Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Valencia Rd.
Kolb
Rd
.
Wilm
ot
Rd
. N
Project
Ajo
Why
Lukeville
RoblesJunction
Arivaca
Sasabe
ArivacaJunction
Catalina
Redington
MARICOPA
GRAHAM
PINAL
YUMA
COCHISE
SANTA CRUZ
Project
N
Project
Map source: Google Maps
N
Project Location
Existing Land Use and Parcel Boundaries
Project Background
• 2005 Study recommends SPUI. Congestion within 5 yrs.
• Dec. 2007 southern by-pass route proposed in-house for retail development.
• Mar. 2008 engineering contract for intersection and southern bypass.
• June 2008 Traffic Study: By-pass option viable with grade separation needed for long-term improvement.
• Nov. 2010 PC advertises for DCR and Design Services – consultants must propose alternative that balances performance and cost using design traffic volumes provided.
• Feb. 2011 EPS awarded contract based on innovative design concept.
215’
600’
90
0’
74
0’
950’
210’
17
5’ Legend
Lane Use
Traffic Control
Storage Length (ft.)
2008 Average Daily Traffic
2025 Average Daily Traffic
XXX’
Kolb
Rd
.
Valencia Rd.
N
19,406
45
,46
2
29,543
15
,93
5 XX,XXX
24-hour two-way traffic volumes, collected Wednesday, March 26, 2008.
Source: Kolb Road / Valencia Road Intersection Final Traffic Engineering Study, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June 2008, prepared for Pima County Department of Transportation.
2025 traffic volumes estimated.
69,000
35
,00
0
85,600
59
,90
0
XX,XXX
Existing Conditions
2011 Turning Movement Volumes
AM (PM)
Valencia Road
Ko
lb R
oa
d
1,3
41
(5
89
) 5
21
(5
90
) 254
(595)
29
(1
6)
59
7 (
56
0)
20 (
134)
655 (373) 501 (180) 26 (41)
647 (990)
227 (382)
20 (11)
NB
Ap
pro
ac
h
64
6 (
71
0)
S
B
Ap
pro
ac
h
2,1
16
(1
,77
4)
EB
Approach
894 (1,383)
WB
Approach
1,182 (594)
Total Vehicles
AM = 4,838
PM = 4,461
Source: Pima County Department of Transportation, May 5, 2011.
Numbers shown in red font represent high volume movements at the intersection.
N
PM Photos
Northbound
Eastbound Southbound
PM Existing Conditions
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 56.0 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 41.8 Total Stops: 3,305 Stops/Vehicle: 0.68 Total Vehicles: 4,821
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 93.0 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 75.7 Total Stops: 4,624 Stops/Vehicle: 1.05 Total Vehicles: 4,439
Existing Condition 2011 Volumes
N
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM)
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
E(E
)
D(E
)
D(D
)
Valencia Road
Ko
lb R
oad
Intersection LOS
AM = D PM = E
120 sec. Cycle Length
“One potential treatment to combat
congestion and safety problems at intersections is the Median U-Turn Intersection, which has been used in Michigan for many years and has been implemented successfully in Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and Louisiana in recent years”
• Conflict points at a 4-leg signalized intersection are reduced from 32 to 16.
• Eliminates crossing left-turn conflict points.
• Observations compared to conventional 4-leg intersection:
– 60 percent reduction in total crashes.
– 75 percent reduction in total injuries.
– 17 percent reduction in rear-end crashes.
– 96 percent reduction in angle crashes.
– 61 percent reduction in sideswipe crashes.
Indirect Left-Turns
MCDOT Parkway-Parkway Grade Separated Interchange (PGSI) Source: Arizona Parkway Intersection/Interchange Operational Analysis and Design Concepts Study, August 2009, MCDOT. (Note that this was the 5th of five studies conducted by Dr. James Witkowski for MCDOT on the subject of indirect left-turn parkways.)
Turning Movement Paths NB Left-Turn SB Right-Turn WB Left-Turn EB Right-Turn EB Left-Turn WB Right-Turn SB Left-Turn NB Right-Turn
PAGI W/3-Ramps: Recommended Ramp Locations Shown in Blue.
Note that right-turns will be allowed at the main intersection on all approaches for local access.
745’
75
5’
760’
• Existing and future land development • Ramp placement • Ramp geometry and acceleration lane
length (design speed) • Local access potential • Existing access/access control impacts and
turn restrictions • Right-of-way impacts • Pedestrian/bicycle accommodations
Parkway At-Grade Intersection (PAGI) Existing Northern Alignment
PM 2011 Traffic
A(B)
D(C)
B(A)
B(B)
A(A)
A(A
)
A(A
)
B(B
)
A(B
)
A(A
)
B(A
)
A(B)
C(B
)
A(C)
A(C) B(A
)
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 28.4 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 21.2 Total Stops: 3,092 Stops/Vehicle: 0.6 Total Vehicles: 4,819
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 28.6 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 23.3 Total Stops: 3,077 Stops/Vehicle: 0.7 Total Vehicles: 4,422
PAGI Northern Alignment 2011 Volumes
N
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM)
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
Ko
lb R
oad
90 sec. Cycle Length
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
AM PM
De
lay
Pe
r V
eh
icle
(Se
c/V
eh
)
Delay Per Vehicle Comparison By Alternative -2011 Volumes
Existing Condition PAGI North
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
AM PM
Sto
ps
Pe
r V
eh
icle
Stops Per Vehicle Comparison By Alternative -2011 Volumes
Existing Condition PAGI North
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AM PM
Tota
l De
lay
(Hr)
Total Delay Comparison By Alternative -2011 Volumes
Existing Condition PAGI North
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
AM PM
Tota
l Sto
ps
Total Stops Comparison By Alternative -2011 Volumes
Existing Condition PAGI North
LOS D
LOS E
LOS C LOS C
Design Year Traffic Volumes Design Volumes AM (PM)
Valencia Road
Ko
lb R
oa
d
64
0 (
75
0)
87
0 (
88
0)
69
0 (
1,0
10
)
30
(5
0)
84
0 (
86
0)
280 (
860)
1,060 (940) 2,720 (1,580) 680 (510)
710 (930)
1,300 (2,930)
50 (40)
NB
Ap
pro
ac
h
1,1
50
(1
,77
0)
S
B
Ap
pro
ac
h
2,2
00
(2
,64
0)
EB
Approach
2,060 (3,900)
WB
Approach
4,460 (3,030)
Design Year
Total Vehicles
AM = 9,870
PM = 11,340
AM + 104%
PM + 154%
N
2011
Total Vehicles
AM = 4,838
PM = 4,461
Source: Pima Association of Governments, 2011.
Numbers shown in red font represent high volume movements at the intersection.
Parkway At-Grade Intersection (PAGI) Northern Alignment
PM 2025 Design Traffic
B(C)
C(D)
C(B)
B(B)
D(D)
B(B
)
A(A
)
D(D
)
C(C
)
B(C
)
B(A
)
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 98.1 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 36.0 Total Stops: 8,048 Stops/Vehicle: 0.8 Total Vehicles: 9,813
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hr): 141.5 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 45.2 Total Stops: 11,158 Stops/Vehicle: 1.0 Total Vehicles: 11,271
A(A)
C(C
)
A(B)
C(C) C(D
)
PAGI w/3 Ramps 2025 Design Volumes
N
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM)
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
Ko
lb R
oad
120 sec. Cycle Length
Southern Alignment
• Concept diverts traffic to new southern alignment, and splits demand between two main intersections.
• As much as 52 percent of 2025 traffic would be diverted south.
• Several concepts tested for new southern intersection. – Conventional Intersection
– Grade Separation (SPUI & Diamond)
– Continuous Flow Intersection
– PAGI w/2 Ramps
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 221.4 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 80.4 Total Stops: 13,774 Stops/Vehicle: 1.4 Total Vehicles: 9,917
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 453.0 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 144.2 Total Stops: 22,831 Stops/Vehicle: 2.0 Total Vehicles: 11,308
Conventional Intersection Design Southern Alignment
2025 Design Volumes
N
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM) ** Minimal volume assumed for this movement in this alternative
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
E(F
)
F(F
)
C(F
)
**
B(C
)
B(B
) Ko
lb R
oad
Diamond Interchange Southern Alignment
PM 2025 Design Traffic
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 183.5 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 67.2 Total Stops: 10,667 Stops/Vehicle: 1.1 Total Vehicles: 9,837
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 270.4 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 86.9 Total Stops: 12,913 Stops/Vehicle: 1.2 Total Vehicles: 11,205
Diamond Interchange Southern Alignment
2025 Design Volumes
N
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
C(C
)
A(A
)
**
D(F
)
B(D
)
C(C
)
B(B
)
Ko
lb R
oad
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM) ** Minimal volume assumed for this movement in this alternative
290’
Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI)
Utah Application
CFI Simulation
CFI Southern Alignment PM 2025 Design Traffic
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 159.7 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 57.8 Total Stops: 10,821 Stops/Vehicle: 1.1 Total Vehicles: 9,943
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 224.3 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 71.6 Total Stops: 14,212 Stops/Vehicle: 1.3 Total Vehicles: 11,278
CFI Southern Alignment
2025 Design Volumes
N
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
*(*)
B(B
)
A(A
)
Ko
lb R
oad
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM) ** Minimal volume assumed for this movement in this alternative
C(A
)
D(D
)
A(A
) B(B)
C(D)
AM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 159.0 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 58.4 Total Stops: 10,435 Stops/Vehicle: 1.1 Total Vehicles: 9,809
PM Performance Statistics Total Delay (hrs): 227.7 Delay/Vehicle (s/veh): 72.5 Total Stops: 14,048 Stops/Vehicle: 1.2 Total Vehicles: 11,299
Note: Level of Service (LOS) Shown AM (PM) SimTraffic Simulation Results ** Minimal volume assumed for this movement in this alternative
Ko
lb R
oad
B(C)
B(B)
D(D)
C(C
)
B(C
)
B(C
)
A(A
)
D(E
)
LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
A(A
)
C(C
)
PAGI Southern Alignment 2025 Design Volumes
N
B(C
)
B(E
)
A(A
)
A(A
)
D(D)
*(*)
C(C)
D(E)
A(A) D(C
)
D(D
)
C(D
) A(B)
C(C)
120 sec. Cycle Length
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0110.0120.0130.0140.0150.0
AM PM
De
lay
Pe
r V
eh
icle
(Se
c/V
eh
)
Delay Per Vehicle Comparison By Alternative 2025 Design Volumes
PAGI North CFI South PAGI South DI South Conventional South
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
AM PM
Sto
ps
Pe
r V
eh
icle
Stops Per Vehicle Comparison By Alternative 2025 Design Volumes
PAGI North CFI South PAGI South DI South Conventional South
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
AM PM
Tota
l De
lay
(Hr)
Total Delay Comparison By Alternative 2025 Design Volumes
PAGI North CFI South PAGI South DI South Conventional South
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
AM PM
Tota
l Sto
ps
Total Stops Comparison By Alternative 2025 Design Volumes
PAGI North CFI South PAGI South DI South Conventional South
LOS D LOS D
LOS E LOS E LOS E
LOS F
LOS F
LOS E
LOS F
LOS E
Total Delay & Cost Comparison of Alternatives
Valencia Rd.
Kolb
Rd
.
N
PAGI 3-Ramps Number of Lanes and Storage Requirements
27
0’
15
0’
15
0’
250’
30
0’
200’
Legend Lane use\number of lanes. 220’ – Storage length in feet.
350’
Design Challenges
• Existing and future land development
• Ramp placement
• Ramp geometry and acceleration lane length (design speed)
• Local access potential
• Existing access/access control impacts and turn restrictions
• Right-of-way impacts
• Pedestrian/bicycle accommodations
Contacts
• Damon Ballesteros, Pima County Project Manager: [email protected] 520-740-6477
• Darrell Truitt, EPS Project Manager: [email protected]
480-503-2250
• James Witkowski, [email protected]
520-408-1400
Potentially relocate McCulloch Dr.
Potential Development Access Locations for Consideration.
5-14-2012
Restricted access through merge length.
Northern Alignment
Southern Alignment w/CFI
Potential Development Access Locations for Consideration.
5-14-2012
Restricted access through merge length (1,100 – 1,200 ft.)
Typical Sections
Bike and Ped Treatment w/Right-lane Merge
Right-lane merge – bike lane and sidewalk configuration (urban design – not for use on limited access freeways). Image source: FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation – Lesson 19 Bicycle Lanes.
