Welcome
Working Advisory Group
Meeting #5A
September 28, 2011
Today’s Agenda
Traffic Part I: Today and Tomorrow
Parking Discussion
Time to Focus: Two Alternatives
Summary of Assignment #5: Best in
Class
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
Traffic Part 2 (10/25/11)
• CTPS Model Run Results
• Urban Facility Capacity Analysis Results
• Detailed Analysis & Queuing Results
• Travel Time Comparisons
• Traffic Simulations
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
Existing Traffic – Level-of-Service (LOS)
Existing Traffic – PM queues
XX
PM queue length (ft)
50th percentile
Overview of Operations
Existing Surface Roadways:
•Confusing and congested
•Poor Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
•Limited Curbside Loading/Unloading
•Closely Spaced Intersections Difficult to Manage
•Significant Queuing through Adjacent Intersections
•Multiple Conflict Points in Shea Circle
Traffic Count Locations
INTERSECTIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Peak Traffic
Times
Represents %
of peak hour
Graph does not depict
volumes, but rather the
variation in volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
Casey Overpass = 2,350
New Washington = 1,100
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
2035 Volume Projections
CTPS regional model
• Multi-Modal model
• Regional Model
• Calibrated based on Current Counts
BRA local development parcels
• 8 Local Development Parcels
• Traffic Volumes and Distribution per BTD
Standards
Weekday Peak Hour Pedestrians
AM
T
PM
T
Weekday Peak Hour Bicycles
AM
T
PM
T
2035 No Build PM Volumes – Vehicles
Casey Overpass
Volumes
Arborway
Volumes
New Washington
Street Volumes
Combined east/west flow in the study area
is approximately equal to north/south flow
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
Inbound (east)
Travel Path Options
Outbound (west)
Travel Path Options
*
Local Travel Time and Delay:
Casey Overpass/New Washington
*
Local Travel Time and Delay:
Neighborhood cut-through
Operation at Intersections
Adjacent to Study Area
West of Casey Overpass
East of Casey Overpass
Continuing west of Casey Overpass,
Continuing east of Casey Overpass,
regional traffic encounters delays at Murray regional traffic encounters delays at
Circle, Centre Street and Perkins Street.
Cemetery Street.
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
Multi-Modal Analysis
(Urban Facility Analysis)
• Integrated multimodal analysis
–
–
–
–
Automobile
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Transit
• Perception-based performance
measures
– Intersections
– Segments
– Facilities
Urban Facility Level of Service
•LOS A thru F
– LOS A – Unimpeded, “best” service
– LOS F – High delay/Very restricted
operations
•LOS Goals
– Aiming to improve and balance LOS across
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes
– Vehicle LOS Goal in urban environment is
LOS D
Urban Facility Level of Service
Weekday Morning Peak Hour
Travel Direction
Base free-flow speed, mi/h
Travel speed, mi/h
Level of service
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eastbound
Westbound
Vehicle Level of Service
36.9
36.9
8.3
4.1
LOS F
LOS F
Pedestrian Level of Service
Pedestrian space, ft2/p
Pedestrian travel speed, ft/s
Pedestrian LOS score
Level of service
Poorest perf. Segment LOS
0.3
3.2
1.1
LOS A
LOS D
1.4
3.6
0.3
LOS A
LOS C
8.2
1.4
LOS A
LOS D
8.7
2.7
LOS B
LOS D
2.29
3.33
LOS C
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bicycle Level of Service
Bicycle travel speed, mi/h
Bicycle LOS score
Level of service
Poorest perf. Segment LOS
Transit Level of Service
Transit travel speed, mi/h
Transit LOS score
Level of service
Pedestrian Operations
Example inputs:
• Traffic flow rate
• Roadway geometry
–
–
–
–
Number of lanes
Buffer width
Sidewalk width
On-street parking
• Crossing delay/difficulty
Pedestrian Methodology for Urban Street Segments
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
Pedestrian Operations
Existing
Network Wide - Pedestrian Enhancements
• Added facilities
– Extended walkways
– MBTA connections
Bicycle Operations
Example inputs:
• Traffic flow rate
• Heavy vehicles
• Roadway geometry
–
–
–
–
Bicycle Methodology for Urban Street Segments
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
Number of lanes
On-street parking
Bike facility
Travel lane width
Bicycle Operations
Existing
Network Wide –Bicycle Enhancements
• Added facilities
– Bicycle Lanes
– Off road bicycle facilities
Transit Operations
• Example inputs:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Transit Methodology for Urban Street Segments
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
Segment length
Frequency of service
Traffic volumes
Dwell times
Passengers/seat ratio
Average passenger trip length
Queue jump lanes
Transit Operations
• Analysis for New Washington St between South St
and Washington St
– Route 39 is only route along this corridor
– Other routes use the Forest Hills Upper or Lower Busways
Lower
Busway
Upper
Busway
Traffic Part 1 (Today)
-Revisit existing conditions and new data
-Review 2035 volume projections
-Travel time and cut-through
-Multi-modal traffic evaluation methodologies
-Alternatives analysis introduction
Alternatives Analysis Introduction
•CTPS Modeling
•Vehicle LOS
•Queuing Analysis
•Travel Time Comparisons
CTPS Regional Traffic Model
• Model runs for At-Grade and Bridge
Alternatives
• Initial results show no significant changes to:
• Traffic Volumes
• Vehicle Miles Traveled
• Vehicle Hours Travel
• Air Quality Emissions
At-Grade Alternative – Level of Service (LOS)
At-Grade Alternative – PM Queues
Existing
Alternative
PM queue length (ft)
50th percentile
Travel Time Comparison
1
2
5
Origins/Destinations
1
Arborway
2
South St @ St Marks
3
Washington St @ Forest Hills Station
4
Hyde Park Ave @ Forest Hills Station
5
Washington St @ Arborway Yard
6
Shea Circle
6
3
4
Travel Time Comparison
Trip improved: GREEN
Trip takes 0-60 seconds longer: WHITE
Trip takes 60-120 seconds longer: YELLOW
Trip takes >120 seconds longer: RED
NOTE: A negative travel time indicates that the travel time for the At Grade
Alternative is shorter than the travel time for the Bridge Alternative.
Sample PM Travel Time Comparison (in minutes)
(destination)
1
(origin)
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.4
-0.3
1.0
0.5
2.6
0.9
0.8
2.2
0.6
0.4
-0.6
0.1
0.1
2
0.0
3
-0.6
SAMPLE DATA.
0.8NOT ACTUAL.0.4
4
1.6
1.5
3.6
5
0.0
1.3
0.2
0.6
6
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.1
1.4
Overview of Mobility Operations
At-Grade and Bridge Alternatives As Compared
To Existing Conditions:
•Improved Alignment of Surface Roads
•Enhanced Pedestrian & Bicycle Accommodations
•Improved Curbside Loading/Unloading Areas
•Improved Operations and Signalization
•Improved Queue Management
•Reduced Conflicts at Shea Circle
•Improved Safety Through Signal/Geometry Changes
Next Meeting October 25, 2011
WAG Meeting #5B – Traffic Part II
CTPS Model Run Results
Detailed Level-of-Service and Queuing Results
Urban Facility Capacity Analysis Results
Travel Time Comparisons
Traffic Simulations
Hybrid Split Bridge Concept
Parking Discussion
Off-Street Parking
105 UNDER OVERPASS
252 PRIVATE LOT
22
EMPLOYEES
65
EMPLOYEES
188
MBTA LOTS
Approximately 60
Angle Parking
Spaces
Two Alternatives
Single Bridge
At-Grade Medium Median
Summary of Assignment 5
Best In Class
Goal 1 Improve Roadway Geometry to Enhance Goal 4 Integrate Sustainability into Design
Circulation for all Modes and Users
Concepts
1.01 Minimize local street impacts of cut
through traffic
4.01 Increase Tree Canopy
3
1.02 Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
environment
5
1
4.02 Minimize adverse water and light
impacts
2
1.03 Improve roadway and intersection
operations for vehicles
4
Goal 2 Improve Access, Modal and Intermodal
Local and Regional Corridor Connections to
Promote Transportation Choices
Goal 5 Create a Destination and Sense of Place
and Celebrate the Area's Architectural,
Transportation and Open Space History
2.02 Improve bikeability and walkability,
bicycle and pedestrian access
5.01 Increase space for community
gatherings and create a sense of place
6
1
5.02 Enhance value of commercial and
residential buildings through improved
visual or aesthetic changes
5
Goal 6 Improve the Visibility, Connectivity and
Access to Gateway Open Spaces
Goal 5 Remove Barriers for Neighborhood
Connections and Integrate Transit into
Economic Centers and Residential Area
3.01 Support Access to future
development
1
3.02 Number of Modal Connections
Created
Total Votes
6.01 Enhance visual quality - (Edge) and
increase open vistas, views, view
corridors and access to light and air
2
6.02 Compliance with Olmstead's vision
and connection to the Emerald Necklace
5
24
Total Votes
5
16
Draft Alternatives - Best Design Elements
Alternative Design Element
Votes
4
Shea Square
6
4
Gathering Space Near Southwest Corridor Park
3
3
Bus 39 New Location
4
4
Drop off area New Location
2
4
Multi Modal Path on Washington Street
2
4
Off Street Bike Path
2
4
View Corridors towards Forest Hills Station
2
3
Gathering Space at Forest Hills Station
1
3
Bow Tie Turns
1
3
Median Width
1
4
Narrow Median
1
2
Access Denied at Forest Hills Street
1
2
Best Design Alternative 2
1
2
Bridge Touchdown at State Labs
1
2
No Sidewalk on Bridge
1
4
Washington Street Moved to South
1
4
Open Space Connections
1
2
Shea Circle Egg a Bout
1
2
Single Span
1