS PARKING & TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Introduction This Parking and Traffic Study has been prepared for Tri-County Regional