Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
US 52 Corridor Study Summary Report-memo,summary report,technical memoranda combined
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA PUBLIC NOTICE OF MEETING Government Body: CITY COUNCIL Time: 7:00 P.M. Date: MONDAY, June 27, 1994 Place of Meeting: Public Library Auditorium NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above identified governmental body will meet at the time, date and place as set forth above. The TENTATIVE AGENDA for the meeting is as follows: FINAL REPORT ON U.S. HIGHWAY 52 CORRIDOR STUDY This notice is given pursuant to Chapter 21, Code of Iowa, 1993, and applicable local regulations of the City of Dubuque, Iowa and/or governmental body holding the meeting. Ma 4 A. Davis CMC ity Clerk ANY VISUAL OR HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS NEEDING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE OR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (319) 589-4120 OR TDD (319) 589-4193 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA MEMORANDUM June 24, 1994 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Worksession on Highway 52 Corridor Study Attached is information prepared by Public Works Director Mike Koch for your worksession scheduled for Monday, June 27th at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Auditorium regarding the Highway 52 Corridor Study. / 72 //i .2 . / <///// Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM/j Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Mike Koch, Public Works Director tlM01 ; ;ilEll� 313 SV O h0 ZI Wd hZ 14, CI /At t CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA MEMORANDUM June 24, 1994 TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Michael A. Koch, Public Works Director//Li /(��z/�(., SUBJECT: City Council Meeting June 27, 1994 - U.S. 52 Corridor Study Summary Report INTRODUCTION Enclosed is a copy of the final summary report from RUST Environment and Infrastructure on the U.S. 52 Corridor Study of Central Avenue. Also, as requested by Council, is a copy of the Technical Memorandum containing summaries of the various technical reports and detailed analyses. BACKGROUND The final report of the corridor study has been modified based upon comments given by the City Council at the worksession of November 8, 1993. The major changes contained in the final summary report address the following issues: 1. Extension of Phase II improvements north of 32nd Street. 2. Implementation of one-way White Street north of 21st Street. 3. Traffic impact of Phase II improvements without Phase I implementation. DISCUSSION 1. A comparison was made of the cost and relative impacts of extending the Phase II Elm Street/Railroad Arterial north of 32nd Street, in lieu of using 32nd Street to connect the Arterial back to existing U.S. 52 on Central Avenue. It was determined that with minor reconstruction of 32nd Street at the proposed Elm Street/Railroad intersection and some reconstruction of Central Avenue, this extension could be provided. The extension of the Arterial north of 32nd Street would cost approximately $500,000.00 more than the proposed 32nd Street improvements and would require 97,800 square feet of additional right-of-way. The extension north of 32nd Street will provide nearly the same level of traffic service as utilizing 32nd Street, but will provide a much smoother and more direct route for through traffic. The exact alignment of this extension was not established as part of the corridor study. This alignment would be established at the time of preliminary design for the extension. A Supplement Report is included with the corridor study to provide a comparison of the cost and impact of utilizing 32nd Street if an adequate corridor is not available north of 32nd Street. 2. The traffic analysis shows that a significant benefit can be realized at the -#critical intersection of Central Avenue and 22nd Street by the extension of the existing one-way couplet north of the intersection at 22nd Street. This could be accomplished utilizing an improved one-way 24th Street to transition back to Central Avenue, or by the construction of a new curvilinear connector north of 22nd Street. This would require the acquisition of new right-of-way and the acquisition of 2 - 3 buildings. There would, however, be substantial operational benefits to such a new alignment. 3. Phase I improvements will provide relatively low cost, easily implemented benefits in a short time frame. Phase II improvements will provide additional corridor capacity and further improve traffic operations throughout the corridor. The analysis of the traffic effect on Phase II improvements if Phase I is not implemented shows that the system capacity would be reduced by approximately 10 to 15 percent. Without the operational improvements of Phase I, the full benefit of the corridor capacity cannot be realized by Phase II. Taken together, Phase I and II improvements will result in optimal traffic flow and the overall best utilization of all the streets in the corridor. The traffic analysis shows that portions of the corridor are currently experiencing traffic levels at or above capacity (Level of Service "E" or "F"). With Phase I improvements, the Level of Service increases to "D" at the critical locations. Phase I improvements would reduce the average intersection delay in the corridor from 23.9 seconds down to 12.8 seconds, and the total corridor capacity would increase from 3,400 to 3,800 vehicles per hour. After Phase II improvements are completed, the corridor would operate at a Level of Service "B", with an average intersection delay of 11.8 seconds and a total corridor capacity of 5,300 vehicles per hour. Representatives of RUST Environment and Infrastructure will be available at the June 27, 1994 Council meeting relating to the corridor study to discuss the modifications made to the final report and to address any questions the City Council may have on the study recommendations. MAK/ksa RugENVIRONMENT & NFRASTRUCTURE NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SUMMARY REPORT Prepared For: CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA Prepared By: RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. November, 1993 U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY 'TEAM C I'1ILENS COMMITTEE James Giesen James Miller Janet Busch Dave Pesch Richard Whitty MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, Terrance M. Duggan, Mayor Loras Kluesner. City Council Katie Krieg, City Council Robert Nagle, City Council Dan Nicholson, City Council Dirk Voetberg, City Council Joseph Robbins. City Council CITY OF DUBUQUE STAFF Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Mike Koch, Public Works Director Gus Psihoyos, Assistant City Engineer Laura Carstens. Planning Services Manager Crary Jorgensen, Engineer Assistant Bill Schlickman, Engineer Assistant CONSULTANT 'TEAM RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc. Fedon N. Petrides Anthony J. Boes Robert L. Lentz NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SUMMARY REPORT CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW 1-1 Introduction 1-1 Statement of the Problem 1-1 Study Methodology 1-3 Community Involvement 1-3 Issues and Concerns 1-4 Corridor Master Plan Concept 1-4 Summary of Recommended Improvements 1-5 II. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 2-1 Corridor Traffic 2-1 Traffic Analysis 2-1 Accident Analysis 2-2 III. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 3-1 Evaluation Criteria 3-1 Preliminary Screening 3-1 Major Alternatives 3-3 Alternative 1 - Transportation System Management (TSM)/Existing Corridor 3-3 Alternative 2 - Toe of the Bluff Alignment 3-4 Alternative 3 - Travel Demand Management (TDM) 3-5 Alternative 4 - Elm Street/Railroad Alignment 3-5 Final Alternatives 3-6 IV. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 Design Features 4-1 Phase I - Transportation System Management (TSM) 4-1 Phase II - New Alignment 4-2 Benefits and Impacts 4-3 Costs 4-8 Implementation 4-9 R/Dubnorth/TOC Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa I. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION For the past several years, the city of Dubuque has experienced congestion -related problems in the U.S. 52/IA 3 corridor in the area north of the downtown. The newly constructed freeway eases a number of traffic problems in other areas of the city. However, the concerns with poor access and congestion along this corridor have not been addressed. Previous studies have documented the need for new roadway facilities. These recommendations were not implemented due to the massive impacts that would occur from housing demolition and historic neighborhood disruption. In addition, traffic growth has not reached the level needed to justify the construction of a freeway -type facility as was originally proposed in these prior studies. The challenge in this study is to develop recommendations to relieve existing congestion and provide traffic growth potential without causing major disruptive neighborhood impacts. Initial observations proved to be insightful but nowhere near the level of understanding required to identify the real problem areas and to specifically define the solutions required to solve the problems. This study consists of a traffic corridor analysis of the U.S. 52/IA 3 corridor from the downtown area near 9th Street to the vicinity of the abandoned CGW Railroad crossing north of the J. F. Kennedy Road and IA 386 intersections. The corridor represents approximately four miles of roadway. A location map is shown on the following page. The final report has been divided into two separate documents. The first is this summary report which contains the basic elements of the study and outlines the recommendations and implementation plan. The second is a series of technical memoranda which contain detailed evaluation information, technical data and background information used to support the conclusions of this study. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The highway corridor currently consists of a combination of two-lane, four -lane and one-way couplets. At the southern terminus of the project, 9th Street and 11th Street are connected to Relocated U.S. 61/151. Northbound traffic is routed on White Street up to 21st Street. Southbound traffic uses Central Avenue to 9th Street. Both of these roadways are narrow, two-lane, one-way roadways which have parking on both sides as well as multiple commercial and residential driveways. Building setbacks along this corridor are minimal and frequently project to the back of the sidewalks. A/Dubnorth/AA6-GJ 1-1 March 1994 612 622 eville Y CA Camp 14 60, mea a•, „Friths ur W ate .: , G• O` • ia9ks re . l .. rk IP F� 1 585 Z �� 6i y• Mile 111 'cat O t 4t• ii 1 s A 662 s \ I ▪ GQ 1•\ l \ 0 2000 4000 4 8M 62�.,.. Edmore t ` SCALE IN FEET ilia:-.'537 \ I - ft� \ N. tic--,�O \ \ �� RelRolle9 \ \ --- \ \ \ 9� . L< v •\, v:,G Stone Hill Sell >32 .S( 82a 9;y 8w \O No ,.'8/2 nourto: PROPOSED N.W. ARTERIAL B -angla'i ' - 6,j 838• 086 0 tit ita '4y‘‘ East Stone Hill cli 9' .p 839, .. i I' + SI I.I drys Hore ✓,.. -. .--: EXISTING U.S. 52 / IA. 3 CORRIDOR • : fount St/Bernard tieminAryr , r � ... II 5l Rose .1 . 17 41 ('1 art: f X l0ll.'1:1•_i��A 23 ` high Sch .. —St Anthony r,11::-.,,,.. Sch: M4nrO l o l l �s. 0 Nativity i• 1 CORRIDOR STUDY LIMITS Sl Franui•ti ,• I �Co enl II `'.OSp lal ,St Johns Cem air -Ground,,( '6 1r- -. ._ .• 11 � LINWOOD. IC EME_rEAY j• .-. . ••C. �F L)n • Sunny r 00t ,1 Scattlarturrt r }lol;/�l'rinity s oly Uhust dm Rlarshall ,,,o' Sch/ `.:j, '0,. p1,. Sch { e / y�P Frilton • ,�?% off'Dsoi : ) c.s'a' ,,o...11.,,; RELOCATED U.S. 61 / 151 I ielo DURUQUE r.r, l,sen �Srl ,LOCK AND DAM :lo i1 9�! O'Leary , Lake y J , Eaple Point Bridge, Z. (Ton/ l Eagle Point i\ J 1 Fecioor 4Sacred eiert 4• Sch H I I'i TI rl'1 pAo bong Sch d St Marys ch - t.. L al. ` Lo,4as Collo C- r;hot; Brice, Petrldes SEC DONoHUE Environment & Infrastructure 1J . 6:2 Mile � 581/ i WISCt. t' • O , :I D U East 1 CORRIDOR STUDY LIMITS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY No/inside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa From 21st Street north to the industrial area near 32nd Street, the highway route is a two- lane, two-way roadway with many of the same characteristics of the southern segment. However, the traffic capacity is less than one-half of that in the southern segment due to the single -lane for each direction. This forces traffic to use adjacent parallel routes in the corridor. Many trucks use this route, which makes travel even more difficult during peak hours. The roadway north of 32nd Street widens to four lanes and takes an increasingly rural flavor, with several large industries dispersed along the corridor. These industries include Flexsteel and Swiss Valley, among others. The backwaters of the Maquoketa River also extend along the corridor near the northern terminus. Existing buildings consist of several historic structures and, in general, are well kept in appearance. In fact, many buildings date back prior to the turn of the century and represent some of the oldest in the state of Iowa. Many schools and churches line the route. Parking is at a premium due to the lack of off-street parking availability and minimal building setbacks. These factors combine to make major widening alternatives virtually unfeasible. Traffic operational improvements must be carefully considered, adequately developed and prudently implemented. The historical "aura" of this area takes precedence over many of the traditional highway improvement options. For the past ten years, traffic volumes at critical intersections, e.g., 22nd Street and Central Avenue, have remained nearly constant. At first glance, this would seem to indicate a "no growth" situation. This is, in fact, not the case. Parallel local streets, such as Jackson Street and Elm Street, have become increasingly congested. At the present time, many of these facilities are operating "at capacity." This situation is causing traffic diversion to less desirable routes. Accident rates also reflect this situation. Many locations in the corridor have been identified as high accident locations. Initial studies showed that traffic in the highway corridor ranged from 4,600 vehicles per day north of Iowa Highway 386 to 23,500 vehicles per day at loth Street. This is only part of the picture. In reality, the total peak corridor traffic is actually 37,000 vehicles per day when the adjacent parallel routes are considered. In general, the corridor is currently operating at Levels of Service "D" and "E" during peak hour -- a very poor level of service. Additional traffic resulting from future growth and economic development will only compound these conditions. Photos of traffic conditions along this route are shown on the following pages. R/Dub.wrtWAA6-CM 1-2 March 1994 329965 OUNCAN-PARNELL, INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-768-7788 CENTRAL AVE. AT 17TH ST. - ONE WAY SOUTH BOUND US 52/IA 3 WHITE ST. AT 20TH ST. - ONE WAY NORTH BOUND US 52/IA 3 BRICE, PETRIDES SEC DoNol-ILE irmt lfnl & Illiratitnisi tire PROJECT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY 329965 DUNCAN- PARNELL, INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-768-7788 tneke DISCOUNT MUFFLERS CENTRAL AVE. AT 22ND ST. - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CENTRAL AVE. AT 17TH ST. - ONE WAY SOUTH BOUND BRICE, PETRIDES � SEC DoNoI-uE Fmironnrcnt S InlraNtruiturr PROJECT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY 329965 DUNCAN-PARNELL. INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-768-7788 CENTRAL AVE. NORTH OF 24TH ST. - TWO WAY SEGMENT LOOKING NORTH CENTRAL AVE. NORTH OF 24TH ST. - TWO WAY SEGMENT LOOKING SOUTH BRICE, PETRIDES -� SEC DOYOHUE knvironmcnt A Inh•.tniruiton: PROJECT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa STUDY METHODOLOGY The primary objectives of this study can be summarized as follows: ■ Evaluate existing and future conditions in the corridor. • Define problems and deficiencies on the existing system. • Identify and evaluate alternatives for improvement. • Develop recommendations and an implementation plan. A systematic and comprehensive methodology was employed to accomplish these objectives. The project flow chart shown on the following page depicts the basic steps in this process. Prior to beginning the study, a review session was held with city staff to confirm this process and to define basic work elements and general alternatives to be considered. These alternatives consisted of the following: ■ Transportation System Management (TSM); e.g., signalization, intersection operational improvements • Travel Demand Management (TDM); e.g., van pooling, public transit improvements ■ New Alignment/Construction The alternatives considered in the preliminary and final evaluation steps included a combination of physical and operational improvements. The intent was to identify any feasible alternative which has the potential for satisfying the defined needs and then to screen the alternatives down to a manageable number for a more detailed evaluation. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The study process relied heavily on community involvement throughout the phases of the study. City staff, a citizens committee and the City Council worked with the consultant to help refine alternatives, suggest possible solutions and to comment on ideas presented. Early in the study, the City Council selected a panel of five local citizens (referred to as the Citizens Committee) to participate in the project. These citizens represented various groups in the community. These groups included the Community Housing Task Force, Long -Range Planning Committee, League of Women Voters, East Central Intergovernmental Association and the Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee. R/Dr bwnh/AA6-CW 1-3 March 1994 ESTABLISH PROJECT NEED DATA COLLECTION PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR ANALYSIS 1 CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DEFINE OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES IDENTIFY CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES V PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES CITIZENS COMMITTEE 1 MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1 F SELECT AND REFINE FINAL OBJECTIVES FINAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS s LFINAL PRESENTATION DECISION -MAKING y IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR PHASED IMPROVEMENTS Brice. Petrldee iA. EnvIr s EC DONOHUE ecnt 4 rartraetrre PROJECT FLOW CHART DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa Comments and input obtained from the workshops held with the committee, City Council and city staff, proved to be extremely valuable in developing the final recommendations. Many of these individuals have a strong awareness of the problems to be addressed since they must travel the corridor daily on their way to work, for shopping or other reasons. Local perspectives on potential impacts and public concerns were also expressed. Many of the comments proved to be very insightful and helped to refine specific proposals or to reject certain ideas as unworkable or impractical. The final evaluation and recommendations, however, were based upon an objective review and evaluation by the consultant team. The end result is a series of recommendations which both address the problems and avoid major local impacts. ISSUES AND CONCERNS A detailed listing of the issues and concerns expressed by the community representatives is shown in the technical memoranda. Solid concensus of the participants in the community involvement process centered around three areas. These areas are: 1. Existing Congestion in the Corridor 2. Better Access to the New U.S. 61/151 Freeway 3. Neighborhood Impacts Throughout the study process, an attempt was made to confirm prior assumptions and to solicit new perspectives and ideas. This process culminated in the joint City Council and Citizens Committee workshop. A general concensus was reached on final alternatives to be studied, the priority objectives for the study and specific local concerns. These concerns are further detailed in the following sections of the report and in the technical memoranda. CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN CONCEPT A modified approach to the preparation of the final report and formulation of the final recommendations was taken in the evaluation. The preliminary evaluation process has shown that combining two of the alternatives - TSM and new construction - would provide a substantial improvement in the corridor traffic flows. As a result, the development of a comprehensive "master plan" was proposed. This corridor master plan would include critical elements of these two most -promising alternatives. The master plan would also include a detailed list of recommendations and an implementation schedule to coordinate all improvements envisioned for the corridor. The specifics of these improvements were further refined in the final evaluation process and are shown in the final recommendations as Phases I and II. R/DuhnoriNAA6-Ch! 1-4 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Condor, Dubuque, Iowa The primary reason for this modified approach is that single, large-scale corridor improvement, i.e., a major arterial constructed entirely on new alignment, has been shown in the preliminary evaluation to be neither necessary nor desirable. The master plan approach includes a series of incremental improvements consisting of one "final" alternative that can be implemented and constructed in stages as funding and local conditions permit. Both short-term and long-range needs for improved traffic flow are addressed in this corridor master plan. The TDM alternative was dropped from consideration in the final evaluation by consensus of the Citizens Committee and City Council. Therefore, the final evaluation and master plan concept includes only elements of the TSM and new construction alternatives. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The final recommendations consist of two phases and include the following: Phase I - Transportation System Management (TSM), including traffic signal, street and intersection improvements. Phase II - New Construction, including Elm Street/Railroad Arterial from Rhomberg Avenue to Central Avenue, north of 32nd Street and an extension from Rhomberg Avenue to Kerper Boulevard, with a grade separation over the Soo Line Railroad tracks. These improvements have been shown to provide a 50 to 60 percent increase in total corridor capacity. The need for Phases I and II improvements is imminent. Because of the implementation schedule constraints for new construction, it is recommended that the final planning and design of Phase I improvements and the initial planning for the Phase II improvements begin immediately. The Phase I improvements will provide relatively low cost, easily implemented benefits in a short time frame. Phase I could be implemented within 1-2 years. The traffic congestion relief provided by Phase I will address several major concerns but will not accommodate any substantial growth in traffic. Phase II is needed to provide additional corridor capacity and further improve traffic operation throughout the corridor. However, due to the nature of the Phase II improvements, implementation may require approximately 4-5 years after planning begins. Overall costs for Phase II improvements, as noted on page 4-8, will be substantially higher than Phase I improvements. In order to best utilize the existing transportation system and maximize total future traffic carrying capacity, the combination of Phases I and II is required. This master plan will provide near -term improvements in traffic operations and longer -term increases in corridor R/DHbrorth/AA6-Chf 1-5 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa capacity. Such an approach would improve the level of service in the near future, allow for substantial longer -term traffic growth in the corridor and improve access to the U.S. 61/151 freeway and the proposed Northwest Arterial. A detailed description of the recommended improvements is included in "Section IV - Results and Recommendations" located at the end of this summary report. R/Debnarrh/M6-Ch! 1-6 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa II. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS In order to fully understand the nature of the problem, we must examine the characteristics of the corridor. The U.S. 52/IA 3 route consists of a pair of one-way streets with two lanes in each direction between 4th Street and 21st Street. At 21st Street, this one-way couplet merges to a two-way, two-lane roadway. This two-lane segment continues from 21st Street to north of 32nd, where it widens to four lanes at Ruby Avenue. Because of limited capacity on this two-lane segment, traffic tends to utilize parallel routes. The following street segments are considered as part of the existing corridor: ■ Jackson Street Between 12th Street and 32nd Street ■ Elm Street Between 12th Street and 20th Street CORRIDOR TRAFFIC Average daily traffic along the U.S. 52/IA 3 route varies from 4,600 vehicles per day north of IA 386 (South John Deere Road) to 23,500 vehicles per day at the 10th Street area. This shows that a relatively small proportion of the traffic in the congested areas is through traffic. Thus, the majority of the traffic is locally generated. Total corridor traffic (including Jackson Street and Elm Street) is highest north of 16th Street at approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. About 60 percent of this traffic is on the U.S. 52/IA 3 route. The peak hour of traffic generally occurs between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. throughout the study area. Traffic during this afternoon peak is 30 to 40 percent higher than peak morning or noon traffic. Refer to the following page for average peak hour traffic. Truck traffic along the U.S. 52/IA 3 route ranges from 5 to 10 percent. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic analysis was performed to evaluate existing conditions and potential improvements. The analyses were conducted primarily using two computer programs, the Highway Capacity Software and the TRANSYT-7F program. These two programs evaluate the quality of traffic flow with parameters such as delay, volume -capacity ratio, level of service, system speed and fuel consumption. Analysis of existing conditions shows significant congestion at the 22nd Street area and along portions of the two-lane section of Central Avenue. There is also excessive delay being experienced by southbound traffic along Central Avenue at 14th Street and llth Street. These results are supported by field observations. R/Dubnorrh/AA&Chll 2-1 March 1994 LEGEND HOURLY TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS TOTAL CORRIDOR TRAFFIC NO SCALE $rtee Petrtdt■ As EC DoNoHUE Earirenaent l In(tt,trtettre AVERAGE P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa Potential improvement alternatives were analyzed in a two-step approach. Preliminary analysis was done to determine relative traffic benefits prior to initial alternative screening and during the evaluation of the four major alternatives. Detailed traffic analysis was done during the final evaluation of the proposed alternative improvements. This detailed analysis was done to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate account of alternative associated traffic benefits. Also, with comprehensive arterial models, we can identify future traffic constraint points given a specific traffic growth projection. Other supporting traffic analyses included the following: • Travel time sampling and calculations. ■ Traffic volume demand estimates. • Traffic growth analysis. • Analysis of Iowa DOT 2008 Traffic Model. Analysis of the Iowa DOT 2008 Traffic Model discovered serious shortcomings. The model was based on outdated socioeconomic data, causing traffic volume estimates to be overly high. Also, the street system was not accurately modeled and capacity constraint was not considered. Even a perfectly valid planning model would have required manual adjustments for the purposes of this study. Therefore, existing traffic count data was used and manually adjusted as needed. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Accident data provided by the Iowa DOT and the city of Dubuque was compiled and sorted to determine the types and frequencies of accidents throughout the corridor. Results show that some intersections are experiencing accident rates of 2 to 2.5 times the state average. Accident rates along the one-way portions of the U.S. 52/IA 3 route are approximately 5 times the average state urban primary route rate. Classification of these accidents shows that approximately 50 percent of the accidents are attributed to vehicles running traffic signals or failing to yield right-of-way. These types of accidents would most likely be reduced if traffic delay and congestion could be reduced at the critical intersections. R/D th,. dAABGd! 2-2 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa III. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION EVALUATION CRITERIA In order to objectively evaluate the merits of potential alternatives, a set of evaluation criteria were developed. These criteria are based on the previously discussed project objectives and constraints and were developed through discussions and meetings with city of Dubuque staff and the Citizens Committee. The following is a list of the evaluation criteria, weights and factors to consider for each criterion: Evaluation Criteria Adjusted Weight Factors Considered Traffic 10.0 - Capacity - Delay - Level of Service , - Travel Time - Congestion Local Impact 9.1 - Right -of -Way Needs - Housing/Relocation - Neighborhoods - Schools - Businesses Environmental Impact 6.1 - Wetlands - Flood Plain - Endangered Species - Noise - Air Pollution Safety 9.1 - Accident Exposure - Driver Expectancy - Design Speeds Parking/Access 6.3 - Number of Parking Spaces - Location of Parking Spaces - Ease of Maneuvering - Driveway Operation - Access Routes Construction Cost Estimate 7.5 - Relative Cost to Implement Alternative The relative weight of each criteria was determined from an average of city staff, Citizens Committee and consultant rankings. PRELIMINARY SCREENING In determining the best alternatives to evaluate in detail, many potential alternatives were eliminated at various steps along the way. The following is a partial list of reasons for eliminating alternatives: R/Dubrwrt!✓MS-Chfl/ 3-1 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa ■ Insignificant Traffic Benefits ■ Unacceptable Impacts • Unacceptable Costs An example of an alternative that was eliminated in the preliminary screening phase is Alternative 3A -- Widening Central Avenue to Four Lanes Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street. This alternative would provide significant traffic benefits but is unacceptable due to major negative local impact. The roadway is wide enough to handle four narrow lanes of traffic if parking were removed. Parking removal, however, is a major impact due to the lack of replacement parking areas in the corridor. The following alternatives were evaluated and passed the preliminary screening step: Alternative 1 - Optimize Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination Alternative 4A - Widen 22nd Street to Four Lanes Alternative 4B - Widen 22nd Street and 32nd Street to Four Lanes Alternative 6A - Create a One -Way Couplet of Central Avenue and Jackson Street Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street Alternative 6B - A Combination of Alternatives 4A and 6A Alternative 6C - A Combination of Alternatives 4B and 6A Alternative 8 - Alternative 4B Plus the Construction of the Elm Street/Railroad Alignment Alternative 9 - Alternative 6C Plus the Construction of the Elm Street/Railroad Alignment Alternative 10 - Construct the Toe of the Bluff Alignment Alternative 11 - Implement Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Strategies R/Dubnorth/MS-ChM 3-2 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, lowa MAJOR ALTERNATIVES All alternatives examined can be classified into two categories: • Existing System Alternatives ■ New Alignment Alternatives The strategy of the existing system alternatives is to make the most efficient use of existing streets. These alternatives would be relatively inexpensive but would have traffic benefits constrained by the physical limitations of the existing network. New alignment alternatives would reduce congestion and delay through the corridor by adding a new arterial roadway to the existing system. This new alignment would add capacity to the system via additional north -south lanes. This type of improvement will be significantly more expensive but has the potential of improving traffic to a much greater degree. This type of alternative will also have greater negative impacts due to potential housing or building demolition, traffic increases and other neighborhood impacts. Refer to the following page for a map of the preliminary new alignment alternatives. These two categories can be further divided into four major alternatives corresponding to the preliminary acceptable alternatives: Existing System New Alignment Alt. 1 Transportation System Management (TSM)/Existing Corridor Alt. 2 Toe of the Bluff Alignment Alt. 3 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alt. 4 Elm Street/Railroad Alignment ALTERNATIVE 1 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)/EXISTING CORRIDOR This alternative would include a variety of improvements to increase capacity at critical points throughout the corridor. These improvements would include signal improvements, intersection improvements, roadway improvements and one-way changes. Based on the preliminary evaluation, the following stages would likely be included: • Modernize traffic signal equipment and improve signal timing and coordination. ■ Widen 22nd Street within the corridor limits. R/Dubnor(h/AA5-Ch!JI 3-3 March 1994 PROPOSED N.11.1RTERIAL_ U.B. 6$ / IA aVROUfE ,H- e. !\\ SECDONOHUE C► — TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT ELM STREET/ RAILROAD ALIGNMENT rat 4+ ;6;*,3 PRELIMINARY NEW ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa • Implement/construct a one-way couplet on Central Avenue and Jackson Street. • Widen 32nd Street within the corridor. ■ Widen Central Avenue north of 32nd Street. • Make additional "Spot Improvements" within the corridor. A key element of this alternative is the implementation of the one-way couplet on Central Avenue and Jackson Street. This one-way couplet would extend the existing one-way operation on Central Avenue and White Street north of 21st Street to 32nd Street. A crossover or realignment would direct northbound traffic from White Street to Jackson Street at the 22nd Street area. This change, in conjunction with 22nd Street widening would have significant traffic benefits. Negative aspects of this alternative include limited growth potential and increased truck traffic along Jackson Street. Overall, this alternative will offer substantial traffic improvement without major negative impacts or costs. ALTERNATIVE 2 - TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT The goal of this alternative is diversion of through traffic. It would consist of a new, two- lane road from Kerper Boulevard to Peru Road along existing railroad alignment on the edge of the Mississippi River. This route would provide service for Deere and Company traffic and other potential developments in the northeast area of town. This alternative would also avoid negative impacts within the existing corridor. The Toe of the Bluff Alignment does, however, present many potential drawbacks and engineering challenges. Travel time estimates and traffic demand estimates indicate that only 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day would use the new roadway. As discussed earlier, through traffic is a relatively minor component of the traffic problems in the corridor. The reduction in existing corridor traffic would not be substantial. This is partly due to inability to provide intermediate access points along the route. A field exam was conducted along this alignment, and it was discovered that the physical characteristics of the route will also cause major difficulty. Anticipated problems include: • A wetland site and possible endangered plant or animal species. ■ Severe corridor width limitations because of the bluff and existing railroad. wn .u✓4A5crru 3-4 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa • Difficulty in constructing the southern terminus because of existing bridge abutment and railroad. • Potential housing impacts. • Questionable constructability. • Extremely high cost. The following pages show photos of features along this alignment. ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) With this alternative, efforts would be made to change the driving habits of persons using the corridor. Instead of attempts to increase corridor capacity, the focus would be on reducing peak hour traffic. Potential methods of achieving this goal could include: ■ Implement car/van pools. ■ Increased public transit usage. • Provide remote parking. ■ Staggered work hours/flex time. ■ Increased parking costs. Low costs and no negative impacts are the benefits of this alternative because no physical improvements would be made. This alternative has definite advantages from an environmental standpoint. Congestion and delay would be reduced because less vehicles would be on the system. Implementation usually involves direct contact with employers to coordinate these efforts. The drawback with this alternative, however, is its difficulty to implement. For a city the size of Dubuque, this type of alternative would probably not receive much public support. Drivers are generally too independent to consider these alternative transportation methods without substantial personal benefit or penalty. Also, the positive effects on traffic service would not be as great as with the other alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 4 - ELM STREET/RAILROAD ALIGNMENT The original concept of this alternative was developed in the early 1970s. At that time, a major north -south freeway was proposed along the east side of the U.S. 52/IA 3 corridor. This freeway did not materialize because of two main reasons: R/Dub,w,1W A5-Chlrl 3-5 March 1994 329965 DUNCAN-PARNELL. INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-768-7788 WETLAND SITE RIVER BLUFF, RAILROAD AND ADJACENT HOUSING BRICE, PETRIDES s, SEC DoNoI-IUE En ir„nmcni & Infr.t.+truaurr TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY 329965 co 0 A C. CHARLOTTE, NC 8 EAGLE POINT BRIDGE ABUTMENT WITH RESTAURANT ON TOP BLUFF WITH ROCK OUTCROPPINGS IC BRICE, PETRIDES SEC DoNoI-ruF, F.minmmrnt & 1ntrutruiturr TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa ■ The projected impacts on housing and neighborhoods were much too severe. ■ Traffic volumes did not grow to projected levels, reducing the need for such a major facility. This alternative would follow a similar alignment as the original concept; but instead of a four -lane, elevated, high-speed facility, a two- or three -lane, at -grade, lower speed arterial would be constructed. The alignment would consist of the existing Elm Street roadway from 12th Street to 20th Street. From 20th Street, it would follow the existing Elm Street alignment to 26th Street but would require reconstruction of the roadway. At 26th Street, the alignment would follow the abandoned CGW Railroad to 32nd Street, with a possible extension north of 32nd Street. Photos of the proposed alignment are shown on the following pages. This alternative provides additional capacity where it is needed most, along a desired traffic route. The alignment could also provide a more direct route to the U.S. 61/151 bridge. This alternative would produce very substantial traffic benefits in the corridor. From 26th Street north to the study limits, the abandoned railroad property is city right-of-way and would be available for street construction purposes. Negative aspects of this alternative include costs that would be higher than either of the "existing system" alternatives. Also, there will be minor negative local impact including some property acquisition and possible parking removal along segments of the roadway. FINAL ALTERNATIVES The four major alternatives were discussed in detail with city staff, the Citizens Committee and the City Council. Input received from these meetings was used to develop and evaluate the final alternatives. Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, two alternatives were chosen to be studied in more detail: ■ Alternative 1 - TSM/Existing Corridor ■ Alternative 4 - Elm Street/Railroad Alignment As the four major alternatives were developed and evaluated, it became apparent that these two alternatives, if combined, would provide very significant traffic benefits. Also, the characteristics of these two alternatives indicate that they should become different phases of the same long-range plan. The TSM portion would provide immediate, relatively low-cost relief. This first phase would also make full use of existing facilities. Work on this phase could be completed before planning and design of the Elm Street/Railroad Alignment is done. R/DubnorJ✓AA5-Cldll 3-6 March 1994 329965 DUNCAN- PARNELL, INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-768-7788 RAILROAD OVERPASS AND FDL FOODS AREA 26TH STREET INTERSECTION (LOOKING NORTH) BRICE, PETRIDES SEC DONOHUE l:n'irrntmcni h Intravruiturc ELM STREET/RAILROAD ALIGNMENT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY 329965 co co 0 0 0 0 Z NC. GNARL Z icr a z z Z 26TH TO 28TH STREET AREA, ALLEY BEHIND HOUSES FORMER C & G W RAILROAD R.O.W. 32ND STREET (LOOKING SOUTH) FORMER C & G W RAILROAD R.O.W. BRICE, PETRIDES ASEC DONOHUE ELM STREET/RAILROAD ALIGNMENT PHOTOS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities US. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa The second phase would provide greater traffic benefits, but at a greater price. Also, if planning and design of this new alignment were begun immediately, it would still be at least four or five years before all improvements would be in place. This master plan concept was presented to the city staff, Citizens Committee and City Council and received enough support to proceed with the final evaluation. There were, however, concerns about specific details of the proposed master plan. Following is a list of those concerns: ■ A more direct route to the U.S. 61/151 bridge is needed. ■ Avoid traffic increases along Elm Street between 12th and 20th Streets. • Difficult to support changing Jackson Street to one-way. • Need to consider air quality of corridor. • Extension of Elm Street/railroad alignment north of 32nd Street should be considered. • Provide Elm Street/railroad alignment intersection at 30th Street. Based upon these comments and from information obtained in the final traffic evaluation, certain aspects of the master plan were changed. The TSM portion was re-evaluated to determine if the proposed one-way changes on Jackson Street could be eliminated or reduced in impact. Traffic analysis shows that the greatest benefit of the one-way couplet would be the improved traffic operation at the critical Central Avenue and 22nd Street intersection. Any successful alternative must address the problem of concentrated traffic and conflicting turning movements at this intersection. Changing Central Avenue to one- way operation at 22nd Street is the only feasible way to significantly improve intersection operation. It was found that if one-way operation were extended to 24th Street instead of 32nd and northbound traffic remained on White Street to 24th Street instead of switching to Jackson, traffic benefits would increase slightly and local impacts would decrease. This improvement occurs because traffic is less concentrated at intersections along 22nd Street. Using this currently underutilized portion of White Street would be similar to adding a new, two-lane route along this portion of the corridor. As an alternative to using 24th Street as the connection between Central Avenue and White Street, a new connector could be constructed on new alignment north of 22nd Street. A diagonal connector would improve traffic flow in a manner similar to the White Street/24th Street alternative, but may have greater impacts. An additional 2-3 buildings may need to be acquired to construct the crossover, depending on the exact location. A benefit of this R/Dubnosrh/AA5-CWII 3-7 March 1994 Nonhside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor, Dubuque, Iowa alternative would he an improved alignment and turning path, compared to the 24th Street alternative. Traffic analysis of the Elm Street/Railroad Alignment portion of the master plan shows a significant traffic constraint at the existing Elm Street and 16th Street intersection. Also, there were concerns about negative impacts from any proposed construction or increased traffic in this area. This indicated a greater need for an easterly connection from the 22nd Street area to the U.S. 61/151 bridge area. The revised alignment would turn to the southeast at the intersection of Elm Street, 22nd Street and Kniest Street and follow Kniest Street extended with a railroad overpass through the FDL Foods area. It would continue east, tieing into Kerper Boulevard north of the new U.S. 61/151 bridges. The possible extension of the Elm Street/railroad alignment north of 32nd Street was further evaluated. It was determined that with minor reconstruction of 32nd Street at the proposed Elm Street/railroad intersection and some reconstruction of Central Avenue at the proposed terminus of the Elm Street/railroad alignment, this extension could be provided in lieu of major 32nd Street reconstruction. The above extension is estimated to cost approximately $500,000 more than the previously proposed 32nd Street improvements. The extension will allow traffic growth potential similar to the 32nd Street improvements, but will provide a more direct route for through traffic. The exact alignment of this extension would be determined during final design, to be compatible with other city plans for development and utility corridors in the area. RIDubno,rl✓,us-chin 3-8 Marciz 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa IV. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DESIGN FEATURES To accurately evaluate the benefits and impacts of the proposed improvements, we must have a reasonably complete understanding of the types and specific locations of improvements. These design features may have a major effect on traffic service. Refer to the following sheets for geographic information about the proposed improvements. Following is a summary of design features for each phase of the master plan: PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) 1. Traffic Signal Improvements ■ Determine detailed system needs through preparation of final design plans. • Install new coordinated traffic signal system hardware and communications. IN Implement new traffic signal timing plans. ■ Monitor traffic and update timing plans on a regular basis. 2. 22nd Street Improvements ■ Remove parking on both sides of the street between White Street and Jackson Street and from one side between Jackson Street and Washington Street. ■ Add left turn lanes (via pavement markings) on 22nd Street at Jackson Street. ■ Reconstruct White Street intersection adding a westbound right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane, and realigning for one-way operation northbound. ■ Install traffic signals at White Street intersection. • Modify traffic signals at Central Avenue intersection for one-way southbound operation. 3. 24th Street Improvements ■ Reconstruct 24th Street for 1 lane, 1-way westbound operation between Central Avenue and White Street, including intersection improvements. ■ Install traffic signals at White Street and Jackson Street. R/Dubno,rWMA7-Chty 4-1 March 1994 NO SCALE IMPLEMENT SYSTEM -WIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING IMPROVEMENTS ADD LEFT TURN LANE IMPLEMENT ONE-WAY COUPLET RECONSTRUCT INTERSECTION TO EXTEND ONE-WAY OPERATION NORTH CENTRAL AVE. V) w RECONSTRUCT WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 24TH ST. RESURFACE OR RECONSTRUCT EXISTING STREET IMPLEMENT ONE-WAY COUPLET RECONSTRUCT INTERSECTION ADDING WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE AND REALIGNING FOR ONE-WAY OPERATION 22ND ST. JACKSON ST. REMOVE PARKING AND ADD LEFT TURN LANES 2IST ST. LEGEND AL INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS A MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNALS Br I S �ECDONOHUE its\�� &vtraaaent i Isfraitraetere PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SECDONC)i���JE Environient & lnfraotraetere PHASE II CONSTRUCTION ELM STREET / RAILROAD ALIGNMENT PHASE I1 IMPROVEMENTS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa 4. Other Improvements ■ Implement Central Avenue and White Street one-way couplet from 21st Street to 24th Street. Install/revise signing and pavement markings. ■ Resurface or Reconstruct White Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street. ■ Reconstruct the intersection of White Street and 21st Street to extend two-lane, one-way operation north of 21st Street. PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT 1. Construct Elm Street/Railroad Arterial From Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue Along Kniest Street Alignment (2 to 4 Through Lanes). Planning and construction of this segment needs to be coordinated with plans for the proposed Kerper Boulevard industrial park site. ■ Close Garfield Avenue between Elm Street and Johnson Street. ■ Construct new intersection at Rhomberg Avenue. ■ Reconstruct Elm Street and 20th Street intersection, eliminating the north and east legs (Elm Street and Garfield Avenue). ■ Construct railroad overpass at Garfield Avenue, with probable railroad relocation. ■ Construct new T-intersection at Kerper Boulevard. ■ Install traffic signals at locations where warrants are met. 2. Construct Elm Street/Railroad Arterial From Rhomberg Avenue to 32nd Street (2 Through Lanes) ■ Construct new intersections at Lincoln Avenue, 22nd Street, 24th Street, 26th Street, 29th Street and 32nd Street; 32nd Street intersection to include left -turn lanes at all approaches. ■ Close the following streets: - Elm Street at 20th Street and 22nd Street, with cul-de-sacs or dead -ends, providing access to this area via 21st Street. - Elm Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street to be replaced by new arterial. R/Dubnort ✓AA7-CNV 4-2 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa - Prince Street south of 24th Street, with a cul-de-sac or dead end. 25th Street East of Washington Street, with cul-de-sac or dead -ends. 27th Street, 28th Street and 30th Street Between Elm Street and Pinard Street, with cul-de-sacs or dead -ends. It is necessary to limit side -street access to the new arterial to preserve capacity and safety and minimize delay. 26th Street and 29th Street will have new intersections with the new arterial. This will allow access to the Pinard Street area and east -west access at 29th Street. (NOTE: It was previously proposed to provide an intersection at 30th Street and close the 29th Street intersection. This would have resulted in lesser right- of-way and building impacts, but would cause additional inconvenience for 29th Street through traffic. Intersection locations in this area should be re-evaluated during final design to determine the extent of impacts and relative traffic benefits.) ■ Provide on -street parking or continuous left -turn lanes between Rhomberg Avenue and 26th Street. • Install traffic signals at locations where warrants are met. 3. Construct Elm Street/Railroad Arterial From 32nd Street to Central Avenue, North of Flexsteel Industries (2 Through Lanes). • Construct new 2-lane rural arterial with left -turn lanes at 32nd Street and Central Avenue. ■ Exact location of this roadway to be determined during final design based on compatibility with current development and utility corridor needs. • Reconstruct portion of Central Avenue to provide southbound left -turn lane at Elm Street/Railroad intersection. BENEFITS AND IMPACTS Many of the benefits associated with the proposed master plan are traffic -related. This includes reduced delay, travel time, stops and fuel consumption. These benefits are provided to persons using the street system. Benefits to the corridor itself include: reduced air pollution associated with reductions in fuel consumption, vehicle delay and vehicle density, economic benefits to business and industry because of greater accessibility and reduced travel time, and increased safety to residents and pedestrians due to reduced congestion. The following pages show the improved lane continuity and related traffic benefits. R/DubnorihMA7--ChN 4-3 March 1994 22nd St. 2lst St. 20th St. V) E L Brice, Petride■ As Envlr EC DONOHUEmtaIci ai NO SCALE LEGEND EXISTING ZO€ MTl®NS PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS LANE CONTINUITY OF MAJOR NORTH - SOUTH ROUTES PHASES I AND II DUBUQUE, IDVIA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY AVERAGE INTERSECTION DELAY® (SECNEH) AVERAG E SPEED ,O (MPH) TOTAL CORRIDOR CAPACITY OO (VPH) 12.8 11.8 15.8 13.3 23.9 19.7 18.3 19.9 LEGEND EXI STING \\\\\\ PHASE II ONLY O CENTRAL AVENUE ONLY ® MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF ALL NORTH -SOUTH THROUGH ROUTES • 3400 3800 4600 PHASE I ONLY PHASE I & II 5300 Brice,'Nitrides SECDONOHUE 'Nitrides Enrlsourent 4 Infrastructure TRAFFIC BENEFITS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STDY Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa Existing conditions and Phase I and II improvements were analyzed to determine approximate maximum corridor capacities. While actual capacity will vary throughout the corridor, the values reported are representative of maximum capacity of all viable through routes within the study area along the highest traffic segment of the corridor (16th Street to 20th Street). The results show that Phase I and II improvements will provide approximately 10-15 percent more capacity than Phase II improvements alone. The results further show that the combination of Phase I and Phase II improvements provide more capacity than the sum of these improvements analyzed separately. The interaction between improvements and changes in turning characteristics of traffic account for this difference. From a somewhat simplified perspective, Phase I provides operational improvements and Phase II provides capacity improvements. Once Phase II is in place, Phase I improvements need to be fine-tuned (i.e., signal timing adjustments) to respond to the changes in traffic patterns and provide additional capacity. Thus, the combined effect of both phases will result in optimal traffic flow' and utilization of all streets in the corridor. Impacts are generally considered to be negative aspects of proposed improvements. It is impossible to achieve benefits without some impact or cost. Project impacts tend to increase as traffic benefits and costs increase. By following the master plan approach, corridor improvements are made as traffic dictates the need, minimizing unjustified impacts and costs. The following impacts can be expected with the implementation of the master plan: IN Reduced on -street parking. • Increased traffic along segments of the corridor. ■ Additional city right-of-way needed. • Some housing and business relocation and demolition. • Longer access routes for some motorists. On -street parking is very important to residences and businesses within the study area. Efforts have been made to minimize parking removal throughout the study process. However, it is not practical to expect significant traffic benefits without some reduction in on -street parking. The table on page 4-5 summarizes the potential reduction in parking due to implementation of the master plan. R/Dubrrorzh/AA7-Ch7V 4-4 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa Estimated Parking Phase Location Spaces Lost (1) II 22nd Street 18 24th Street 4 White Street 4 Central Avenue -13 (2) SUBTOTAL PHASE I 13 Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue 14 Rhomberg Avenue to 22nd Street 19 North of 22nd Street 4-8 North and South of 24th Street 8-16 South of 26th Street 4-8 22nd Street 12 24th Street 4-8 TOTAL PHASES I & II 78-98 (1) Includes all curb space "available" for parking, not just existing designated spaces. (2) Parking added north and south of 22nd Street along west side of street. It should be noted that many of these parking spaces are not currently highly used. Also, since most parking removal will occur near intersections to allow for turn lanes, replacement parking will often be available in underutilized areas slightly further from these intersections. Replacement parking could also be developed along alleys behind housing in certain areas. Right-of-way needs are significantly reduced by the fact that much of the Elm Street/Railroad alignment is along existing street right-of-way or city -owned abandoned railroad property. The following table summarizes estimated needed right-of-way and related housing and commercial/industrial building acquisition, demolition or relocation impacts. R/DubnortlJM7-ChIV 4-5 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa Phase Location Estimated Right - of -Way Area (SF) Estimated Building Impacts Number Description I White St. & 22nd St. Intersection 630 N.A. White St. & 24th St. Intersection 300 11 Elm/RR Arterial: Kerper Blvd. to Garfield Ave. on 280,000 1 Industrial Bldg. S. of Elm St./RR Alignment Garfield Ave. Along Kniest St. Extd. Garfield Ave. to Rhomberg Ave. 49,600 2 Residential Bldgs. S. of Rhomberg Ave. and E. of Kniest St. 2 Commercial/Industrial Bldgs. E. and W. of Kniest St., N. of Garfield Ave. S. of 24th St. 3,000 N.A. N. of 26th St. 2,300 N.A. N. & S. of 29th St. 40,700 8 Residential Bldgs. E. or W. of New Alignment N. & S. of 32nd St. 11,400 N.A. 32nd St. to Central Ave. 130,000 N.A. TOTAL 517,930 S.F. (11.9 Acres) All values for parking removal, right-of-way and building impacts are estimates only. These values will vary depending upon final design details. The implementation of the master plan will have positive and negative impacts on accessibility. Residences and businesses along White Street between 22nd Street and 24th Street will experience some inconvenience resulting from changing White Street to one- way northbound. Areas along the Elm Street/Railroad alignment will experience similar inconvenience due to the proposed street closings in the area. RfDub wrth/.u7-chry 4-6 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa Overall, however, accessibility will increase throughout the corridor due to improved traffic operations. Also, access to and from the east will be greatly enhanced by the proposed Elm Street/Railroad arterial between Rhomberg Avenue and Kerper Boulevard. This new facility will provide a direct route to the U.S. 61/151 bridge without any at -grade railroad crossings. There are currently no direct routes without at -grade railroad crossings. R/Dub,wnh/M7-ChfV 4-7 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa COSTS For this study, costs and impacts are considered separately, with costs including only construction and equipment installation costs. The following is a list of the preliminary estimated construction costs (in 1993 dollars) for both phases of the master plan: I. II. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) Item 1. Traffic Signal Improvements 2. 22nd Street Improvements 3. 24th Street Improvements 4. Other Improvements PHASE I TOTAL PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT 1. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue, Including Railroad Overpass 2. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - Rhomberg Avenue to 32nd Street 3. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - 32nd Street to Central Avenue PHASE II TOTAL GRAND TOTAL - PHASES I AND II Estimated 1993 Construction Cost $360,000 180,000 230,000 130.000' $900,000 $3,800,000 - $5,400,0002 2,100,000 1,200,000 $7,100,000 - $8,700,0002 $8,000,000 - $9,600,0002 1 Cost assumes resurfacing of White Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street. 2 The lower estimate represents a 2-lane roadway between Rhomberg Avenue and Kerper Boulevard. The higher estimate represents a 4-lane roadway. wp,.a .ru✓,u7 ChIV 4-8 March 1994 Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities US. 52 Corridor Study, Dubuque, Iowa IMPLEMENTATION Improvements should be scheduled in response to traffic needs. As traffic grows, so should corridor capacity. Analysis of existing conditions shows that some areas are experiencing traffic levels at or above capacity (Level of Service E-F). In a planning level analysis, maximum desirable volume to capacity ratio for design of a new facility is 0.8 (Level of Service C). Final traffic analysis has shown that with the Phase I improvements in place, the level of service increases to Level D (V/C = 0.88) at some critical locations. Thus, Phase I improvements are needed immediately and Phase II should be implemented as soon as possible to provide a desirable level of service and additional growth potential. With Phases I and II in place, the corridor will operate at Level of Service B, assuming existing traffic volumes. Traffic growth in the corridor of 50 to 60 percent of total traffic can be accommodated by Phases I and II. If Phase II was implemented without Phase I, the potential corridor capacity would be reduced by approximately 10-15 percent, compared to the implementation of both phases. Also, current safety issues and system inefficiencies would be unresolved. It is recommended that the current U.S. 52/IA 3 route designation not be significantly changed. This route should continue along Central Avenue and White Street as it does now, except the portion of White Street between 21st Street and 24th Street and 24th Street between Central Avenue and White Street should be designated as U.S. 52/IA 3. Following is a summary of the proposed implementation plan and schedule: PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM): Begin implementation process immediately for construction in 1994 and 1995. PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT: Begin planning and design process. Target completion of construction for 1997-1999. R/Dubnnrth/AA7--C7JV 4-9 March 1994 329965 DUNCAN-PARNELL, INC. CHARLOTTE, NC 800-788-7788 MAXIMUM CORRIDOR TRAFFIC (VEHICLES PER HOUR) 6000 EXISTING PHASE I I I I I 5300 5000 - 4000 - 3400 3000 - 2700 2000 - 1000 - 0 3800 3100 PHASE II ULTIMATE CAPACITY: LEVEL OF SERVICE E 4200 LEVEL OF SERVICE C CAPACITY NO GROWTH 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 BRICE, PETRIDES A SEC DONOHVE Environment & infrastructure YEAR IMPLEMENTATION AND TRAFFIC GROWTH DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NQ 1 Prepared For. CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA Prepared By: RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. June, 1994 Northside Moor Arterial, U.S. 52 Corridor Study City of Dubuque. Iowa INTRODUCTION The purpose of this supplemental report is to summarize proposed changes and benefits and impacts of the changes to recommended U.S. 52 Corridor improvements described in the March, 1994, Summary Report. A recently proposed major industrial expansion of Flexsteel Industries north of 32nd Sleet would eliminate the ability to construct proposed Phase II-C improvements. Phase II-C conAsts of an extension of the proposed Elm Street/Railroad Arterial north of 32nd Street proceeding north and west, north of Flexsteel Industries and tieing into Central Avenue (U.S. 52). ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS If the proposed Flexsteel Industries expansion becomes a reality, improvements to 32nd Street and Central Avenue could be completed in lieu of Phase II-C. These improvements. identified in an earlier draft of the Summary Report, are as follows: Reconstruct 32nd Street with 4 through lanes plus left-tum lanes (5 lanes total width) between Central Avenue and Elm Street/Railroad Arterial. Outside lanes will become right -turn only lanes at Central Avenue (westbound) and Elm Street/Railroad Arterial (eastbound). Widen Central Avenue to four lanes between 32nd Street and Ruby Avenue. Modify or construct new traffic signals. The improvements will function similar to the Phase II-C improvements, providing an improved east -west link between Central Avenue and the proposed Elm Street/Railroad alignment. The following changes in benefits and impacts can be expected with the elimination of Phase II- C and the adoption of the 32nd Street improvements: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS There will be no significant change in corridor capacity or delay. Elimination of the Elm Street/Railroad Arterial extension will force more vehicles to travel through signalized intersections; however, the 32nd Street improvements will benefit all traffic along 32nd Street, slightly reducing overall delay. With the 32nd Street improvements in place. peak hour intersection delay would be 8.4 vehicle - hours, compared to 8.1 vehicle -hours for the Phase II-C extension. However, delay to north - south Elm Street/Railroad traffic will increase from 1.1 vehicle -hours to 1.2 vehicle -hours. The differences in these delay values are not significant. and on average amount to less than 1 second per vehicle. 506o4000/wUS52.TEX 1 June 1994 Nonhside Moor Arterid. U.S. 52 Corridor Study City of Dubuque. Iowa COSTS AND IMPAtiS The following changes to costs and impacts can be expected if 32nd Street improvements are constructed in lieu of proposed Phase II-C improvements: Estimated Construction Cost: Estimated Right -of -Way: Estimated Building Impacts: Estimated Parking Impacts: SUMMARY Save $500,000 97,800 Less Square Feet (2.2 Acres) Required 3-Story Brick Commercial/Residential Building at Northwest Comer of Jackson Street and 32nd Street to be Acquired 21 Additional Spaces Lost It is possible to eliminate the proposed Phase II-C extension of the Elm Street/Railroad Arterial north of 32nd Street without significantly affecting traffic operations. Approximately $500,000.00 could be saved in construction costs, and other impacts will vary somewhat. 5O.O4OOO/R/us52TFX 2 June 1994 RusTENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE © 1993 RUST Environment & Infrastructure Inc. Printed with soybean -based ink t, RugE\ V1R0:\ ME\ T & INFRASTRUCTURE NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDA Prepared For: CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA March, 1994 Prepared By: RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. INDEX OF TECHNICAL MEMORANDA No. 1.0 Preliminary Background Information No. 2.0 Data Collection No. 3.0 Identification of Constraints No. 4.0 Preliminary Traffic Analysis No. 5.0 Preliminary Alternative Screening No. 6.0 Major Alternatives No. 7.0 Preliminary Evaluation Criteria and Results No. 8.0 Bridge Connection Alternatives No. 9.0 Effects of New Construction No. 10.0 Community and Agency Involvement No. 11.0 Final Evaluation No. 12.0 Final Results and Recommendations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 1.0 PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 EXISTING CORRIDOR - STUDY AREA The study area for this analysis consists of the U.S. 52/Iowa 3 corridor from Ninth Street to the area near the J.F. Kennedy Road and Iowa 386 intersection. The highway route follows portions of White Street and Central Avenue. Also analyzed were parallel routes such as Jackson Street and Elm Street, and major sidestreets. 1.2 PROJECT APPROACH The objective of this study is to determine traffic problems and needs in the study area and to recommend potential solutions. There is currently an unacceptable amount of congestion, accidents and delay being experienced. Figure 1-1 shows the recommended approach to address these problems. 1.3 INCREMENTAL CAPACITY An important concept in this study is that of incremental capacity. This concept states that corridor improvements should be made in response to traffic demand, with incremental improvements occurring as demand grows. Refer to Figure 1-2. Following this approach allows for additional capacity to be added to the corridor without unnecessary expense. 1.4 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS Figure 1-3 shows types of potential improvements to be considered for this project. Actual recommended improvements are based upon the traffic analysis, constraints, impacts and costs. R/Dubnorth/AA1 FIGURE 1-1 PROJECT APPROACH ESTABLISH NEED ANALYZE CORRIDOR • Traffic • Accidents • Constraints IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION * Preliminary Screening * Final Evaluation * Citizen's Committee FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECISION -MAKING IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS i MINOR IMPROVEMENT • Concept • Design • Construction MAJOR IMPROVEMENT • Concept • Scoping • Alternatives • EIS / EA • Location Hearing • Master Planning • Design Hearing • Final Design • R-O-Id • Mitigation • Construction TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT • 0 E 0 Study • Occupancy Study • Transit Study • Employer Surveys • Employee Surveys • Parking Surveys • Evaluation of Alternatives • Implementation FIGURE 1-2 CORR I OOR CAPACITY (with improvements) TIME FIGURE 1-3 EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS MINOR IMPROVEMENTS * Signal Coordination * Turn Prohibitions * Minor Parking Restrictions * Spot Improvements * 1-way / 2-way MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS * Added Lanes in Corridor * Major Parking Revisions * New Alignment TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT * Car / Van Pools * Increased Public Transit * Remote Parking * Staggered Work Hours TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2.0 DATA COLLECTION The following types of data were collected and used for various portions of this study: Traffic Data (Sec. 2.1) Accident Data (Sec 2.2) Lane Configurations Traffic Signal Timing Plans Iowa DOT Dubuque 2008 Traffic Model Field Observations Travel Time Samples Existing Maps and Plans 2.1 TRAFFIC DATA Keyline Bus Schedule and Routes Dubuque Area Industrial Directory Land -Use and Zoning Maps Previous Reports and Studies Right -of -Way Maps Recommended Capital Improvement Program Street Construction Program The following traffic data was provided by the Iowa DOT at the following locations: 1989 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENTS AND 8-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARIES U.S. 52 - IA 3/IA 386 U.S. 52 - IA 3/32nd Street U.S. 61- U.S. 151/11th Street U.S. 61 - U.S. 151 - 16th Street/Kerper Blvd. U.S. 52 - IA 3/U.S. 61 - U.S. 151 (W. Jct.) U.S. 52 - IA 3/U.S. 61 - U.S. 151 (E. Jct.) U.S. 52 - IA 3/U.S. 61 - U.S. 151 (S. Jct.) IA 924/Fengler Street IA 924/Roosevelt Street U.S. 52 - IA 3/IA 924 (W. Jct.) U.S. 52 - IA 3/IA 924 (E. Jct.) U.S. 52 - IA 3 (@ 21st Street) 2-1 1989 24-HOUR RECORDER TRAFFIC COUNTS U.S. 52 - IA 3/26th Street NW Leg U.S. 52 - IA 3/22nd Street NW Leg Rhomberg Avenue/Dock Street NE Leg Rhomberg Avenue/Stafford Street NE Leg Rhomberg Avenue - 20th Street/Elm Street SE Leg U.S. 52 - IA 3 (W. Jct.)/14th Street SW Leg Jackson Street/14th Street NE Leg Supplemental 3-hour 1991 turning movement counts were performed by the City of Dubuque at the following locations: Central Avenue/loth Street Central Avenue/14th Street Central Avenue/16th Street Central Avenue/ 17th Street Central Avenue/22nd Street White Street/ 10th Street White Street/14th Street White Street/ 16th Street White Street/22nd Street Jackson Street/ 14th Street Jackson Street/16th Street Jackson Street/20th Street Jackson Street/22nd Street Jackson Street/32nd Street Elm Street/14th Street Elm Street/ 16th Street Elm Street/20th Street-Rhomberg Avenue/Garfield Avenue Elm Street/22nd Street/Kniest Street Windsor Avenue - Burden Street/Queen Street Peru Road/Roosevelt Road Peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.2 ACCIDENT DATA Accident data from 1987 through 1989 was provided by the Iowa DOT along the U.S. 52 route. Similar data was provided by the City of Dubuque for Jackson Street. R/Dubnorth/AA1-2 2-2 e, Petrider AS cECDONOHUE Earirtdtat t Iafra,trretare FIGURE 2-1 1989-1991 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENTS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SAMPLE DATA AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS`' I.— — .. -1 . F-1F EAST flu, 74 . . — 10TH ST. L. 17TH ST. • le TH ST. IS TM -1 .1_ . EAST 14TH r — - IE 11-7.-L-ZA .--'•!-77. 1 A ; EAST EAST rn _ , t___: 13 TH • ST. 1519 en r—ri r -7 70 I • WH. ST. 11TH 10TH ST. ST. ST. PORTION OF IOWA D.O.T. TRAFFIC MODEL �G�q6�• ;�2 �� 6v N ; p65 5 GL 1" ;\ ° c k.AG5 kikz r • i x RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP SG q TRAFFIC SIG\AL EQUIPMENT RECORD A\D CO\DITIO\ DIAG� A(V 1. LOCATION CENTRAL AT 22 ND 2.MONTH & YEAR OF INSTALLATION May. 1982 3. CONTROLLER CROUSE HINDS SP 40 4.SERIAL NO. OF CONTROLLER 13507 5.DATE OF MODIFICATION 6.DATE OF INVENTORY Nov. 1982 7 1-1/2' LEGEND 1-1/" 4 1-1/2" d CENTRAL SIGNAL STANDARD HANDHOLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEAD PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEAD CONTROLLER —fl MAGNETIC DETECTOR — CCNDUIT --446 LUMINAIRE 93 POWER SOURCE © O 0 1-1/2" INTERCONNECT TO JACKS9N. SN D INTERCONNECT TO 20TH ST. 0o©©FJ),e =12" R,Y,G, 9" W-DW ALL SiGNAL HEADS HAVE BACK PLATES CONDITION DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE re) N O N CO ti lf) N kfl co r` <71 cr ro n INTERSECTION TIMING PLAN CHART J Q w H 0 4' ciN 3 N V1 •T t) J cc w H z J a_ rr) J a_ cn J rZ rn J a_ co N H J a_ 0) re) H J 0 co J n. H J w N J a co re) F-- J a H J cn rl N H J a_ J 0 co w LL 0 N w LL LL 0 re) w LL LL 0 w rn LL Ll 0 N H w co LL LL 0 rr) w co Lr_ LL 0 — N H w w CO LL LL U- 0 0 rn E- w LL 0 w cn LL LL 0 N H w V) LL 0 w J V >- 'J N w J U } V w J U >- U cr w J >- 0 z puZZ j 0 r 0 LL Z O r H _I Q H J LLI E Q O xce a n a 41 41 p W 0 �+. QOhN H I Q O 4 LL- Cr. r Q W J i- Z0 CO r W; 4O O 0 Z m ON I- O OLL I-w Z NU 2 Q lai1 W uJ O - CAC w0FL O 2u-N QO - Q AWZ(.0 Ph ZO0-• • CC Lt 4 O 0 O 0 AC 0.5• Z W'Ww0 wZar' it'll x w OZ <07'C Qt1ill. 44 it =?-gn. -W x0Z QZ- t-k 4 • TRAFFIC I NAL PLANS EYLN. 'Yp ICKE r c) 0 . ST col —L J ligi cn cn I� ITi --4 I m r r- D OR GA N m m co 7-1 11 1 11 11 \\" / v TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION MAP/- cnMI ms.. •TH N aim nos 7 TH j_;H LJ STD n cp EMPLOYMENT DATA 1' Section V Cross Reference Ranking by Employment in Each Category Manufacturing. Construction & National Service Companies Jmplovment 1. John Deere Dubuque Works 2. FDL Foods, Inc.-------------------------------------------------1,903 3. CyCare Systems -------1,100 4. Brown, William C., Companies ------------------__-__-_-___ 911 5. Ertl Company, The ------- -------------- 900 6. Flexsteel Industries, Inc. ---- 650 7. Eagle Manufacturing Company 4L5 8. Rite-HitefFrommelt Industries -------------------------------- 360 Metz Baking Company .__-___-__ 326 Regency Thermographers----------------------------------------- 300 Barnstead-Thermolyne Corporation --------------------------- 295 A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Company ------- ------- 291 Georgia -Pacific Corporation ------------------------------------- 272 Klauer Manufacturing Company160 Vocational Services Center-------------------------_--w___- 151 Conlon Construction Company 150 130 130 125 120 120 118 116 112 110 102 99 80 80 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Webber Metal Products, Inc. 19. Advanced Data Comm, Inc. ------- ----------__-______- - 20. APAC Telemarketing Corporation 21. Tschiggfrie Excavating Company 22. Dubuque Stamping & Mfg., Inc. 23. Modernfold, Inc.------ ------ ---__-_-_----__-_--__w-____ 24. Phoenix Chemical Company 25. Swiss Valley Farms Company, Hilidale Division 26. Scale Models - Dyersville 27. Carlisle Communications 28. Captive Plastics, Inc. 29. Reese Brothers Telemarketing 30. MetrixCompany, The 79 31. Jeld-Wen Fiber Products of Iowa 74 32. Giese Sheet Metal Company, Inc .73 33. Cottingham & Butler Insurance, Inc 70 34. All American Homes 67 35. Adams Company, The 65 36. Chicago -Dubuque Foundry Corporation 65 37. Theisen Supply, Inc. 63 38. Cascade Lumber Company 60 39. Morrison Brothers Company -------------------_- - 60 40. No -Sag Foam Products --_----__-__-------_-_---__ 60 41. MI-T-M Corporation --------------- 54 DIRECTORY OF DUBUQUE AREA MANLFACrUR1NG, WAREHOUSI'''G, SERVICE & TRANSPORTATION FIRMS Page 98 TRAFFIC DATA a a N .'J STATION NO V,> 1J 0 / 0---/ \ 0 00 CO 0 p'/ a z ¢ 0 ON. 0 H CJz I CLAL.1 tot.i ZpH L Cz Mcz .0 it,3= JHZ 61/US151 DUBUQUE l DA1 : 07/26/90 O ! i I i ! 1 I i 1 I I I I 1 0 :'• 00000 0 0 JJ !.!7 1 CO s t 1 W ! ! 0 / 1 i ! \i 1 1 ni I s i I / 1 n -, t----- -- I —`——i-----0 0 0 1 I 7 '0 0 J ,C 0 i GJ ! 0 0 ! / 0 0 IN 0 0 n^; V 0 0 0 t'i ,-i 0' 0 ?mot w i.� r (r • xfx(a:X> 'AI m m H AN A. w-t:1J`r'G' .m,a z Mtn--1 CC O J Z M 0) w} rx O)C c 0`=''-tom: �Na.M?, f) ..-Z0) :� J-+"•C.i:vN�'NNm Liz= ?k < r rmn _ 3c . Lanz .....-'C. Nm Or .i i v J uc mHz YLH i- z z n AN r 0 A. mmce AD x<xcax>VX*x; i .:!•)nNmN,-4' N q''{ C^. "0n i? n m N L')i ainN' OC'•o 0 c0 T wa m r a wmJ Ji.d o z =D. H. rw Nn.:-,..N.���•,-t ca onr mo ZO0 x L- bits. Aw as. i,•^mev ..4N . co �; 0 0 3E CL- Z.-' 3E tW _r `— a_ A w i"i _ if) k z f) ice, '"m ). e O He x F c N - .t., > tzzz> zo ar C« L:..i.:;.+:.*) O.T. mD m 0 .-a:- < r ^ }- :J)i N i 0 z Lf) PF8 FORWARD PORTABLE RECORDER TRAFFIC COUNT 07/26/90 CD I- a z-,:-. == OH UU :J 1- N... z S — CoC n N • 3 Z _ >- a<i c.: C z • w En Li C CEO :: c: y,, C.3--Z i--f Z La 0' n do ca i- s w Li / & % c / ƒ % / 0 PRINTER ID. VIEW HOURLY COUNTS 0'1. 30974 LOCATION 8101 Co roy n 0 G®& j ® //§ 0k 0 »� ZcZ 00 /®? '0< Z0I 00 <e'i \ Zz Z0= N 00 <P< § ZZ 0 0 e TOWNSHIP 34 STHr:EON: COUNTY 31 0® =c= // /®/ 00 WL ZO= I <w< HH 4 & ee zoz @ <H< o/ •- o< « e =0 0 ZOZ Z ®7 / =o= 0H <w< ze m m §$ =oM HH 3®/ @z Eu :i 0053 0049 0052 0077 co= £ & we< R I « seem / \ \ CONTROLS ✓�1Yt. PEAK HOUR : v L..i 'v i_r.rc i tjr\ 14 MOVE MENTS County: Count No.: Date of Count: Location: P.M. PEAK HOUR /5,30 -- /63 D 6S 1 37g 303 Wg- Zg0 3 S-g 4 Z N3 z 03 / 1z( L, Z ILJ S$ Z 3gg J✓ TRAFFIC CO!I/VI- LOCATION: TI.•.•E NORTH SOUND i !'VEST SOUND SOUTH BOUND EAST BOU//O TOT,4L 0600 CT ST RT LT ST RT LT ST RT LT ST I RT 0615 -- 0630 1!j 0645 I 0700 1 07/5 - 0730 -07.15 J 0500 1 I 05/5 0830 1 0545 1 17900 1 09/5 I - I 0930 I I 0945 - 1 • /000 - 1 I • I 1 j I I 1 I I I � I I 11 i Ti I II 11 r I! II I /,,/.,P T' W'ZtS 1 ,25`Lf%1 U r -ti 1 -----71 Tom/ - /soo .7- �T ,e1� z'r� �T APT � T �T 'co('P� I � T �.ST ;eT iris /) . /9 0� 1 6 s:f /y - /9 1 d s '> J / ty /S3 o I i _23, 3 -. c,I /a /3 s 07. / /S-4 5 /- a.I 6 // 7 i? 7 6/1 9 y d / Z►1 28 / ,Goo -, -. �� // /.? // / -?? I 1 13 6_7 / 1 c 9 4 I �� /6,5 . �/ 3$ 7 /.3 06 /4 1 -7,3 4 1 I b / / ,3/-2 /i. 30 o /3 'S3 / I /<-- a7 J. -I 7 - .,_G /4 45 [ Z ) 81 ,',j 4 /- I /7 4! 5 • a. T - / / 1700 1 . 4 ( 7 Q77 /S 1 _75 1? ,2. i - Go'G ,/6-, '7/5 7 7 ,3/ - � 87 /6, 5) , 53 ,1 7 741 i4 3-zG /73o . a. 27 G // 7/ /71 z/ ¢ _ 6-3 1 �G, /745 / 3 ! 5� l03 9 // 3f3 a 1 .571 3 1 c 2 /800 (D / 1 (a 66 3 7 -9s 4 1 9 GJ 4 c,2c97 I I 1 I 1 1 it i II 1 I + II I 1 1 1 1 1 II I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 II I 1 roT,,L II--2S 1 3-47 7,A7) 11 /n¢ I 9_7/ 1 /AA II 747 TII7-1 . < I1 <'z >>- 1 -7 a- II -, / 0 i US 52 Northbound from Int. 9th and White to Int. 21st and Central in Dubuque 1/ 8 7 - 12/89 NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 0 Fatal Accidents 0 Fatalities 52 Personal Injury Accidents 136 Property Damage Only Accidents 188 Total Accidents 0 Fatalities 0 Injuries 72 Injuries 72 Injuries Light Conditions Night / Day Ratio 0.94 TO 1 149 Dry 28 Wet Surface Conditions 7 Icy 0 Gravel 0 Mud 1 Unkwn 2 Snow 0 Debris 1 Other Wet Percent= 15.82 Wet Rate 455.16 State Primary Wet Percent ; State Primary Wet Rate ;Rural= 13.08 Municip= 17.33 ;Rural= 14.10 Municip= 85.48 Accident Rate Years= 3.00 Accident Rate = 3056.06/HMVM State Primary Accident Rate - Rural= 130, Municip.= 562 Rural/Municip Average= 258 0 Fatals 7 Major Injuries 27 Minor Injuries 38 Possible Injuries ;Property Damage Only = $ 320616 Driver / Vehicle Related Contributing Animal in Roadway 56 Ran Traffic Signal 3 Ran Stop Sign Passed Stopped School Bus Passing where Prohibited Passing Interfered w/ Oth Veh Left of Center - Not Passing FTYROW - Uncontrolled Intersection 11 FTYROW- From Stop Sign 1 FTYROW- From Yield Sign 15 FTYROW- Making Left Turn FTYROW- From Driveway 2 FTYROW- From Parked Position FTYROW- To Pedestrian 2 FTYROW- Other 2 Wrong Way on One -Way 8 Speed too Fast for Condition Exceeding Speed Limit Drag Racing 21 Improper Turn Circumstances 13 Improper Lane Change 7 Following too Close No Signal or Improper Signal Disregarded Rail Road Signal Disregarded Warning Signal 1 Reckless Driving 3 Improper Backing Illegal or Improper Backing 5 Not Under Control Head Lights Not On 5 Inattentive or Distracted Driver Confused Vision Obscured Oversized Vehicle Overloaded Inexperienced Driver Other 13 Unknown 20 None Apparent ACCIDENT DATA SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 1989 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS NUMBER OF 1988 ACCIDENTS RATE SEVERITY RANK RANK MAIN & 10TH 10 3.91 1.30 1 CENTRAL & 4TH 12 3.51 1.33 2 2 DODGE & LOCUST 46 3.15 1.24 3 5 CENTRAL & 11TH 20 3.07 1.10 4 4 LOCUST & 14TH 17 2.91 1.29 5 6 WHITE & 14TH 16 2.86 1.63 6 14 ELM & 14TH 7 2.71 1.00 7 WHITE & 11TH 13 2.44 1.23 8 11 CENTRAL & 5TH 9 2.32 1.11 9 MAIN & 14TH 10 2.24 1.50 10 BLUFF & 14TH 10 2.23 1.20 11 23 IOWA & 5TH 8 2.22 1.00 12 1 CENTRAL & 12TH 10 2.07 1.30 13 LOCUST & 5TH 11 2.00 1.64 14 19 CENTRAL & 14TH 14 1.96 1.29 15 25 CENTRAL & 15TH 9 1.90 1.11 16 ASBURY & CARTER 11 1.83 1.45 17 31 LOCUST & 10TH 8 1.81 1.13 18 WHITE & 20TH 9 1.67 1.33 19 24 IOWA & 14TH 9 1.64 1.11 20 9 CENTRAL & 9TH 9 1.56 1.11 21 10 LORAS & N. GRANDVIEW 8 1.51 1.38 22 LOCUST & 4TH 7 1.43 1.43 23 PENNSYLVANIA & J.F.K. 15 1.39 1.27 24 33 CENTRAL & 22ND 10 1.37 1.30 25 21 DODGE & CEDAR CROSS 17 1.35 1.29 26 12 CENTRAL & 20TH 6 1.33 1.00 27 22 LOCUST & 9TH 8 1.27 1.00 28 DODGE & DEVON 15 1.25 1.33 29 27 DODGE & BRYANT 11 1.21 1.18 30 35 KERPER & 16TH 10 1.15 1.10 31 30 CENTRAL & 32ND 7 1.14 1.43 32 20 LOCUST & 1ST 6 1.13 1.67 33 BLUFF & 5TH 6 1.13 1.00 34 DODGE & GRANDVIEW 14 1.11 1.36 35 36 HILLCREST & J.F.K. 6 1.08 1.16 36 15. DODGE & BLUFF 15 1.06 1.20 37 28 WACKER BLVD. & J.F.K. 6 0.99 1.17 38 BLUFF & 9TH 6 0.91 1.00 39 18 ASBURY & J.F.K. 7 0.86 1.00 40 34 DODGE & WACKER 6 0.66 1.33 41 32 DODGE & MIDWAY ENTRANCE 6 0.61 1.67 42 Fors. 41.1.1[tom 1 O-A3 1-e-+065 Mau. REPORTS TO: Iowa Department of Transportation Office of ,Sneer UCMs. Lucas Stets Office Building Des Monies. Iowa 50319 PCF,A*( TYPE OR PINT trA Iowa Department of Transportation INVESTIGATING OFFICERS REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT Total Number of SUMMARY Persona "Lilted Totm Number of intoned Total Number of Vehicles Ven.cs imonea , - 1 , rCi>>? ACCIDENT NUMBER 1 x l ll�J 1 ❑ l1 t 1 ElCIOZ CO 0Q �. Date or ACc ris Dm q O'// 11 ) I8g Day of Were Code Time Tine of Accident Sun Mon Toes Wed Thu Fri Sat .7 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 13.1 QBgIs Hrs. Total Amount of Prap•rh Damage 11O0 QQ Coumy JQ53 i�r 1� Accident occurred widen Corporale lwnits of (cityl 00a0_00i. County City 1 I 1 I 1 t It .cc.d.nt occurred outside of city limits snow Q.neral w1Clrrty N NE E SE 5 SW W NW ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ —melee of nearest city Room RouRoad Imer- Gus Gass 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Q C A On Road- Street r or High ay or F R ST 1 C1 T1. _ ST, Road ROAO el. -ASS CADE a 7. iMerytate*Frseway Code 2. U.S. or State H13h+ray Intersection tdtnllfiet I I I I 1 1 T At Inter- section with �T,4e4SSDN S 1T_ a Road 1 County Road Gass e. Gat„ Street Cod. 1 Other Q Unknown Reference Node I t t O N Note: Unless act,dant defined*. intersection. occwTeC at an MlerseClibn ionicn is cemPtetely 0escrtoe0 .0oas_ use um space below to greet the exact IOCa/gn from a milepost or bn*ge or railroad CrOWCIQ. tieing Iwo distances and directions d r»psf.ary. Feet Miles N or ❑ Foe E SE S SW W NW F.Miles N NE E SE S SW W NW ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ and or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Distance Indicator I t 1 I 1 1 j _ _ _ of Milepost Number Or Deflru0l.. inters.Cl$on. bridgea or railroad oesinq Dir.C2lbn Nona DnwKs Name - last. First. Middle I Address City Stale ZIP OO$UQUF - 700.)R Z.oOk Oat* of Birth 1 Q i�g Male Female Drier License Number - �{SI Q7�Q S $ •c a t Stale i (� -License Restntlions Fi Reatn0lion 1 = Yes Cooled 2= No Wim U 0=Untnown U N Citation Number 2S-Z 10 ` Citation Charge T'1 t�RE Tt, S;OP FoR.R S�P S- PhdH Chemical 1- None 1 Blood S. Refused Teat Results Test I , ' 2. 8rwth A thine .. GA? u3 % 1 T Owners Fuit Name - Last, First. Middle Address City scut iL. Zip • CX)S] c Yaw 41 Man* Born1k Model SANI_JIT?u Style D_Dfi LiC.ns. Plate No. 1 NE-N3Q11 17 State Year iR SI , Wit, �J R (p 1 Q- VIN No. 4144 3.0Kti�').(43 Venice* Type Cod* I01 1 I Special use Code W Total occupants ICI 1 ) I Attachment I 4:1 11 1 Fire Eaoloswn I 1 I Hit A Run I 1 11 VtMKfe RernOwed of Removal Autthhonnty I .nI. Point of Initial Impact 101 41 Damaged Area of V.cI O1 14 1 1 Oi 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 Damage Seventy Code I2J sAbbr�o oosi Vehicle Removed IO to Aepart or Reotace im V* �� In, 1 1 India' Direction Traw 4 a1 Speed LimI. it 1 S 1 _ Dowers Name - Last- First. Middle I Address City State ZIP ctn. 1iut� nCj N E T ;11 t �Ztr� t• 1 u ue or n.rtn • / -2S-1 CI' Mai. CI Femme CiaQ Driver Driver License Number C-1R;A R2_�- 8SS Stale TR , License Aestnct,ans i R.str.ctdn 1 = Yes W.11.COMled '' ' 2=Ua with 11 0=Unknown (� N Citation Number Citation Charge _ 9 Phone C7lerrt.Cai i- None 1 Blood 5. Relus*a Test Results Test 2. Broth 4. Uln. Geri?�1 % 1 T O'.n.rs Foil Name - Last. First. Middle 5 R1 s .s R Pov — TAaaress City - State Zip 2 Year SO Man. 9LYfTlCt7LH Moaef 144tZT1QK.1 Stye 4 n2 L.Canse Plate No. NFT 4q c State %FI- Year % YIN No. IitL4 Li RRCY390 4 LI a iv E La'.T S 1 1.aAl G, VM.Cie Type coo. 101 1 1 Special Use Case I_j_1 Total 000uoants I `" r� 1 G I AltscImenI 1-0 1 1 I Fire Esotosron 1.1__1 .tit & Run ILJ Venicte Removed by , ^ Removal Authority 12 1 Font of In.t.a L 10.01 I01 1 I 0amaged Area at Vehicle Iyl L 110l111 1 1 1011 I I Damage Sewerny Code Lai r -ram tq 'onJ� i Q� may, N G $1 0(�t� . 0cl 1 VemUe Re -roared 7 AObrOs.mate COSI 10 ReOad Or Replace ve4Mcl. Defect 10 . 1 1 initial Direction TrawN I 1 I Soeed Llm.l I _2 1 s I I Prooeny other (man ',endles Damaged explain _ Obiect Damaged Estimate of Damage S 1•Yes Was owner or 2-No tenant notified Li3-Unknown Name o1 Owner Street or RFC) City d State. Zip Code ACCIDENT ENVIRONMENT ROAOWAY CHARACTERISTICS Yoh 1 Von. 2 Collision Type I 1 .ZI Location of Accident I 1i I Traffic Controls 11 ICI 1-1 Type of Accident 1 1 I 1 I Type of Trafficway /I� 7Q7f� tit - —"^ lJ 01 07 z,-` 13 r Roadway Geomelncs 1.-.1-.1 Traffic Pow I 1 I U r— CheraCter of Roadway 11 I 1 1 Tyo. of Surface u/�1 Lit 02 .. ._,1Loca4.ty ___! t)8 � 1_3_1 Ven,C1e Action I e 1 1 I 1 Ot 1 I Light Cond,tions Li.1 Fixed Obtect Struts — In t 1 1 I 0 i 1 CO —1-1 09 / 15 Weather Conditions luo to twol u1 Location 1 Lotion of Fixed Obtect _—// ~1 CIRCUMSTANCES Von. 1 Voh 2 Strucx rt App.iCatlle U u as -- --�„ t0 : 16 J/— RO.dwayIEmnronment RelatesmrlSurface Condition: rob to twos I /I�1 1 1�i Li 1 T- Omer Contntwnnq CircustaCe3 I {� 1 I 1 �i , 1 Vision Obscured III 1 I I 1 1 o S 7 _,.. Co.d,tnn 1 0r 11 I Q 1 I �' 18 - S.ngte Vern 19 - Peoestnan DreeerrVenicte Related Con- lot 31 lot i 1 06 /� 12f tndunng Circumstances —`� 1a I NCI wo I I 1 I I SEVERfTY iWI;REO AREA POSITION OF INJURED PERSON PROTEC11VE DEVICE - EJE.T:ON Sul 1-Fatal t-UoOer mp Jw 1.-None I -Not 'sworeMAW*• ro 2-4taror 2.lower torso Mooed6rf.er ?-Wen dused 2-Prsulh esc se F-'-"r1e'• (Mtcat' u[Iny 3-Internal 3-kllnor <-ttea0 i ? 3 Motorcycle3-Lao3-Lao3p and shoulder }totalh hKtfa SJ.iroeg r S I P P D (6noses ankl abras.onal SArma 6 dealoyed 4-Estncaj.d NnPed Ptasengw }GTib rerstrte,rtt 0-Unknarrt _ • n A d r • £ I e-PosalCN 6-Logs 7-M Ml.ole 7 a 9 U$w Pm 6-Mdorcyds rteYn•t B-6Icycie ERId4 CA7.Passne Arx �; UM • • 1 t • a o• • (Cpmp1Lnt of pass Q belt O-UnQtWent GUnknown -P-P•O•ainrl erterlof 3-Q(har T-Off . Q„nknown 0—Unknown No. I ( y r • a d t , 0 n e c c • t a t I o n p E R S 0 I N N J U R E 0 Name 1 AWNS* 2 _ 3 t y UMrsd Transported T¢ PEDfSTRJAN Cheri .1 pepestrtew a APPARENT Test Rest** ACTION w *kw Mgtad as • *kPEDESi*AN W on this report SOBRIETY COLOR Of CLOTIRNO u u u x 0 I G R A M Iti OtAGRAWHAT HAPPENED: • Instruction Numbs' each vR.cl., end show (brioches of trine j 1 INDICATE ^ (/�,r /\j °""°e'....3„r--1,. 4 1.4— - .. Use solid Sot to spar path before accident 1 j ---3►1 D Dotted lino after accident T---- -.I — — — r> v.; t Show pedestrion try: -0 she,. railroad tor 11 ii E i , — — •- Show uriMh poles by Al • Star rnototcycia e([�..fTf1P cTirtJ - - . . .0.,e, r sow online by A .. . N A R R A•S T I V E D•ecnb• YYnat Nagoewd (Reef to sehtchs by numb. VF}1 ttl ir... AS Z.FIST RMAIs) J nN.1 ST. 1C.?l. �� R?PAOfY1FTkir T1-rr- T,SrrRSF{IZTPU ! !TT4 31VKS 1 ST, ST i.ZUTen S! TT MC: T11F 0FrtvFR OF Al Eli il<l FRILFD TD ST4P EC\R t3 FR( rls.1 STzw2 STr a.3 RNII ESilTF rSFD T?-{F Tvr-rRFr-rTnt.1 l 1Tr11 McKSCX3 , TT (ORS T}dF/k, --14 1T TNC 087-11FR (ZF - V. 'hi- FITT' ED TQ YTFF n 1 zlt� RTfS4tT �F ts1AY Tl� vE1{ �2 ci?!L?'c+]1 [SAS BEZA1Cz QPr-RAYEi) PR PF RA Y NOiM4 tin(>1,11) SRf+K Sc11,3 41- F PST LG. t{.. S T RFPT. ' - W T N E S S karma. list. First Str•.i or FIFO City Siam Zlo Phone _J Cl.. - ? Ot3gcN�C'E TrY:]t� S0 t 119 . skr....... of�Ottti�cs�f �, /n/ (\ ((/� ,,�, t -t.r r «f. ` p LIC) l! )iti it L( 2V ' Badge ]No. 7 Report Given To AM Drovers 1 { I No Wes in..est.:Anon made a1 scene? t-Ye>, r 2-No Kw.* d D•pa^nt .1 t'J/ / �v' t�� p� o DCgrICY2r Psi F CaffaRTMFNT ON* d Reoor[ / j G ll 1l$ 5 Time Officer Nor.r.p o AccnieM QZq.2 Mh Imosio:meron Cornoke.b' 1-Yes di 2-No Report R...e-ned DY -�` I `11_ `� 1 A�1 _O( Qate Rer,ewep lime t]:' I ^ CC Jrnveo At $CMe I C `r' - C\I p 4' ra `�V� 1 �L«7 l�T—rYf r TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRAINTS During the process of identifying candidate improvements, careful consideration must be given to the constraints of the area. These constraints will assist in determining if a particular alternative is acceptable. The following constraints were considered: Right -of -Way - There is limited available city right-of-way. The need for additional right- of-way should be minimized. Parking - Most parking along the corridor is on -street. This parking is essential to residences and businesses in the area. Access - Local access to the corridor is critical. There is a great deal of sidestreet and driveway traffic that relies on the existing route. Housing - A significant percentage of the city's affordable housing is in the study area. There is currently a shortage of this type of housing. Any alternative considered should have a minimal impact on housing. Consideration must also be given to effects on property values. Neighborhoods - The integrity of neighborhoods must be preserved. The effects of higher traffic volumes and speeds are of major concern. Schools and Churches - The study area has a considerable number of schools and churches. The safety of children and church attendees is essential. Access and parking is also important for schools and churches. Business and Industry - There are many businesses and a number of major industrial sites in the area. A safe, efficient transportation system is critical to business and industry. Special consideration must be given to industrial truck traffic. Historic Structures - Much of the character of the city of Dubuque is due to its history. This history is preserved by numerous historic buildings in the area. Any alternative considered should allow for the continued preservation of these structures. Environmental Impacts - Air quality is a major concern. Air and noise pollution must be minimized. Other environmental concerns include wetland impacts, fuel consumption, endangered species and flood plains. Cost - Alternatives selected should provide the most benefit with least impact per dollar. Low cost alternatives should be evaluated first. R/Dubnorth/AA1-4 3-1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 4.0 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The preliminary traffic analysis had two major goals: 1. Determine problem areas and evaluate the severity of problems. 2. Evaluate the effects of potential solutions. Traffic analysis was performed primarily using the two computer programs. The Highway Capacity Software was used for intersection analysis and the TRANSYT-7F program was used for arterial analysis. 4.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Analysis of a specific signalized intersection will provide information about average delay and level of service based on traffic volumes, intersection geometrics and signal timing parameters. Intersections are very important to urban arterials because they cause most of the delay and congestion experienced. Preliminary intersection analysis was performed on a sample of five intersections in the study area. Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 summarize the results of this evaluation. From this analysis we find that 22nd Street is a critical location in the study area. Also, the results indicate that a significant traffic benefit can be obtained by extending one-way operation of U.S. 52 north of 22nd Street. As alternatives were developed, additional intersection analysis was done to determine relative benefits of improvements and identify new potential problem areas. Intersection analysis proved to be a critical part of the overall analysis method. 4.2 AR'I BRIAL ANALYSIS Looking at intersections alone does not give an overall indication of arterial operation. Using the TRANSYT-7F program, the operation of an entire arterial can be evaluated. Parameters such as stops, system speed and fuel consumption can be determined. For the preliminary analysis, Central Avenue, Jackson Street, the proposed Elm Street/railroad alignment and 32nd Street were evaluated between 14th Street and 32nd Street under a number of alternatives. See Table 4-2 for results of the arterial analysis. Some of the input data needed for the preliminary evaluation was not easily obtained, and was therefore estimated. Therefore, the values of the output may not be extremely accurate, but the differences between these values are significant. 4-1 TABLE 4-1 ESTIMATED AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE/IN IERSECTION) Remove Central - Existing Optimize Spot Parking Jackson Existing + 20% Signal Intersection & Add Turn One -Way Intersection Conditions Traffic Timing Improvements* Lanes* Restrictions* Pair* White/llth 10.3 12.4 9.9 9.9 9.2 9.9 9.9 White/20th 12.1 17.6 12.1 12.1 10.2 12.1 10.5 Central/22nd 42.4 60+ 27.0 16.3 18.5 16.9 11.6 Central/32nd 13.5 25.4 13.0 13.0 11.3 13.0 9.6 Jackson/32nd 9.4 10.5 8.0 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.5 AVERAGE 17.5 25.2 14.0 11.8 11.4 12.0 9.8 Assumes optimized signal timing. R/Dubnorth/AB1-1 FIGURE 4-1 ESTIMATED AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY (SECONDS/VEHICLE/INTERSECTION) 40 30 a w 20 10 U -1-7:5---- 1,;,, EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING + 20% TRAFFIC OPTIMIZE SIGNAL TIMING ANALYSIS PERFORMED USING A SAMPLE OF 5 INTERSECTIONS * ASSUMES OPTIMIZED SIGNAL TIMING SPOT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS* REMOVE PARKING & ADD LANES* TURN RESTRICTIONS* CENTRAL- JACKSON ONE-WAY PAIR* 29-May-92 TABLE 4-2 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY ARTERIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SYSTEM TOTALS ARTERIAL TOTALS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- FILE ALT. TRAVEL TINE DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE MANE NAME ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION (V-MI) (Y-HR1 (V-HR) (SEC/Y) t % (GAL) (MPH) ($) INDEX (Y-MI) (Y-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) t S (GAL) (MPH) (8) INDEX CENE1 EX1 CENTRAL EXISTING CONDITIONS 2160 191 104 27.6 7745 51 205 11.3 599 106.1 1984 146 66 26.8 4019 45 153 13.6 402 63.3 CENE2 EX2 CENTRAL COORDINATE SIGNALS 2160 189 102 27.2 7681 51 204 11.4 595 104.7 1984 145 65 26.2 3956 45 152 13.7 399 62.1 22ND TO 32ND CEN1 ALT 1 CENTRAL OPTIMIZE TIMING, OFFSETS 2160 160 73 19.2 7217 53 180 13.5 541 80.8 1984 107 27 11.1 3447 39 122 18.5 340 32.7 CEM2 ALT 2 CENTRAL 15% LESS NIS TRAFFIC 1883 126 50 14.5 6471 53 148 15.0 454 61.1 1721 90 20 9.5 3022 39 104 19.2 290 25.8 CEN3 ALT 3A CENTRAL 4 LANE THRU N/S 220-3200 2227 138 48 12.6 7104 52 165 16.2 511 62.5 2051 104 22 8.6 3649 40 122 19.7 341 29.2 0E638 ALT 38 CENTRAL ALT 3A W/ NO PARKING 2221 133 44 11.4 6673 48 160 16.7 497 57.6 2051 102 19 7.7 3367 37 119 20.1 337 26.7 CEN4 ALT 4A CENTRAL 4 LANE THRU 2280 2161 141 54 14.3 7221 53 166 15.3 513 67.6 1984 102 22 9.0 3591 41 119 19.4 332 29.3 CEM4B ALT 4B CENTRAL 4 LANE THRU 22ND t 32ND 2161 139 52 13.1 7186 53 165 15.6 510 65.8 1984 103 22 9.1 3512 40 119 19.3 333 29.9 CENS ALT 5 CENTRAL ADD SB RT TURN LANE 1 22ND 2160 141 54 14.3 7258 53 166 15.3 513 67.2 1962 101 22 9.0 3554 40 118 19.4 329 29.0 CEN02 ALT 6A CENTRAL ONE-WAY CENTRAL AND JACKSON 2131 147 61 16.2 7155 53 110 14.5 517 72.2 1976 104 24 10.0 3495 41 120 19.1 334 30.2 CEN03 ALT 68 CENTRAL ALT 6A W/ 4 LANE THRU 22ND 2132 138 52 13.6 6875 50 162 15.5 498 64.0 1976 98 19 7.8 3230 38 115 20.1 324 25.4 CEN038 ALT 6C CENTRAL ALT 6A W/ 4 LANE THRU 2132 132 46 12.2 6743 49 157 16.1 487 59.5 1976 99 19 8.0 3258 38 115 20.0 325 25.7 22ND AND 32ND CEN6A ALT 7-30 CENTRAL ALT 1 W/ 30% LESS M/S 1 TURNS 1518 91 30 10.8 4743 48 110 16.7 343 39.8 1388 TO 14 7.9 2240 36 81 20.0 228 18.0 CEN6B ALT 1-40 CENTRAL ALT 1 W/ 40% LESS NIS 1 TURNS 1312 78 26 10.3 4158 41 95 16.7 297 34.6 1193 61 13 8.5 1911 36 70 19.7 191 16.0 CEM6C ALT 1-50 CENTRAL ALT 1 W/ 50% LESS N/S 0 TURNS 1126 67 22 9.7 3705 46 82 16.8 257 30.0 1016 51 10 8.1 1630 36 59 19.9 167 13.3 CENB ALT 8-30 CENTRAL ALT 48 W/ 30% ELM REASSIGNMENT 1543 97 35 11.3 5646 51 118 15.9 369 47.3 1391 10 14 8.2 2347 38 82 19.8 230 19,1 CEN07 ALT 9-40 CENTRAL ALT 6C W/ 401 ELM REASSIGNMENT 1366 84 29 10.1 4995 48 103 16.2 323 40.4 1236 63 13 8.5 2120 38 13 19.6 206 17.3 CEN08 ALT 9-30 CENTRAL ALT 6C W/ 30% ELM REASSIGNMENT 1567 97 33 10.7 5538 49 118 16.2 368 45.8 1431 73 15 8.3 2408 38 84 19.7 237 19,6 CEM10 ALT 10 CENTRAL TOE OF THE BLUFF REASSIGNMENT 1993 137 56 15.9 6841 53 159 14.6 481 61.6 1825 94 21 9.1 3172 '39 109 19.4 306 26.7 CEN11 ALT 11 CENTRAL TM TRAFFIC REDUCTION 2055 144 61 16.8 1001 53 166 14.3 505 71.6 1885 101 25 10.6 3308 39 116 18.7 321 30.4 JACE1 EX1 JACKSON EXISTING CONDITIONS 1480 102 44 16.3 6541 68 126 14.5 392 58.0 1290 72 22 17.7 3116 72 86 17.9 231 28.5 JACI ALT 1 JACKSON OPTIMIZE TIMING, OFFSETS 1480 101 43 15.9 6376 66 124 14.7 387 56.6 1290 71 20 16.6 3014 69 84 18.2 229 26.9 JACO2 ALT 6A JACKSON ONE-WAY NB, SIGNAL l 24TH 1609 148 85 29.2 6333 61 161 10.9 469 87.5 1286 73 23 18.1 2485 54 84 17.5 230 26.1 JAC03 ALT 6B JACKSON ALT 6A W/ 4 LANE THRU 22ND 1610 105 42 14.2 6157 59 128 15.4 399 55.0 1286 67 16 13.0 2375 52 79 19.2 219 21.5 JAC03B ALT 6C JACKSON ALT 6A W/ 4 LANE THRU 1610 103 40 13.6 5765 55 125 15.6 390 52.1 1286 66 15 12.1 2192 48 77 19.5 217 20.0 22ND AND 32ND ELM1 ALT 8-40 ELM/RR 40% REASSIGNMENT OF ALT 6C 1831 161 89 33.9 6686 71 174 11.4 511 91.6 1150 95 50 44.5 2802 69 99 12.1 253 47.1 ELM2 ALT 8-30 ELN/RR 300 REASSIGNMENT OF ALT 6C 1513 102 43 18.3 5751 68 123 14.8 380 54.4 962 53 16 16.8 2111 63 63 18.0 171 19.8 ELM3 ALT 8-304 ELM/RR ALT 8-30 8/ 10% LESS NIS 1369 90 36 16.3 5350 67 110 15.2 343 47.8 867 47 13 15.1 1868 62 55 18.6 151 16.1 32E1 EXI 32 ND EXISTING CONDITIONS 230 25 16 13.6 2597 63 33 9.3 102 21.8 110 13 7 11.9 1131 56 17 12.7 40 9.4 32RR1 ALT 8-40 32 ND ELM/RR ALIGNMENT 312 30 18 13.6 2538 53 38 10.2 117 23.5 219 13 5 6.4 888 36 11 16.5 43 7.0 32RR01 ALT 9-40 32 ND ELM/RR ALIGNMENT, 1-WAY CENTRAL 328 30 17 11.9 2771 54 39 11.0 121 23.4 206 12 4 5.8 851 37 15 17.5 39 6.1 i JACKSON 1 WIDENING 32ND 320R010 ALT 9-404 32 ND ALT 9-40 W/ 20% MORE TRAFFIC 393 39 23 13.1 3844 63 50 10.1 158 32.4 247 20 10 13.0 1838 67 26 12.6 59 14.5 32R8018 ALT 9-40832 ND ALT 9-40 W/ 300 MORE TRAFFIC 426 46 29 15.9 4281 65 58 9.3 179 38.5 267 21 11 13.0 2023 68 28 12.6 64 15.9 3208010 ALT 9-407 32 MD ALT 9-40 W/ 400 MORE TRAFFIC 459 66 48 24.3 4733 66 75 6.9 219 54.1 288 24 12 14.1 2279 71 31 12.1 71 18.2 04-Jun-92 TABLE 4-3 DUBUQUE ACCIDENT DATA (IDOT AND CITY OF DUBUQUE 1/87 - 12/89) LOCATION IMPROPER IMPR. LANE FOLLOWING NOT UNDER RAN SIGNAL FTY ROW T00 FAST TURN CHANGE T00 CLOSE CONTROL OTHER TOTAL LOCATION ENTERING ADT ACCIDENTS/ NEV NO WHITE/9TH WHITE/10TH WHITE/11TH WHITE/12TH WHITE/13TH WHITE/14TH WHITE/15TH WHITE/16TH WHITE/17TH WHITE/18TH WHITE/19TH WHITE/20TH WHITE/2ITH CENTRAL/21ST S8 CENTRAL/9TH CENTRAL/10TH CENTRAL/11TH CENTRAL/12TH CENTRAL/13TH CENTRAL/14TH CENTRAL/I5TH CENTRAL/16TH CENTRAL/11TH CENTRAL/18TH V CENTRAL/18TH E CENTRAL/19TH CENTRAL/20TH 2 18 11 10 15 3 3 13 6 3 NB/SB CENTRAL/22ND 3 CENTRAL/23RD CENTRAL/24TH CENTRAL/DIAGONAL CENTRAL/26TH CENTRAL/27TH CENTRAL/28TH CENTRAL/29TH CENTRAL/30TH CENTRAL/32ND 1 CENTRAL/MILWAUKEE CENTRAL/EUCLID CENTRAL/AQUIN CENTRAL/JFK 2 CENTRAL/386 S 4 CENTRAL/386 N 2 8 2 10 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 9 3 2 3 1 3 2 6 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 6 3 1 5 2 3 2 8 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 17 WHITE/9TH 1 1 WHITE/10TH 6 30 WHITE/11TH 1 15 WHITE/12TH 1 WHITE/13TH 7 32 WHITE/14TH 2 2 WHITE/15TH 2 6 WHITE/16TH 7 21 WHITE/17TH 6 WHITE/18TH 4 WHITE/19TH 8 27 WHITE/20TH 3 WHITE/21TH 2 5 CENTRAL/21ST 8 22 CENTRAL/9TH 2 6 CENTRAL/10TH 13 32 CENTRAL/1ITH 4 11 CENTRAL/12TH 1 6 CENTRAL/13TH 6 39 CENTRAL/14TH 3 13 CENTRAL/15TH 1 7 CENTRAL/16TH 3 10 CENTRAL/17TH 1 3 CENTRAL/18TH V 4 9 CENTRAL/18TH E 2 CENTRAL/19TH 3 14 CENTRAL/20TH 5 3 2 2 13248 DOT 14590 DOT 20900 DUB 14600 EST 14481 DOT 15795 DOT 17500 EST 17516 DOT 24500 DUB 11700 DUB 15000 DUB 13015 DOT 20 CENTRAL/22ND 21600 DUB 3 CENTRAL/23RD 7 CENTRAL/24TH 4 CENTRAL/DIAGONAL 3 CENTRAL/26TH 3 CENTRAL/27TH 2 CENTRAL/28TH 4 CENTRAL/29TH 2 CENTRAL/30TH 19 CENTRAL/32ND 16850 DOT 3 CENTRAL/MILVAUKEE 1 CENTRAL/EUCLID 2 CENTRAL/AQUIN 5 CENTRAL/JFK 7 CENTRAL/386 S 2 CENTRAL/386 N 1.17 ERR 1.88 ERR ERR 1.40 ERR ERR 1.31 ERR ERR 1.70 ERR 0.29 ERR 1.15 ERR 1.67 ERR ERR 1.45 ERR 0.55 0.61 ERR ERR ERR 0.98 ERR 0.85 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 1.03 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR LOCATION IMPROPER INPR. LANE FOLLOWING NOT UNDER ENTERING ACCIDENTS/ RAN SIGNAL FTY ROW T00 FAST TURN CHANGE T00 CLOSE CONTROL OTHER TOTAL LOCATION ADT MEY JACKSON/9TH t 1 3 4 JACKSON/9TH t ERR JACKSON/10TH t 1 1 JACKSON/I0TH t ERR JACKSON/11TH t 5 2 1 1 2 11 JACKSON/11TH t ERR JACKSON/12TH t 8 1 1 10 JACKSON/12TH t ERR JACKSON/13TH t 3 3 JACKSON/13TH t ERR JACKSON/14TH t 3 1 1 2 2 9 JACKSON/14TH t 13900 DUB 0.59 JACKSON/15TH t 1 1 JACKSON/15TH t ERR JACKSON/16TH t 18 1 19 JACKSON/16TH t 7800 DUB 2.22 JACKSON/17TH * 20 1 21 JACKSON/17TH * 8000 EST 2.40 JACKSON/18TH * 4 1 5 JACKSOI1/18TH t ERR JACKSON/19TH * 2 1 1 4 JACKSON/19TH t ERR JACKSON/20TH t 8 2 2 12 JACKSON/20TH t 13500 DUB 0.81 JACKSON/21ST t 3 1 4 JACKSON/21ST t ERR JACKSON/22ND t 4 1 6 3 2 16 JACKSON/22ND t 20200 DUB 0.72 JACKSON/23RD t 0 JACKSON/23RD t ERR JACKSON/24TH t 4 1 2 7 JACKSON/24TH $ ERR JACKSON/25TH * 1 1 2 JACKSON/25TH $ ERR JACKSON/26TH * 1 1 2 JACKSON/26TH * ERR JACKSON/21TH t 3 1 1 5 JACKSON/27TH t ERR JACKSON/28TH t 1 1 JACKSON/28TH t ERR JACKSON/29TH t 2 1 1 2 6 JACKSON/29TH * ERR JACKSON/30TH t 5 2 1 JACKSON/30TH $ ERR JACKSON/32ND t 6 3 1 1 11 JACKSON/32ND t 13800 DUB 0.73 TOTALS PERCENT ARTERIAL: TOTAL ACCIDENTS 122 112 21 64 33 30 28 122 592 CENTRAL(9TH-386) 261 20.6% 29,1% 3.5% 10.8% 5.6% 5.1% 4.7% 20.6% WHITE(9TH-21ST) 170 JACKSON(9TH-32ND) 161 t ACCIDENT DATA FROM CITY OF DUBUQUE DOT MEY CALCULATED FROM 1989 AADT DUB KEY CALCULATED FROM 1991 DUBUQUE PEAK HOUR COUNTS EST MEY ESTIMATED FROM COUNTS AT ADJACENT INTERSECTIONS Segment Central (SB) TABLE 4-4 TRAVEL TIME SAMPLING RESULTS Travel Segment Average HCM Time Length Speed Arterial (Min:Sec) (Ft.) (mph)LOS N. of 386 - (1) 1:50 6,200 38.3 A N. of 32nd (2) 1:56 6,200 36.4 A N. of 32nd - (1) 3:07 6,400 23.3 B S. of 22nd (2) 5:48 6,400 12.5 D S. of 22nd - (1) 4:13 4,300 11.6 D S. of 9th (2) 4:30 4,300 10.8 D White -Central (NB) N. of 386 - (1) 2:37 6,200 26.9 C N. of 32nd (2) 1:37 6,200 43.5 A N. of 32nd - (1) 3:42 6,400 19.6 B S. of 22nd (2) 4:01 6,400 18.1 C S. of 22nd - (1) 2:48 4,500 18.2 C S. of 9th (2) 4:18 4,500 11.8 D Jackson (NB/SB) N. of 32nd - S. (1) 4:11 6,500 17.6 C of 22nd (SB) (2) 4:32 6,500 16.3 C S. of 22nd - S. of 12th (NB) (1) 2:41 3,300 13.9 C (SB) (2) 2:33 3,300 14.7 C R/Dubnorth/AB1-2 FIGURE 4-2 ACCIDENT RATES 1987-1989 3500 3000 j 2500 2000` 1500 1000 500 - 0 562 STATE AVERAGE, 2685 CENTRAL AVE. URBAN PRIMARY 9TH TO 21ST 3056 WHITE ST. 9TH TO 21ST CENTRAL AVE. 21ST TO RUPP HOLLOW Thousands 14r 12 1- 10 8 6 4 FIGURE 4-3 TRAFFIC TRENDS WHITE ST. - 20TH ST. TO 21ST ST. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Thousands 14r- 4 FIGURE 4-4 TRAFFIC TRENDS CENTRAL AVE. - 20TH ST. TO 21ST ST. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Thousands 16r 14L 12 10 8 6 4 1988 1981 FIGURE 4-5 TRAFFIC TRENDS CENTRAL AVE. - 21ST ST. TO 22ND ST. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 yc ADT -1— TREND Thousands 14r- 12 10 4 FIGURE 4-6 TRAFFIC TRENDS CENTRAL AVE. - 30TH ST. TO 32ND ST. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 SAMPLE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION22 ND ST/CENTRAL AVE AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST BOES DATE 10-31-91 TIME PM PEAK COMMENT BCEN221 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 90 80 130 40 : L 11.0 L 11.0 L 11.0 L 11.0 TH 320 240 390 440 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 50 110 10 50 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB -1.00 4.00 Y 10 2 0.85 20 N 19.3 3 WB 2.00 4.00 Y 10 2 0.85 20 N 19.3 3 NB 0.00 10.00 Y 10 2 0.85 20 N 19.3 3 SB 0.00 8.00 Y 10 2 0.85 20 N 19.3 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 60.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD X PD X WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X GREEN 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.403 0.350 11.8 B 20.5 C TR 0.850 0.350 22.7 C WB L 0.388 0.350 11.7 B 20.3 C TR 0.841 0.350 22.3 C NB L 0.341 0.550 5.9 B 7.3 B TR 0.596 0.550 7.8 B SB L 0.229 0.342 10.8 B 113.9 F TR 1.177 0.342 122.3 F INTERSECTION: Delay = 42.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.857 LOS = E SAMPLE ARTERIAL ANALYSIS TRANSYT-7F -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM RELEASE 6 MARCH 1991 VERSION 4.0 SPONSORED BY: DEVELOPED BY: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS UNITED KINGDOM AND TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DATE OF RUN: 11/ 4/91 START TIME OF RUN: 13:34:53 I N PUT DATA REPORT FOR RUN 1 FIELDS- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CASE NUMBER 3. 1 60 60 5 0 0 3 3 -1 1 1 60 0 0 0 0 +++ 102 +++ WARNING + THE CYCLE INCREMENT IS IGNORED IN A SINGLE CYCLE RUN. +++ 107 +++ WARNING + A STOP PENALTY OF "-1" WILL RESULT IN AUTOMATIC CALCULATION OF THE PI TO MINIMIZE FUEL CONSUMPTION. LINK SPECIFIC DELAY OR STOP WEIGHTS ON CARD TYPE 37 & 38 WILL STILL BE APPLIED, HOWEVER. 110 +++ WARNING + INITIAL TIMINGS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED IN FIELD 11. TRANSYT-7F WILL IGNORE ANY OFFSET AND VARIABLE INTERVAL VALUES CODED ON CARD TYPES 1X AND 18. AN OPTIMIZATION RUN IS EXPECTED. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 103 104 0 0 0 105 106 0 0 0 107 108 0 0 0 7 403 404 0 0 0 407 408 0 0 0 503 504 0 0 0 7 603 604 0 0 0 607 608 0 0 0 703 704 0 0 0 7 707 708 0 0 0 803 804 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +++ TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. FIELDS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 95 25 500 100 125 120 INTERSECTION: 32 ND INTERSECTION 1 PAGE 2 12 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 1 1 2 0 15 101 103 -104 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 3 3 4 0 15 105 -106 107 -108 0 0 0 0 0 28 101 1250 3184 12 0 201 12 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 103 200 3061 659 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 104 200 0 35 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 104 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 105 100 2967 264 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 106 100 0 105 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 106 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 107 100 2967 650 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 108 100 0 282 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 108 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: HOLY GHOST INTERSECTION 2 12 2 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 1 1 2 0 15 201 203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 3 3 4 0 14 205 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 201 2800 3184 12 0 301 12 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 203 1250 3184 951 0 103 530 25 108 288 25 105 132 25 0 28 205 100 1338 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 207 100 1338 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: FULTON INTERSECTION 3 12 3 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 3 1 1 2 0 15 301 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 3 3 3 4 0 14 305 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 301 2000 3184 12 0 401 12 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 303 2800 3184 1260 0 203 1259 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 305 100 1338 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 307 100 1338 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: 22 ND TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CASE NUMBER 3. FIELDS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- INTERSECTION 4 PAGE 3 12 4 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 4 1 1 2 0 15 401 403 -404 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 4 3 3 4 0 15 405 407 -408 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 401 900 3184 12 0 501 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 403 2000 3090 1163 0 303 1162 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 404 2000 0 82 0 303 82 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 404 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 405 100 3139 562 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 407 100 3250 321 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 408 100 0 117 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 408 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: 20 TH INTERSECTION 5 12 5 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 1 1 2 0 15 501 503 -504 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 5 3 3 4 0 15 508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 501 1050 1311 11 0 601 11 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 503 900 3184 988 0 403 776 25 408 111 25 405 100 25 0 28 504 900 0 152 0 403 152 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 504 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 508 100 1621 282 0 0 0 25 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: 17 TH INTERSECTION 6 12 6 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 1 1 2 0 15 601 603 -604 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 6 3 3 4 0 15 605 607 -608 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 601 620 1311 11 0 701 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 603 1050 3107 1152 0 503 891 20 508 260 20 0 0 0 0 28 604 1050 0 23 0 503 23 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 604 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 601 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 605 100 1287 269 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 607 100 1338 152 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 608 100 0 35 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 608 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: 15 TH INTERSECTION 7 12 7 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 7 1 1 2 0 15 701 703 -704 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. FIELDS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 22 7 3 3 4 0 15 705 707 -708 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 701 310 1311 11 0 801 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 703 620 3164 1072 0 603 978 25 608 35 25 605 58 25 0 28 704 620 0 23 0 603 23 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 704 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 701 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 705 100 1299 140 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 707 100 1338 117 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 708 100 0 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 708 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 705 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION: 14 TH INTERSECTION 8 PAGE 4 12 8 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8 1 1 2 0 15 801 803 -804 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8 3 3 4 0 15 805 807 -808 811 0 0 0 0 0 28 801 200 1311 11 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 803 310 3098 1262 0 703 1220 25 708 13 25 705 28 25 0 28 804 310 0 58 0 703 58 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 804 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 801 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 805 100 1764 588 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 811 100 1228 117 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 807 100 1487 494 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 808 100 0 129 0 0 0 25 0 0. . 0 0 0 0 0 29 808 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 805 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLOT AND OPTION CARDS 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- PROGRAM NOTE --- A CARD TYPE 52 CAUSES RUN TO BE OPTIMIZED USING THE DEFAULT NORMAL OPTIMIZATION STEP SIZES. IF CARD TYPE 4 WAS INPUT, IT IS IGNORED. --- PROGRAM NOTE --- NO ERRORS DETECTED. TRANSYT-7F PERFORMS FINAL PROCESSING. IF ERRORS ARE DETECTED, FURTHER PROCESSING IS SUSPENDED. --- PROGRAM NOTE --- THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 8 NODES AND 44 LINKS, INCLUDING BOTTLENECKS, IF ANY, IN THIS RUN. --- PROGRAM NOTE --- THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 3 WARNING MESSAGES ISSUED IN THE ABOVE REPORT. TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 5 CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS <PERFORMANCE WITH OPTIMAL SETTINGS> CASE NUMBER 3. MOVEMENT/ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM MAX. BACK FUEL NODE NOS. V/C TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS OF QUEUE CONS. (%) (V-MI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) NO. (%) NO. CAP. (GA) NB THRU : 1 2.84 .16 .04 13.5 6.( 52) 0 100 .18 SB THRUP: 81 24.98 5.51 4.53 24.7 573.( 87) 10 16 6.71 LEFTS: 21 1.33 .22 .17 17.1 27.( 76) 103 103S .37 EB THRUP: 27 4.92 .67 .48 6.5 116.( 44) 2 8 1.03 LEFTS: 52 1.96 .71 .63 21.7 92.( 88) 105 105S 1.12 WB THRUP: 62 12.12 2.20 1.72 9.6 376.( 58) 7 8 3.30 LEFTS: 55 5.26 1.01 .80 10.3 163.( 58) 107 107S 1.47 NODE 1: 81 53.40 10.48 8.38 15.0 1353.( 67) 14.19 NB THRU : 1 6.36 .26 .01 2.5 3.( 22) 0 224 .30 SB THRU : 43 225.14 9.49 .66 2.5 201.( 21) 5 100 11.32 EB THRU : 5 .21 .07 .07 21.5 9.( 79) 0 4 .11 WB THRU : 5 .21 .07 .07 21.5 9.( 79) 0 4 .11 NODE 2: 43 231.91 9.90 .80 2.9 221.( 22) 11.84 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 6 CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS CASE NUMBER 3. MOVEMENT/ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM MAX. BACK FUEL NODE NOS. V/C TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS OF QUEUE CONS. (%) (V-MI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) NO. (%) NO. CAP. (GA) NB THRU : 1 4.55 .20 .02 5.1 5.( 43) 0 160 .24 SB THRU : 57 667.84 27.34 1.12 3.2 319.( 25) 7 224 31.86 EB THRU : 5 .21 .07 .07 21.5 9.( 79) 0 4 .11 WB THRU : 5 .21 .07 .07 21.5 9.( 79) 0 4 .11 NODE 3: 57 672.80 27.68 1.27 3.5 342.( 26) 32.32 NB THRU : 1 2.04 .10 .02 5.8 7.( 55) 0 72 .20 SB THRUP: 75 440.82 20.16 2.85 8.8 653.( 56) 13 160 24.34 LEFTS: 36 31.08 1.37 .15 6.4 34.( 41) 403 403S 1.63 EB THRU : 57 10.48 3.26 2.85 18.2 435.( 77) 8 8 4.29 WB THRUP: 52 5.98 1.87 1.64 18.4 244.( 76) 4 8 2.44 LEFTS: 67 2.18 1.18 1.10 33.8 105.( 90) 407 407S 1.55 NODE 4: 75 492.58 27.94 8.60 13.7 1477.( 65) 34.45 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 7 CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS CASE NUMBER 3. MOVEMENT/ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM MAX. BACK FUEL NODE NOS. V/C TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS OF QUEUE CONS. (%) (V-MI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) NO. (%) NO. CAP. (GA) NB THRU : 1 2.19 .11 .00 .7 0.( 4) 0 42 .11 SB THRUP: 60 168.21 7.72 1.12 4.1 269.( 27) 6 72 9.39 LEFTS: 41 25.88 1.11 .09 2.2 5.( 4) 503 503S 1.24 LEFT : 70 5.26 2.20 1.99 25.5 240.( 85) 4 4 2.65 NODE 5: 70 201.54 11.14 3.20 8.1 515.( 36) 13.39 NB THRU : 2 1.29 .09 .04 14.4 10.( 88) 0 25 .18 SB THRUP: 82 229.06 15.63 4.46 13.9 879.( 76) 16 84 16.77 LEFTS: 16 4.57 .26 .04 5.7 12.( 50) 603 603S .28 EB THRU : 52 5.01 1.36 1.16 15.6 188.( 70) 3 4 1.83 WB THRUP: 39 2.83 .71 .60 14.2 100.( 66) 2 4 .96 LEFTS: 20 .65 .18 .16 16.3 25.( 73) 607 607S .31 NODE 6: 82 243.43 18.25 6.47 14.2 1214.( 74) 20.33 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 8 CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS CASE NUMBER 3. MOVEMENT/ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. NODE NOS. V/C TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY (%) (V-MI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) UNIFORM STOPS NO. (%) MAX. BACK OF QUEUE NO. CAP. FUEL CONS. (GA) NB THRU : 2 .64 .04 .02 5.5 2.( 22) 0 12 .07 SB THRUP: 72 125.89 LEFTS: 15 2.70 EB THRU : 28 WB THRUP: 26 LEFTS: 7 6.39 1.44 4.9 198.( 18) 5 50 7.46 .12 .01 1.6 1.( 3) 703 703S .13 2.61 .63 .53 13.5 90.( 64) 2 4 .86 2.18 .52 .43 13.4 74.( .21 .04 .04 11.7 7.( 63) 1 4 .89 60) 707 707S .08 NODE 7: 72 134.23 7.74 2.47 6.5 371.( 27) 9.49 NB THRU : 2 .42 .04 .03 8.3 5.( 48) 0 8 .08 SB THRUP: 89 73.71 5.53 2.64 7.5 127.( 10) 8 25 5.73 LEFTS: 31 3.39 .17 .04 2.5 1.( 1) 803 803S .18 EB THRU : 87 10.96 4.62 4.19 25.6 502.( 85) 9> 4C 5.56 WB THRU : 87 9.21 4.05 3.69 26.9 421.( 85) 8> 4C 4.79 LEFT : 98* 2.40 4.20 4.10 114.5 120.( 93) 2 4 3.85 LK 811 : 25 2.18 .52 .43 13.2 73.( 63) 1 4 .89 NODE 8: 98* 102.27 19.13 15.12 20.5 1250.( 47) 21.07 TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS PAGE 9 <SYSTEM WIDE TOTALS INCLUDING ALL LINKS> PERFORMANCE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- MEASURES TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS CONS. SPEED COST MANCE V-MI V-HR V-HR SEC/V NO. (%) GA MI/H INDEX <TOTALS> 2132 132 46 12.2 6743( 49) 157 16.1 487 59.5 NOTE: PERFORMANCE INDEX IS DEFINED AS: PI = DELAY + STOPS NO. OF SIMULATIONS = 221 NO. OF LINKS =3724 ELAPSED TIME = 407.8 SEC. TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS TRANSYT-7F SIGNAL CONTROLLER SETTINGS NETWORK -WIDE SIGNAL TIMING DATA SYSTEM CYCLE LENGTH = 60 SECONDS NO MASTER OFFSET REFERENCE CONTROLLER SPECIFIED ALL OFFSETS ARE REFERENCED TO AN ARBITRARY TIME BASE. INTERSECTION CONTROLLER SETTINGS INTERSECTION 1 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 17 4 35 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 28 7 58 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 28 35 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 21 39 SPLITS (%): 35 65 LINKS MOVING : 101 105 103 -106 -104 107 -108 OFFSET = 34 SEC. 57 %. PAGE 10 TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS CASE NUMBER 3. INTERSECTION 2 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 42 4 10M 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 69 7 17 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 69 76 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 46 14 SPLITS (%): 76 24 LINKS MOVING : 201 205 203 207 OFFSET = 2 SEC. 3 %. INTERSECTION 3 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 42 4 10M 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 69 7 17 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 69 76 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 46 14 SPLITS (%): 76 24 LINKS MOVING : 301 305 303 307 OFFSET = 4 SEC. 7 %. PAGE 11 +++ 193 +++ WARNING + THE OFFSET FALLS WITHIN 1% OF AN INTERVAL CHANGE POINT AT THE START OF INTERVAL NO. 4. TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS INTERSECTION 4 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 33 4 19 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 54 7 32 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 54 61 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 37 23 - SPLITS (%): 61 39 LINKS MOVING : 401 405 403 407 -404 -408 OFFSET = 56 SEC. 93 %. INTERSECTION 5 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 37 4 15 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 61 7 25 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 61 68 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 41 19 SPLITS (%): 68 32 LINKS MOVING : 501 508 503 -504 OFFSET = 15 SEC. 25 %. PAGE 12 TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS INTERSECTION 6 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 28 4 24 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 46 7 40 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 46 53 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 32 28 SPLITS (%): 53 47 LINKS MOVING : 601 605 603 607 -604 -608 OFFSET = 52 SEC. 87 %. INTERSECTION 7 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER : 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 29 4 23 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 48 7 38 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 48 55 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 33 27 SPLITS (%): 55 45 LINKS MOVING : 701 705 703 707 -704 -708 OFFSET = 7 SEC. 12 %. PAGE 13 TRANSYT-7F: CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS - INTERSECTION 8 PRETIMED - SPLITS OPTIMIZED INTERVAL NUMBER 1 2 3 4 INTVL LENGTH(SEC): 29 4 23 4 INTVL LENGTH (%): 48 7 38 7 PIN SETTINGS (%): 100/0 48 55 93 PHASE START (NO.): 1 2 INTERVAL TYPE : VYVY SPLITS (SEC): 33 27 SPLITS (%): 55 45 LINKS MOVING : 801 805 803 807 -804 -808 811 OFFSET = 12 SEC. 20 %. PAGE 14 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 15 CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS CASE NUMBER 3. INPUT DATA REPORT FOR ROUTE NO. 1 60 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TITLE CENTRAL AVE CEN03B THE DOWN DIRECTION IS SOUTH BOUND. 61 103 101 203 201 303 301 403 401 503 501 603 601 703 701 0 61 803 801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 16 CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS <ROUTE SUMMARY REPORT> CASE NUMBER 3. CENTRAL AVE CEN03B THE DOWN DIRECTION IS SOUTH BOUND. MOVEMENT/ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM MAX. BACK FUEL NODE NOS. V/C TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS OF QUEUE CONS. (X) (V-MI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) NO. (%) NO. CAP. (GA) 103 P: 81 24.98 5.51 4.53 24.7 573.( 87) 10 16 6.71 203 : 43 225.14 9.49 .66 2.5 201.( 21) 5 100 11.32 303 : 57 667.84 27.34 1.12 3.2 319.( 25) 7 224 31.86 403 P: 75 440.82 20.16 2.85 8.8 653.( 56) 13 160 24.34 503 P: 60 168.21 7.72 1.12 4.1 269.( 27) 6 72 9.39 603 P: 82 229.06 15.63 4.46 13.9 879.( 76) 16 84 16.77 703 P: 72 125.89 6.39 1.44 4.9 198.( 18) 5 50 7.46 803 P: 89 73.71 5.53 2.64 7.5 127.( 10) 8 25 5.73 DOWN : 89 1955.66 97.77 18.83 8.0 3219.( 38) 113.58 101 1 2.84 .16 .04 13.5 6.( 52) 0 100 .18 201 1 6.36 .26 .01 2.5 3.( 22) 0 224 .30 301 1 4.55 .20 .02 5.1 5.( 43) 0 160 .24 401 : 1 2.04 .10 .02 5.8 7.( 55) 0 72 .20 501 : 1 2.19 .11 .00 .7 0.( 4) 0 42 .11 601 : 2 1.29 .09 .04 14.4 10.( 88) 0 25 .18 701 : 2 .64 .04 .02 5.5 2.( 22) 0 12 .07 801 : 2 .42 .04 .03 8.3 5.( 48) 0 8 .08 UP : 2D 20.33 1.00 .18 7.0 39.( 42) 1.37 TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 17 CENTRAL AVE CENO3B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS <ROUTE TOTALS> PERFORMANCE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. UNIFORM FUEL TOTAL SYSTEM PERFOR- MEASURES TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY STOPS CONS. COST SPEED MANCE V-MI V-HR V-HR SEC/V NO. (%) GA MI/H INDEX <TOTALS> 1976 99 19 8.0 3258( 38) 115 325 20.0 25.7 NOTE: PERFORMANCE INDEX IS DEFINED AS: PI = DELAY + STOPS TRANSYT-7F: PAGE 18 CENTRAL AVE CEN03B CASE NUMBER 3. CYCLE: 60 SECONDS, 60 STEPS TERMINATION CARD 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- PROGRAM NOTE --- END OF JOB! TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5.0 PRELIMINARY ALl'ERNATIVE SCREENING Many alternatives were examined in varying degrees of detail. Some alternatives that are not feasible due to major impacts were examined in order to obtain a feel for the range of benefit that could be obtained. For example, widening Central Avenue to four lanes between 22nd Street and 32nd Street is not feasible, but it is helpful to know that approximately the same benefit can be obtained by widening 22nd Street and 32nd Street to four lanes and converting Central Avenue and Jackson Street to a one-way couplet. Refer to Table 4-2. Other alternatives are strictly theoretical and were evaluated to determine benefits from a given reduction in traffic. The following alternatives were evaluated to some degree and eliminated for the stated reasons: Alternative EX2 - Coordinate Traffic Signals Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street: Due to the considerable distance between signals in this area, the insignificant benefits achieved and costs involved, this alternative was eliminated. Alternative 3A - Widen Central Avenue to Four Lanes Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street: This alternative is not acceptable due to right-of-way constraints and major negative impacts on adjacent housing, businesses, schools and churches. Alternative 3B - Remove Parking and Widen Central Avenue to Four Lanes Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street: This is a variation of Alternative 3A. Right-of-way impacts would be less severe, but impacts to parking would be unacceptable. Alternative 5 - Construct a Southbound Right -Turn Lane at 22nd Street: While this alternative appears to offer some relief to the intersection of Central Avenue and 22nd Street, the overall system benefit is not significant in relation to the impact on affected properties. OTHER POTENTIAL AL I'ERNATIVES ELIMINATED Major New Highway Through the Corridor A new highway would have major negative impacts, be extremely costly and is not warranted based on existing traffic. 5-1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6.0 MAJOR ALTERNATIVES The preliminary screening of alternatives leaves us with a number of potential improvements that can be classified under one of four major alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 1 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)/EXISTING CORRIDOR The strategy of this alternative is to make full use of the existing street system through the implementation of a series of intersection and roadway improvements. It is anticipated that this alternative would include the following stages: • Improve Traffic Signalization and Coordination Timing o Widen 22nd Street From Central to Elm Street • Implement/Construct One -Way Couplet on Central Avenue and Jackson Street • Widen 32nd Street From Central to Elm Street/Railroad Alignment o Widen Central Avenue North of 32nd Street o Make Additional "Spot Improvements" Within the Corridor ALTERNATIVE 2 - TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT This alternative consists of a new two-lane alignment east of the existing corridor from Kerper Boulevard to Peru Road along existing railroad alignment on the edge of the Mississippi River. The objective of this alternative is to divert through traffic from the existing corridor onto this new alignment. ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) This alternative focuses on decreasing the number of vehicles on the street system during peak hours rather than increasing capacity of the existing roadway. This alternative would not include any improvements to the corridor or new alignments. Methods of decreasing traffic could include: • Car/Van Pools o Increased Public Transit o Remote Parking o Staggered Work Hours/Flex Time 6-1 New Arterial Through Corridor on New Alignment This alternative would have less impact than a major highway, but is still unacceptable due to limited right-of-way availability. Turn Restrictions This alternative was eliminated due to the potential safety hazards, enforcability and minimal benefits. The following alternatives have some merit and will at least be considered as alternatives for final evaluation. Alternative 1- Optimize Traffic Signal Timing and Offsets Alternative 4A - Widen 22nd Street to Four Lanes Alternative 4B - Widen 22nd Street and 32nd Street to Four Lanes Alternative 6A - Create a One -Way Couplet of Central Avenue and Jackson Street Between 22nd Street and 32nd Street Alternative 6B - A Combination of Alternatives 4A and 6A Alternative 6C - A Combination of Alternatives 4B and 6A Alternative 8 - Alignment Alternative 9 - Alignment Alternative 10 Alternative 11 R/Dubnorth/AA2 4,4 Alternative 4B Plus the Construction of the Elm Street/Railroad Alternative 6C Plus the Construction of the Elm Street/Railroad - Construct the Toe of the Bluff Alignment - Implement Traffic Demand Management (I DM) Strategies 5-2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6.0 MAJOR ALTERNATIVES The preliminary screening of alternatives leaves us with a number of potential improvements that can be classified under one of four major alternatives. ALTERNATIVE 1 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)/EXISTING CORRIDOR The strategy of this alternative is to make full use of the existing street system through the implementation of a series of intersection and roadway improvements. It is anticipated that this alternative would include the following stages: o Improve Traffic Signalization and Coordination Timing o Widen 22nd Street From Central to Elm Street • Implement/Construct One -Way Couplet on Central Avenue and Jackson Street • Widen 32nd Street From Central to Elm Street/Railroad Alignment • Widen Central Avenue North of 32nd Street • Make Additional "Spot Improvements" Within the Corridor ALTERNATIVE 2 - TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT This alternative consists of a new two-lane alignment east of the existing corridor from Kerper Boulevard to Peru Road along existing railroad alignment on the edge of the Mississippi River. The objective of this alternative is to divert through traffic from the existing corridor onto this new alignment. ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) This alternative focuses on decreasing the number of vehicles on the street system during peak hours rather than increasing capacity of the existing roadway. This alternative would not include any improvements to the corridor or new alignments. Methods of decreasing traffic could include: • Car/Van Pools o Increased Public Transit • Remote Parking • Staggered Work Hours/Flex Time 6-1 ALTERNATIVE 4 - ELM STREET/RAILROAD ALIGNMENT The Elm Street/railroad alignment is comprised of an extension of Elm Street north of 20th Street to 32nd Street, with a possible extension north of 32nd Street tieing into Central Avenue. The alignment would follow existing Elm Street from 20th Street to 26th Street and the abandoned CGW Railroad from 26th Street to 32nd Street. The purpose of this two- or three -lane street is to provide additional capacity and better route continuity within the corridor. These four alternatives were analyzed as described in Technical Memoranda 4.0 and 5.0. Due to the nature of Alternative 2 and its proximity to the study area, more detailed evaluation was required to determine the merits of this alternative. A field review was conducted to explore the proposed alignment and potential impacts. Estimates of demand traffic volumes and travel times were prepared. R/Dubnorth/AA3 6-2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 7.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RESULTS In order to determine the best alternatives to study in detail, criteria must be developed and the relative importance of these criteria must be determined. Based upon the study constraints and needs, the following criteria were determined to be of importance: Traffic Evaluation Criteria Factors Considered - Capacity - Delay Level of Service - Travel Time - Congestion Local Impact - Right -of -Way Needs - Housing/Relocation - Neighborhoods - Schools - Businesses Environmental Impact - Wetlands - Flood Plain Endangered Species Noise - Air Pollution Safety - Accident Exposure - Driver Expectancy - Design Speeds Parking/Access - Number of Parking Spaces - Location of Parking Spaces - Ease of Maneuvering - Driveway Operation - Access Routes Construction Cost Estimate - Relative Cost to Implement Alternative In order to determine the relative weight of each criterion, a form was developed and distributed at a Citizens Committee meeting. A copy of this form can be found on the next page. Members of the Citizens Committee, city staff and consultant representatives 7-1 Relative Importance (1-10 Pts Each DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY Check One: Citizen's Committee City Staff Consultant Representative PRELIMINARY EVALUATION MATRIX ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FACTORS Evaluation Criteria Factors Considered Traffic - Capacity Delay - Level of Service Travel Time - Congestion Local Impact Right -of -Way Needs Housing/Relocation - Neighborhoods Schools Businesses Environmental Impact - Wetlands - Flood Plain Endangered Species Noise Air Pollution Safety Accident Exposure Driver Expectancy Design Speeds Parking/Access Number of Parking Spaces Location of Parking Spaces Ease of Maneuvering Driveway Operation Access Routes Construction Cost Estimate - Relative Cost to Implement Alternative Please rank the evaluation criteria (10-highest, 1-lowest) based on your per- spective of what is best for the community. These will be collected at the second Citizen's Committee Meeting, December 5, 1991. U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA RESULTS • 1C7 O M LC) Of 10 Of CO 1 07 N LCi IC CO CO IC1 CO 1C7 IC 1L1 ▪ N IC lV M M M O *C1• 47 CPS CO CO CO 1C1 CO Of f. Pam. Of CD ICI LL7 0 W CO CC CO CO O 10 O • O O CC) . f, Of ti O O CO .vF CO CO N N O ICf O O CO CO CO Of Of 40 P.. /0 1� O CO *0 CPI W CO CO C CO O CD Of 1C7 LC) O Of Ia CO CO f~ /C O 4111. O N N 10 40 N CO ti "It CO r. 10 1+ O CO Of fD *0 he) O Cb CO CO 1+ r- In r O K1 K1 N O CO IC) N O d Of Cr) • 1+ O M O CO N O r CO r- O LOCAL IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSTRUCTION COST EST. TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEETING COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVES Alternative Advantages Disadvantages I. Transportation - Full Utilization of Existing System Management/ Lanes Existing Corridor - Significant Traffic Benefits - Can be Implemented in Stages - Adds Capacity Where Needed - Corrects Lane Continuity Problems - Few Negative Impacts - Limited Growth Potential - More Trucks on Jackson II. Toe of the Bluff - Less Local Disruption Alignment - Serves Deere Traffic - Scenic Drive - Cost - Does Not Meet Traffic Needs - No Local Access - Environmental Issues - Constructability - Aesthetics III. Transportation - Environmentally Sound/Sensitive Demand Management- Technically Feasible - Difficult to Implement - Drivers Too Independent - No Incentives or Penalties - Light Density (Number of Users) IV. Elm Street/ Railroad Alignment - Adds Capacity Where Needed - Matches Desired Route From Bridge - Provides Through Route (Missing Link) - Significant Traffic Benefits (Reduces Traffic on Central and Jackson) - New Construction - Neighborhood Impacts - Intersection Modifications Required R/Dubnorth/AB2 W CO 1- 1— ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX C., LL. L1- OC H Lea M m CA O CD CD 381 O O O co •.P Cr O W10 O O O Co M Cr O O O O CD i LL = 1-- F-• 1-- 0 OC 0 W V i LL N CC W W 0 S /1 W i •--• Z co OC C. Oa W /-- F- 1— J J J K •c t M M CD O Lea WO O 4— O TSM/ EXISTING COORRIDOR 10 A N Ca Les Cr O Cr L0 Cr La O ti O Lea TOE OF THE BLUFF ALIGNMENT •0 40, CV M 001 CO LSI CO Cr W OI M 4- Lea .••, 1 CO COO 1 CO m O /0 IMP ti /— W • • 1 /0 CO t independently ranked the criteria. Discussion groups were then formed to discuss the criteria and rankings and participants were allowed to change their rankings if they desired. The results of these rankings were tabulated and can be seen in Table 7-1. The results show general agreement among the three groups. The adjusted average of the group averages is to be used to assist in rating the four major alternatives. Citizens Committee and City Council input was used in conjunction with engineering evaluation to determine alternative rankings. See Table 7-2 for a summary of Citizens Committee meeting comments. An alternative evaluation matrix was prepared to summarize the strong and weak points of each alternative. The evaluation criteria and weights, previously determined, and assigned ratings were used to calculate an overall score for each alternative. Refer to Table 7-3. Alternatives 1 and 4 have the highest total scores and will therefore be evaluated further in the final evaluation. These two alternatives both address traffic needs but are quite different in other respects. The TSM alternative provides short-term solutions without major cost or impact. The Elm Street/railroad alternative provides a longer term, more substantial benefit but with significantly higher costs and impacts. The characteristics of these two alternatives indicate that they should be combined to form a single comprehensive "master plan." The combination of these two alternatives will provide substantial traffic benefits throughout the corridor. The primary reason for this modified approach is that single, large-scale corridor improvement, i.e., a major arterial constructed entirely on new alignment, has been shown in the preliminary evaluation to be neither necessary nor desirable. The master plan approach would include a series of incremental improvements consisting of one "final" alternative that can be implemented and constructed in stages as funding and local conditions permit. Both short-term and long-range needs for improved traffic flow would be addressed in this corridor master plan. R/Dubnorth/AA4 7-2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 8.0 BRIDGE CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES A better connection to the U.S. 61/151 bridge over the Mississippi River from the north has been needed for quite some time. This need was initially evaluated as a separate issue from the problems experienced along the U.S. 52 corridor, but was later found to be closely related to the corridor problems. 8.1 PROBLEM AND CONSTRAINTS There is currently no direct route from the northern part of the city of Dubuque (north of 16th Street) to the U.S. 61/151 bridge across the Mississippi River. The existing route most often utilized is south on Elm Street to 16th Street and east on 16th Street. This route includes an at -grade railroad crossing on 16th Street. If a driver were to follow designated highway routes, he would go south on Central Avenue to 9th Street and then east and north on 9th to 16th Street, or from 9th Street take the U.S. 61/151 frontage road and 11th Street on -ramp. Either way, the vehicle would travel five blocks farther south than necessary to get to 16th Street. Analysis shows that the intersection of Elm Street and 16th Street is currently near capacity, due primarily to traffic to and from the east. This causes congestion on Elm Street, severely limiting traffic benefits of the proposed Elm Street/Railroad Alignment. A new route from the Elm Street and 20th Street area to the new U.S. 61/151 freeway would provide the best access. Following is a list of constraints in the area: Railroad Facilities - The Soo Line Railroad runs along the easterly side of the study corridor, east of Elm Street. At approximately 16th Street, the railroad turns to the northeast and parallels Garfield Avenue. There are various railroad buildings and facilities in this area, although some have been removed in recent years. Existing Buildings - There are a number of industrial sites in the area, the largest being FDL Foods, Inc. Impacts to these buildings and adjacent facilities should be minimized. U.S. 61/151 Bridges - Most of the alignment of the new freeway between 11th Street and the Mississippi River is on bridge. Because of this and the expressway -type design of this portion of the freeway, no direct connection to U.S. 61/151 would be allowed. Water Detention/Flood Plains - Due to the proximity of potential routes to the Mississippi River, consideration must be given to impacts on and requirements of water detention basins and flood plains. Any new alignment connection to Kerper Boulevard would probably be on bridge because of these constraints. 8-1 Other Constraints - Constraints discussed in Technical Memorandum No. 3.0 also apply to bridge connection alternatives. These include: right-of-way, parking, access, housing, neighborhoods, schools and churches, business and industry, historic structures, environmental impacts and cost. 8.2 ALTERNATIVES Three bridge connection alternatives were explored during the preliminary evaluation of the U.S. 52 corridor alternatives: Alternative B1 - 16th Street Connection - Improve the existing route along Elm Street and 16th Street with an at -grade railroad crossing at 16th Street. Alternative B2 - 19th Street Connection - Construct new route from the intersection of Elm Street and 19th Street east to Kerper Boulevard with grade -separated railroad crossing. Alternative B3 - Kniest Street Connection - Construct new route from the intersection of Kniest Street and 22nd Street along Kniest Street alignment to the southeast and east to Kerper Boulevard with a grade -separated railroad crossing. Alternative B1 would be the least expensive alternative and somewhat more direct than a connection to Kerper Boulevard. This alternative would, however, be less beneficial to traffic due to constraints at Elm Street and 16th Street and the at -grade railroad crossing. Alternatives B2 and B3 would face similar obstacles due to existing railroad and FDL Foods facilities. The grade -separated railroad would offer a significant advantage. Also, substantial traffic increases and street improvements could be avoided in the sensitive area along Elm Street between 16th Street and 19th Street. During the final evaluation of U.S. 52 corridor improvements, it was determined that Alternative B3 was the best approach. This bridge connection plan, which became part of Phase II of the master plan, will provide needed additional corridor capacity and greater access to U.S. 61/151, especially to the east. R/Dubnorth/AB5 8-2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 9.0 EFFECTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION 9.1 U.S. 61/151 With construction recently completed on this relocated, elevated highway, the effects on corridor traffic have not been documented. It appears that there will be no major changes to traffic along the U.S. 52 route within the study limits due to the orientation and location of the new highway. It is also believed that traffic on Elm Street will increase somewhat north of 12th Street because of a new semi -direct connection to the freeway. Projected traffic volumes were not available from Iowa DOT. This new highway will serve traffic to the east and south, but does little for traffic in the northern part of the city. Refer to Figure 9-1. 9.2 NORTHWEST ARTERIAL This roadway has been constructed from U.S. 20 to JFK Road. The segment between JFK Road and U.S. 52 is scheduled for completion in the near future. Refer to Figures 9-2 and 9-3. The completion of this roadway will have some effect on corridor traffic. According to Northwest Arterial Environmental Impact Statement, the following changes in traffic can be expected: Location Change in Traffic Central Avenue North + 17% of N.W. Arterial Central Avenue North -17% of 32nd Street Central Avenue North -0.5% of 22nd Street 32nd Street West -14% of Central Avenue 22nd Street West -2% of Central Avenue 9-1 Although these numbers are based on outdated traffic models, the relative change in traffic is still significant. These numbers show major changes in traffic in the area around and north of 32nd Street. However, changes where the existing problems are occurring (22nd Street area) are not significant. R/Dubnorth/A36 9-2 FIGURE 9-1 U.S. 61 / 151 cam. free. • (/ LS 'AMH 1.11 01 0S+SOL 'V15 - 31VNd311V MO110H HIM MOIN11 101e ft ft O � h�j Q S .14 J Y[ g x NK W C. O. Y W -J r+ X. 4..e �r 40 K � 1' NO1103S4301 ZS 'MN 'S•l 100AY1 3110N8311Y - 31YN23112 M011014 ANYd NOINO 31110tl4 4 NY14 Z 0 � I- = W C N w CC J Iw- a z O N J CI O - 1- = Q CC 0 Q - C. x z • O N z = W 0 J - F OCC 0 a' J Z W 4 4C a Cc J w J d CC 0 tllO� ir 0 J Y u-a i - 0 X 0 J - H< cc —T 1'OW Kos 0.1 O z W rw W 0 '.0 0 S \\ 627.0 27.E x 624.5 X 617.0 X • 625.0 72 630.0X I) 62 x 625.0 x 62 5.0 624.E ROPOSED AC 619.5 ZS J CC CC z RELOCATED EXISTING ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT -_ _) PROPOSED GRADE +0.67 i� Cl/ 1-.,......1 I I W I C 'AMR YMOI - J 'AMH 'S'0 133M 00+0 . f 0 0 1 A TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 10.0 COMMUNITY AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT The project scope included a significant effort for community involvement. The community involvement process included a series of meetings with the City Council and Citizens Committee, which was selected by the Council. Three workshops were held with the Citizens Committee. These workshops involved discussion and participation relating to potential alternatives and key issues regarding the project corridor. The attachments included in this section contain agendas, meeting summaries and other pertinent information from the meetings. Two workshops were also held with the City Council. These workshops also provided valuable information on project history, community values and perspectives as well as overall direction to the project team. Periodic agency contacts were made throughout the project. These contacts included city staff, Iowa DOT and other agencies potentially impacted by the alternatives. Letters and summaries of these contacts are also included in this section of the technical memoranda. In general, the community involvement effort was successful in identifying potential alternatives and problem areas, observations from actual corridor users and community perspectives on the problem and solutions presented. A Citizens Committee Workbook was given to each participant to assemble and organize information and handouts used in the study process. Excerpts from this workbook are included in the following section. R/Dubnorth/AB9 10-1 1 10.1 CITIZENS COMMITTEE WORKSHOPS NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA CITIZENS COMMITTEE WORKBOOK ) CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ) JAMES GIESEN COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE 1600 LoRI STREET DUBUQUE IA 52001 (319) 556-5125 JAMES MILLER LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RUEGNITZ DRUGS 1920 ELM STREET DUBUQUE IA 52001 (319) 583-7379 JANET BUSCH LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 2433 BROADWAY DUBUQUE IA 52001 (319) 583-1477 DAVE PESCH TRANSPORTATION PLANNER E.C.I.A. 799 MAIN STREET- DUBUQUE IA 52001 (319) 556-4166 RICHARD WHITTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE O'CONNOR & THOMAS, PC 200 CYCARE PLAZA DUBUQUE IA 52001 (319) 557-8400 CITY OF DUBUQUE STAFF LAURA CARSTENS, CITY PLANNER MIKE KOCH, CITY ENGINEER STEPHANI JOHNSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FRANK MURRAY, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CONSULTANT STAFF ROBERT L. (BOB) LENTZ, PROJECT MANAGER WILLIAM E. (BILL) CARY, PROJECT ENGINEER ANTHONY J. (TONY) BOES, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER FIRM BRICE, PETRIDES-DONOHUE CO. 501 SYCAMORE STREET, SUITE 222 P.O. Box 1497 WATERLOO IA 50704-1497 (319) 232-6531 THE C I T Y Or DUBUQUE !:41‘ . ar /I J 4 ` 11 re if Mr. Richard Whitty Chamber of Commerce - Transportation Committee O'Connor & Thomas, PC 200 CyCare Plaza Dubuque, IA 52001 Dear Richard: FRAMCIS A. IBVIRA♦ • PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY HALL • DUBUQUE. IOWA S200t TELEPHONE f31S) Sif-4270 February 20, 1991 We thank you for volunteering to participate in a Citizens Committee to study the transportation system in the northside of Dubuque and to evaluate alternatives for the improvement of this system in the forthcoming years. The first Citizens Committee meeting on this project will be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 5, 1991 in Conference Room 'A' at City Hall. Attached is a copy of this agenda. The City of Dubuque has selected Brice, Petrides - Donohue Engineers from Waterloo, Iowa to assist us in conducting this study. Brice, Petrides is well indoctrinated in the transportation problems on the north side of Dubuque since the company was engineering firm which conducted the study for the Northwest Arterial. Representatives from the firm will cover the issues outlined on the agenda. It is anticipated that a second meeting would be required within 30 to 45 days for a selection of alternatives. The City Council has requested that a report be made to thew prior to finalizing any recommendations. We would anticipate that a final report should be completed some time mid -summer 1991. Members of the committee are as follows: James Giesen Community Housing Task Force 1600 Lori Street Dubuque, IA 52001 (319) 556-5125 James Miller Long Range Planning Committee Ruegnitz Drugs 1920 Elm Street Dubuque, IA 52001 (319) 583-7379 Janet Busch League of Women Voters 2433 Broadway Dubuque, IA 52001 (319) 583-1477 Dave Pesch Transportation Planner E.C.I.A. 799 Main Street Dubuque, IA 52001 (319) 556-4166 Mr. Richard Whitty February 20, 1991 Page 2 Richard Whitty Chamber of Commerce - Transportation Committee O'Connor & Thomas, PC 200 CyCare Plaza Dubuque, IA 52001 (319) 557-8400 Staff representation will be as follows: Laura Carstens, City Planner Mike Koch, City Engineer Stephani Johnson, Assistant City Manager Frank Murray, Public Works Director Should you have any questions relative to the purpose of this study or the proposed agenda for the meeting of March 5, 1991, please call me. Francis A. Murray L Public Works Director FAM/ksa cc: Robert L. Lentz, P.E. Brice, Petrides - Donohue 501 Sycamore Street Suite 222, P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAFFIC STUDY CITIZENS' COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 5, 1991 Agenda 1. Review Scope and Objectives of Project 2. Purpose of Citizens Committee * Provide Input During Development of Alternatives * Represent Project Area During Screening Process * Provide Comments for Decision Makers 3. Review of Transportation Planning Process 4. Review Status of Project * Existing Conditions * Results of Preliminary Evaluation * City Council Input 5. Discussion of Potential Alternatives 6. Discussion and Comments from Committee Members on Local Perspectives 7. Review of Project Approach: Where do we go from here? 8. Set Date for Second Citizens' Committee Meeting ROLE OF CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE * Provide Early Input * Represent Project Area * Provide Comments for Decision -Makers PROJECT APPROACH ESTABLISH NEED ANALYZE CORRIDOR • Traffic * Accidents • Constraints IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION • Preliminary Screening • Final Evaluation • Citizen's Committee FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECISION -MAKING IMPLEMENTATION MINOR IMPROVEMENT • Concept • Design • Construction PROCESS MAJOR IMPROVEMENT • Concept • Scoping • Alternatives • EIS / EA • Location Hearing • Master Planning • Design Hearing ng • Final Design • R-O-W • Mitigation • COnetruCtIon . i TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT • 0 S. 0 Study • Occupancy Study • Transit Study • Employer Surveys • Employee Surveys • Parking Surveys • Evaluation of Alternatives • Implementation EXAMPLES. OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS MINOR IMPROVEMENTS * Signal Coordination * Turn Prohibitions * Minor Parking Restrictions * Spot Improvements * 1-way / 2-way MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS * Added Lanes in Corridor * Major Parking Revisions * New Alignment TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT * Car / Van Pools * Increased Public Transit * Remote Parking * Staggered Work Hours CORRIDOR CAPACITY (with improvements) TIME ) NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAFFIC STUDY CITIZENS' COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 5, 1991 CITIZENS' COMMITTEE RESPONSE FROM MEETING NO. 1 6 Mar 91 Mr. Robert L. Lentz Brice, Petrides-Donohue P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 Dear Mr. Lentz: I am pleased to be part of the Citizens Committee reviewing proposals for the Northside traffic plan of Dubuque. Since I came to this committee as a result of being active on a Housing Commission Task Force, I will speak first from that perspective. We have a significant shortage of affordable housing for low and moderate income folks in this city. Efforts should be made to minirni7P the loss of any affordable housing for low income people. We should quantify the impact of traffic changes or routing on the residents that are directly impacted. For instance, If a change in traffic planning improves the stopping time for drivers from 15 seconds to 9 seconds,does it increase the speed of traffic, number of trucks , parking spaces lost or time to cross the street for the immediate neighbors? We are doing this planning for 20,000 local drivers daily , how will this impact the local residents? There will, of course, be positive and negative trade-offs for residents adjacent to affected traffic routes. My point is that we should do as much anatysis bearing on the residents as we do for the drivers. Since there will be open meetings some time in the future, the more information that is up front on these points the sooner the general public can get behind a good program and support it. I believe that there is a primary need to provide better access to the Highway 61 bridge from the north end of the city. The current routes are unreasonable. I believe there is potential to pursue the concept of carrying northbound traffic on Jackson to 32nd or beyond with acceptable impact on the residents. Consideration might be given to maintaining White as the northbound route up to 20th, 21st or 22nd where it would swing over to Jackson. I have been living in Dubuque for five years. -I have been driving through it since 1968 on the route we are discussing. It was my north/south (not east/west) route between Moline and Minneapolis. However, one of the things about the city that I appreciate are the solid and attractive homes that are located along the routes that we are talking about. They are the history of the working class folks of Dubuque and ,I think, give a positive view of the background of the city. I would like all the traffic to see these homes while they drive slowly by them. I want our progress to be done tastefully with the residents that live adjacent to the traffic to be given full consideration. Sincerely. James E. Giesen NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAFFIC STUDY CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1991 AGENDA 1. STATUS OF PROJECT 2. EVALUATION OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT 3. IMPACT OF FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION 4. ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CORRIDOR 5. 'TOE OF THE BLUFF" ALTERNATIVE 6. PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF EVALUATION MATRIX 7. SCHEDULE A. NEXT MEETING DATE B. REPORT COMPLETION TARGET DATES T/L/UW6 Brice, Petrides= November 27, 1991 Citizens Committee Members Northside Major Arterial Study - US 52 Corridor James Giesen James Miller Janet Busch Dave Pesch Richard Whitty ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS Dear Committee Members: We have scheduled the second citizens committee -meeting for Thursday, December 5, 1991, at 7 p.m. in Conference Room A - City Hall. Several activi- ties have been ongoing over the past few months which should be of interest to all members. At this meeting we will be prepared to review our findings to date and to establish a schedule for completion of the final report. We look forward to seeing you on the 5th. Sincerely, BRICE, PErRIDES-DONOHUE CO. William E. Cary, P.E. WEC:mcm Enclosure cc: Mike Koch, P.E. Stephanie Johnson T/L/UW3 IN 501 Swaim Sara. Suite 222. P.O. Box 1497. Waterloo. kwa 50704-1497 ■ 319.232.6531 ■ Pas 319.232.0271 Printed (WI rt u 1(rl pap 7: MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Cary Bob Lentz FROM: Tonv Boes DATE: December 13,1991 SUBJECT: Dubuque U.S. 52 Corridor Second Citizens Committee Meeting On December 5, 1991, the second citizen's committee was held at city_ hall in Dubuque. Attending were the following: Citizen's Committee James Giesen James Miller Janet Busch Dave Pesch Richard Witty Ciry Staff Brice. Petrides-Donohue Mike Koch Gus Psihovos Stephani Johnson Laura Carstens 1. Overview of the project, recent developments. Bill Cary Tony Boes Dick King 2. Discussion of existing, corridor. Significance of 22nd Street and 32nd Street. Alternate routes (Jackson Street, Elm Street). 3. Impact of new highway construction (U.S. 61). Citizens comments: JG: Traffic was out of whack due to U.S. 20 bridge closure. LC: Drives route from 20th to city hall four times a day. Traffic always seems the same. Uses Elm Street to go north. Has seen little change on Elm Street over the past few years. RW: Less traffic on 5th Street since part of U.S. 61 has opened. Sometimes diverts from Central to Bluff. Sometimes diverts to Jackson and turns off at 16th Street. Annoyed by circle in Washington and 16th Street. 4. Alternate improvements discussed. Overview of arterial analysis results. Discussion of one-way connection alternatives for White and Jackson. JM: Questioned what would happen to 21st Street between Central and White. (Probably would still be one way.) RW: Questioned where one-way change occurs on Jackson. JB: Biggest problem at Central and 22nd Street. MK: Concerned about mix at truck traffic along Jackson if designated U.S. 52. 5. Toe of the Bluff Alternative. Discussion of field review, estimated traffic demand, potential obstacles and cost. 6. Preliminary evaluation matrix. All attending asked to complete evaluation criteria form. Group divided into three groups to discuss. 7. Discussion of schedule. Next meeting date tentatively set for January 16, 1992. City Council workshop and following dates moved back a month to accommodate City Council budget workshops. T/M/FF6 NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAFFIC STUDY CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1992 AGENDA 1. REVIEW EVALUATION MATRIX RANKINGS 2. ELM STREET/RAILROAD ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 3. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT A. DEFINITION B. EXAMPLES 4. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES 5. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES FOR FINAL EVALUATION 6. JOINT SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL A. FORMAT B. OBJECTIVES SCHEDULE - NEXT MEETING DATE T/L/UW6 Brice, Petrides- January 6, 1992 Citizen's Committee Members James Giesen James Miller Janet Busch Dave Pesch Richard Whitty Re: Northside Major Arterial Study - U.S. 52 Corridor Dear Committee Members: ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS Enclosed is a summary sheet which shows a breakdown of the ranking of preliminary evaluation criteria. It appears that the three highest ranked criteria are traffic, local impact and safety. These six factors will be used at our next meeting to evaluate alternatives to be included in the final ranking and evaluation. I look forward to meeting with you on the 16th at City Hall, 7:00 p.m. Sincerely, BRICE, PETRIS-DONOHUE CO. William E. Cary, P.E. WEC:blc Enclosure cc: Mr. Mike Koch, P.E. Ms. Staphani Johnson T/L/VE6 ■ 501 Sy vnlore Street. Suite 222. P_ . Bar 1497. Hexerloo. kr.0 50 04-1497 ■ 319. 23L6531 i Far 319 232.0271 13-Doc-91 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.B. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA RESULTS EVALUATION CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE CITY STAFF CONSULTANTS AVERAGE OF ADJUSTED CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 6 AVERAGE 1 2 3 4 AVERAGE 1 2 3 4 AVERAGE LOW HIGH 3 OROUPS AVERAGE TRAFFIC 8 10 5 10 7 8.0 10 10 8 10 9.5 10 10 8 9 9.3 5 10 6.9 10,0 LOCAL IMPACT 4 9 5 8 10 7.2 9 9 10 8 9.0 8 10 8 7 8.3 4 10 8.2 9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 2 3 2 6 8 4.2 4 0 6 8 0.0 4 8 6 7 8.3 2 8 5.5 6,1 SAFETY 10 7 10 7 9 8.6 5 8 9 9 7.6 8 7 8 9 6.0 5 10 8.1 9.1 PARKING/ACCESS 1 7 6 1 6 4.6 6 8 5 8 0.8 3 7 6 0 6.5 1 8 5.6 6.3 CONSTRUCTION COST EST. 6 10 5 5 5 0.2 7 7 7 8 7.3 2 9 10 6 6,5 2 10 0.7 7.5 LOW 1 3 2 1 6 4 0 6 8 HIGH ' 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 7 6 6 10 10 10 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Cary Bob Lentz FROM: Tony Boes DATE: January 20, 1992 SUBJECT: Dubuque U.S. 52 Corridor Study Third Citizens Committee Meeting On January 16, 1992,the Third Citizen's committee meeting was held at city hall in Dubuque. Attending were the following: Brice, Petrides- Citizen's Committee City Staff Donohue James Giesen Mike Koch Bill Cary Janet Busch Gus Psihoyos Tony Boes Richard Witty Stephani Johnson 1. Review of evaluation criteria. General agreement between the three groups. 2. Discussion of Elm St./Railroad Alignment. 3. Discussion of Transportation Demand Management Alternatives (TDM). Citizen's Committee Comments: JG: Questioned who would be served by the Elm St./Railroad alignment. RW: Asked what an acceptable peak hour volume per lane would be. How do we know what traffic on the Elm St./Railroad alignment would be when opened? JG: Do we have any specific examples of TDM working in other communities? Skeptical of TDM solutions due to volumes and sources of traffic. JB: John Deere used to have a van pool bus, but it was discontinued. RW: Also pessimistic about TDM. A local hospital used to provide a drop-off service near the Julien -Dubuque Bridge. People were not very receptive to it. JG: Feels TDM not likely to be successful in Dubuque. JG: Housing Task Force doesn't want to encourage traffic to use Elm St. North of 20th St., Elm St. is a very narrow corridor. Wondered if there was some major 4- lane alternative in the works for 20 years or so from now. RW: Concerned about turning traffic at 32nd St. with Elm St./Railroad alignment. Could we extend this alignment north and swing to the west to tie into U.S. 52 at the Aquin Avenue area. Ls there a certain alternative that would be more likely to receive federal or state funds? JG: Wondered how far we can take TSM alternative. Will it solve the problem forever, or for two years? 4. Discussion of all alternatives considered: A. TSM/Existing Corridor Alternatives Traffic signals, timing and coordination Intersection improvements Parking, one side Widening, 22nd St., 32nd St. Turn lanes One-way changes U.S. 52 route designation Improved signage, lane designation Speed limits B. "Toe of the Bluff' Alignment 1) Benefits: Scenic Drive Less local disruption Serves Deere traffic (25%+ Ill./Wis.) 2) Problems: Doesn't meet needs No local access Environmental issues Cost vs. use _ Concern with s. terminus Constructability Aesthetics Single industry user C. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 1) Benefits: Environmentally Sound/Sensitive Technically Feasible 2) Problems: Drivers too independent Light density (number of users) No incentives/penalties Not flexible for varying work hours D. Elm St./Railroad Alignment 1) Benefits: Matches desired route from bridge Through route - missing link Better utilization of 16th Si access 2) Problems: _ Major new construction (26th - 32nd) Neighborhood impact (16th - 22nd) Kniest intersection modifications 5. Recommended Alternatives for Final Evaluation: Brice, Pretides-Donohue recommended Transportation System Management/Existing Corridor alternatives and the Elm St./Railroad alignment. It was further recommended that these alternatives not be studied independently, but as stages of the same long range plan. General agreement was obtained from the Citizens committee. 6. Joint Session with City Council: The committee was asked to participate in the City Council work session. Possible dates for the meeting are March 9, 23, or 30. Miscellaneous Comments: Citizen's Committee would like to have a copy of the U.S. 61 location map. There will be a need to discuss the Kerper Blvd. connection at the council session (possible 16th St. or l9th St. connection). Mike would like Brice, Petrides-Donohue to refine "Toe of the Bluff' cost estimate. He feels 5 million is too low. T/M/FG8 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SUMMARY OF CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEETING COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVES Alternative Advantages Disadvantages I. Transportation - Full Utilization of Existing System Management/ Lanes Existing Corridor - Significant Traffic Benefits - Can be Implemented in Stages - Adds Capacity Where Needed - Corrects Lane Continuity Problems - Few Negative Impacts - limited Growth Potential - More Trucks on Jackson II. Toe of the Bluff Alignment - I Pss Local Disruption - Serves Deere Traffic - Scenic Drive - Cost - Does Not Meet Traffic Needs - No Local Access - Environmental Issues - Constructability - Aesthetics III. Transportation Demand Management - EnvironmentalIy Sound/Sensitive - Technically Feasible - Difficult to Implement - Drivers Too Independent - No Incentives or Penalties - Light Density (Number of Users) IV. Elm Street/ Railroad Alignment Adds Capacity Where Needed Matches Desired Route From Bridge - Provides Through Route (Missing Link) - Significant Traffic Benefits (Reduces Traffic on Central and Jackson) - New Construction - Neighborhood Impacts - Intersection Modifications Required S06cD<F000 NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1993, 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Recap of Study 2. Discussion of Final Recommendations 3. Public Relations Activities 4. Joint Session With City Council a. Objectives b. Schedule T/M/Agenda. WEC MEMORANDUM DATE: July 8, 1993, 7:00 p.m. City Hall, Dubuque, Iowa TO: FROM: Bill Cary RE: Northside Major Arterial U.S. 52 Corridor Study Citizen's Committee Meeting RUST Project No. 50604 ATTENDEES: Janet Bush, Jim Giesen, Jim Miller, Rich Whitty (Citizen's Committee Members) Mike Koch, Stephani Johnson (City of Dubuque) Bill Cary (RUST E&I) An agenda distributed at the meeting is attached. Discussion Items 1. A recap of the study process and discussion of the final recommendations was presented by Bill. This presentation covered the evolution of the initial, preliminary and final alternatives and highlighted the components of the Phase I and Phase II recommended improvements. Considerable interest was shown by the committee, and several questions relating to specifics of the proposed were raised. 2. There was concensus that the safety, accident, congestion and other problems relating to the 22nd Street and Central Avenue intersection should be more thoroughly explained at the Council workshop when the proposed extension of the one-way couplet to 24th Street on White was presented. The committee felt that this would help to identify the benefits of the plan relating to Phase I and to address the potential concerns of adjacent property owners and business owners. It was also requested by a committee member that the accident rate diagram be updated prior to this meeting. 3. A question arose in regard to the congestion which is currently present at the school crossings due to the random operation. The feeling was that the signals, as they currently operate, add to the overall corridor congestion. The response was that this was identified as a problem area and would be addressed by the construction and Northside Major Arterial July 8, 1993 Page 2 installation of a new traffic signal system, which would include all of the school crossings. This improvement would add to the uniformity in traffic flow through these areas without decreasing school safety, which is a priority issue at these locations. 4. A question was raised in regard to project phasing, especially Phase II which is a really comprehensive and major undertaking. Mike indicated that that would be a logical end result of a construction project of this nature, due to the timing and availability of project approvals, right-of-way funding, etc. 5. A joint session with the City Council will be held on an "off Monday" as a special City Council workshop session. The citizen's committee will be invited to participate in the discussion with the Council. Mike also indicated that this joint session would be just the first presentation of the final plan in that the adoption of the plan would take place at a future meeting. He also indicated it may be necessary for us to meet with the new City Manager, Michael Van Milligan, to explain the plan since he has virtually no contact with any of the plan or its development. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mike indicated his satisfaction with the progress of the study and the meeting, in general. Mike did indicate, however, that his concern relates to the deletion of Phase III, or the northerly extension of the railroad alignment north of 32nd Street. While he supports this deletion based upon the analysis and evaluation of alternatives, he feels this will be an issue with the Mayor and City Council, which will need to be carefully explained. 6. Mike outlined his feelings about public discussions of the plan in the interim prior to the joint session with the City Council. No private initiatives for discussion of the components of the plan should be undertaken by the committee members. However, if questions should arise from the general public or specific property owners, the committee is free to respond as necessary in order to explain the recommendations. Mike's concern is that the timing of any public discussions coming prior to the joint session will create problems for the Council members due to their lack of awareness of the final recommendations. Mike pointed out that he has not updated the Mayor and/or Council as to the status of the final recommendations. He indicated that this would be accomplished at a joint session with. all Council members and the Mayor present. Dictated by William E. Cary, 7/9/93. T/M/nsidmemo.wee 10.2 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPS NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAFFIC STUDY DUBUQUE, IOWA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SFS.SION MONDAY, JUNE 8,1992; 7:00 - 8:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Project Snnmmary by Consultant A. Project Status B. Objectives of Council Workshop C. Description of Alternatives D. Traffic Evaluation E. Corridor Master Plan Concept 3. Council Participation Activities - Group Discussion A. Problem Identification B. Objectives of Project C. Alternative Evaluation D. Recommended Alternatives 4. Final Report and Recommendations 5. Schedule 5. Other Comments/Wrap-Up MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Cary Bob Lentz FROM: Tony Boes DATE: June 9. 1992 SUBJECT: Dubuque U.S. 52 Corridor Study Second City Council Workshop BP-D Project No. 50604 On June 8, 1992, the Second City Council Workshop committee meeting was held at the Public Library Auditorium in Dubuque. Attending were the following: City Council and Staff Mike Koch, Public Works Director Stephani Johnson. Asst. City Man. Ken Gearhardt, City Manager Don Deich, Council Loras Kluesner, Council Jim Brady, Mayor Dan Nicholson, Council Dirk Voetberg, Council Citizens Committee Janet Busch James Giesen James Miller Richard Whin Consultants Bill Cary Tony Boes Kluesner: Has a complete report been submitted? Disappointed that we don't have any O/D information. Deich: Toe of the Bluff would be a higher speed facility. Feels it is practically built already. Oxygen content of air along existing corridor 18-21 percent, should be 22 percent. "Freeway in the City," 1972 says freeways should go around cities, not through them. Voetberg: Need traffic information for Sheridan, Roosevelt, and Windsor areas. Brady: There is no good route north to east. Our Elm Street alignment won't solve this problem. Need a connection from 19th or Kniest to Kerper. Build Elm Street alignment from IA 386 to 20th Street area. Deich: Northwest Arterial will take traffic off 32nd Street. Brady: If Jackson becomes part of a one-way couplet, it should extend north beyond 32nd to avoid having 22nd Street problems at 32nd. Citizen comment: Railroad alignment will have right-of-wav problems. There will be disputes over who owns it. The width may not be sufficient. Mav be expensive. FLIP CHART COMMENTS Problem Identification Inefficient existing network (one-wav pairs) Unsafe Objectives of Project Provide most efficient connection to U.S. 61 Service to industries, logical routes. good access Divert traffic from existing system Maintain liveable housing stock Maintain on -street parking Relieve traffic flow at major east -west intersections Alternative Evaluation I. TSM/Existing Corridor Don't terminate Central/Jackson one-wav at 32nd. Extend Jackson north Questionable efficiency of one-wav couplet. - Impact of Deere traffic? 24th Street widening required? Concerned about speeds of one-way streets - School zones will require signals, changed school bus routes - Major impacts with 22nd Street widening to 4-lane - limited width - No new routes, no diversion - Concerns about 24th intersections II. Toe of the Bluff Alignment - Changes in industrial employment. no advantage based on existing conditions - Original concept no longer valid, scenic route - Limited service - Cost. difficult to get funding III. Transportation Demand Management - No further consideration should be given to this alternative IV. Elm Street/Railroad Alignment - Provide connection 22nd Street to Kerper via Kniest, closing Garfield. Provides more direct connection to U.S. 61. - Less disruption of housing and neighborhoods - Best utilization of U.S. 61. - Consider 3-lane - Improved traffic flow - Extend north terminus north of 32nd at least to Lk 386 - No improvements south of 22nd - Reduced neighborhood impacts due to bridge connection - Bridge connection provides good tie-in to Kerper industrial area Recommended Alternatives Investigate further the impacts of the Northwest Arterial completion. Support needed for construction Need to evaluate funding strategies. state assistance Additional Comment Voetberg: Intersection of 22nd and Windsor is a major intersection Brady: E1m/Railroad should become U.S. 52, with possible diamond interchange at IA 386 Busch: Concerned about blind corners at intersections along Central and Jackson Giesen: Concerned about saving low and moderate income housing Miller: Skeptical of Central/Jackson one-way. Should pursue Elm/Railroad alignment Whitty: Problems due mostly to local traffic. Need to be concerned about schools in the corridor. A better connection to the bridge is needed. Deich: Need to be more concerned about people than traffic Kluesner: Need something that can be implemented soon Nicholson: Agrees with Kluesner T/M/FQ5 PROJECT STATUS The Dubuque Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study has evolved considerably since it began several months ago. A large amount of data has been collected and analyzed. Preliminary evaluations were performed and potential improvements have been identified A number of meetings were held with city staff and the ati7Pns committee. The citi7Pns committee meetings were valuable as a way of providing local input into the evaluation of problems observed and validity of potential solutions. The city staff and citizens committee also provided insight into the relative importance of alternative evaluation criteria. We have emerged from the preliminary evaluation process with four major alternatives. Two of these alternatives have been recommended for further study with concurrence from city staff and the citizens committee. OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP The objectives of the Council Workshop center around two items. The first objective is to provide an update on the activities to date relating to the study and evaluation process. The second, and primary objective, is to provide an opportunity for further ideas and input into the final evaluation of alternatives now that the preliminary evaluation has been completed. The general types of improvements and alternatives to be included in the final evaluation will be thoroughly discussed. A decision on specific components of the final recommendations will not be made at this meeting, however. This workshop is an important interim step in the effort to further refine the alternatives and to complete the final evaluation of these alternatives. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Alternative One - Transportation System Management (TSM)/Existing Corridor The strategy of this alternative is to make full use of the existing street system through the implementation of a series of intersection and roadway improvements. It is anticipated that this alternative would include the following stages: Improve traffic signalization and coordination timing. Widen 22nd Street from Central to Elm Street. Implement/construct one-way couplet on Central Avenue and Jackson Street. Widen 32nd Street from Central to Elm Street/railroad alignment. Widen Central Avenue north of 32nd Street. Make additional "spot improvements" within the corridor. 2. Alternative Two - Toe of the Bluff Alignment This alternative consists of a new two-lane alignment east of the existing corridor from Kerper Boulevard to Peru Road along existing railroad alignment on the edge of the Mississippi River. The objective of this alternative is to divert through traffic from the existing corridor onto this new alignment 3. Alternative Three - Transportation Demand Management (-1DM) This alternative focuses on decreasing the number of vehicles on the street system during peak hours rather than increasing capacity of the existing roadway. This alternative would not include any improvements to the corridor or new alignments. Methods of decreasing traffic could include: Car/van pools_ Increased public transit. Remote parking Staggered work hours/flex time. 4. Alternative Four - Elm Street/Railroad Alignment The Elm Street/railroad alignment is comprised of an extension of Elm Street north of 20th Street to 32nd Street, with a possible extension north of 32nd Street tieing into Central Avenue_ The alignment would follow existing Elm Street from 20th Street to 26th Street and the abandoned CGW Railroad form 26th Street to 32nd Street. The purpose of this two- or three -lane street is to provide additional capacity and better route continuity within the corridor. As originally proposed, this alternative consisted of a new three -lane roadway along the entire railroad alignment. The preliminary evaluation process has identified the need to construct a multi -phase solution which will more closely address the congestion problems in the corridor. TRAFFIC EVALUATION Evaluation of existing and future traffic under the various alternatives is based on the following: HCS Intersection Analysis TRANSYT-7F Corridor Analysis - Travel Time Studies and Calculations - Field Observations Results of the analysis of existing conditions show high levels of delay and congestion during peak hours (3-5 p.m.). This congestion is due largely to a lack of continuity of the U.S. 52 corridor. The corridor consists of a one-way couplet with two lanes in each direction that merges into a two-way two-lane roadway and then widens to a two-way four - lane facility. This constriction from four to two lanes causes diversion to parallel routes (Jackson Street and Elm Street). Evaluation of the four major alternatives yields the following results: Alternative Traffic Operations Description Percent Improvement I TSM/Existing Corridor 25-35 II Toe of the Bluff Alignment 10-20 III TDM 10-20 IV Elm Street/Railroad Alignment 40-50 V Alternatives I and IV Combined 60-80 CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN CONCEY1 A modified approach to the preparation of the final report and formulation of the final recommendations will be presented at the workshop. The preliminary evaluation process has shown that combining two of the alternatives can provide a substantial improvement in the corridor traffic flows. As a result, the development of a comprehensive "master plan" has been proposed. This corridor master plan would include critical elements of these two most -promising alternatives. The master plan would also include a detailed list of recommendations and implementation schedule to coordinate all improvements envisioned for the corridor. The specifics of these improvements will be further refined in the final evaluation process. The primary reason for this modified approach is that single, large-scale corridor improvement, i.e. a major arterial constructed entirely on new alignment, has been shown in the preliminary evaluation to be neither necessary nor desirable. The master plan approach would include a series of incremental improvements consisting of one "final" alternative that can be implemented and constructed in stages as funding and local conditions permit. Both short-term and long-range needs for improved traffic flow would be addressed in this corridor master plan. Reports/Dub/AA0 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY SUMMARY OF CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEETING COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVES Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Transportation System Management/ Existing Corridor Full Utilization of Existing - Limited Growth Potential Lanes - More Trucks on Jackson Significant Traffic Benefits - Can be Implemented in Stages - Adds Capacity Where Needed - Corrects Lane Continuity Problems - Few Negative Impacts II. Toe of the Bluff Alignment - Less Local Disruption - Serves Deere Traffic - Scenic Drive - Cost - Does Not Meet Traffic Needs - No Local Access - Environmental Issues - Constructability - Aesthetics Transportation - Environmentally Sound/Sensitive Demand Management - Technically Feasible - Difficult to Implement - Drivers Too Independent - No Incentives or Penalties - Light Density (Number of Users) TV. Elm Street/ Railroad Alignment - Adds Capacity Where Needed - Matches Desired Route From Bridge - Provides Through Route (Missing Link) - Significant Traffic Benefits (Reduces Traffic on Central and Jackson) - New Construction - Neighborhood Impacts - Intersection Modifications Required DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY TRAFFIC BENEFI IS OF TRANSPORTATION SYS I IZM MANAGEMENT (TSM)/ EXIS 1 ING CORRIDOR OPTIONS Options Benefits Implement/Construct One -Way Couplet Widen Side Streets Improve Traffic Signalization and Coordination Timing - Improve Lane Continuity and Route Identification - No Opposing Traffic on Mainline - More Efficient - Better Signal Coordination and Timing - Improved Safety Due to Reduced Conflicts - Allows Green Time to be Transferred to Mainline - Does Not Increase Pedestrian Crossing Times on Mainline - Shorter Queue Lengths - Reduce Wasted Signal Time - Reduce Total Delay to All Vehicles - Can Provide Different Timing Plans for A.M. Peak, P.M. Peak and Off -Peak Times :1• U 10.3 AGENCY COORDINATION Brice, Petrides- ENGINEE RS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS July 25, 1990 Mr. Pat Cain, P.E. Director, Office of Transportation Inventory Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 Re: Dubuque, Iowa - U.S. 52 Corridor Study Request for Information Dear Pat, The city of Dubuque has hired our firm to conduct a traffic study of the U.S. 52 corridor in the north side area of Dubuque. As a part of this study, we are requesting traffic count data and maps from your office. The 1. information requested is listed below: System Map - City of Dubuque. 2. Traffic Flow Map. 3. All available traffic count information, including recorder count summaries, manual count turning movements and hourly volumes at the following locations. Street/Route 1. Central Avenue (U.S. 52, Iowa 3) 2. White Street 3. Kerper Boulevard (U.S. 61, 151) 4. East 20th Street (Iowa 924) 5. Additional Locations, Available ■ 501 Sycamore Street Suitt 222 P.O. &u 1497 Hbutloo. lo4o3 50704-1497 319 232.6531 Telefax 319 232.0271 as Limits 1st Street to West John Deere Road (1-386) 1st Street to 32nd Street East llth Street, East 16th Street Central Avenue to Roose- velt Avenue Adjacent to and Within the Corridor Described Above Brice, Petrides- ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS As per our discussion on July 24, my understanding is that the latest information was taken in 1989. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at this office. Sincerely, BRICE, PETRIDES-DONOHUE CO. William E. Cary, P.E. WEC:blc cc: Mr. Frank Murray Trans/Ltrs/PN1 Mr. Pat Cain, P.E. July 25, 1990 Page 2 Brice, Petrides- ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS December 11, 1990 Mr. Scott Moreland Bureau of Transportation Safety Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 Dear Mr. Moreland: Our firm is currently conducting a traffic study for a portion of U.S. Highway 52 in the city of Dubuque. On behalf of the Dubuque Department of Public Works, we are requesting a summary of traffic accidents within this corridor for the most recent three- year period. Enclosed is a map of the study area which includes. the following streets: Central Avenue, 9th Street to Just South of Rupp Hollow Road White Street, 9th Street to 22nd Street 21st Street, Central Avenue to White Street We would appreciate a summary of accident reports for the entire corridor as well as a summary for each individual intersection within the corridor. Thank you for your assistance; and please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BRICE, PETRIDES-DONOHUE CO. RLL:blc Enclosure cc: Mr. Frank Murray (w/enclosure) Trans/Ltrs/RL6 • • 501 Sycamore Street Suite 222 P.O. Bar 1097 Hbterioo, Iowa .50X34-1497 319.232.6531 Telefax- 319 232.0271 i1r ....% 1_ 3 c 1. I : . •- • - 7\ 111 KA PloANOI • • L . _ FIG. EXISTING STREET NETWnme 32: is.. SC•ai em,gc 61 Sa. Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010 (515) 239-1668 January 7, 1991 Mr. Robert Lentz Brice, Petrides-Donohue 501 Sycamore, Suite 222 P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, Iowa 50704-1497 Dear Mr. Lentz: Enclosed is the accident data you requested for U.S. Route 52 through Dubuque. All northbound and southbound data is included from 9th Street north to. just south of Rupp Hollow Road. All of the data is of the time period from January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989. I have divided the reports into three groups. The first two groups are for the stretch of the route that is split between the one way roads, White Avenue and Central Avenue. The third group is for the portion of road to the north where both directions of traffic are undivided. For each section of road you will find a summary for the entire section followed by summaries for all intersections within the section. The links, or sections of road between intersections, are only representedon the first sheet for each group of summaries. Should you have any questions or further requests, please feel free to contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Scott Moreland Bureau of Transportation Safety Iowa Department of Transportation C Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010 515-239-1651 January 11, 1991 Ref. No. 707 Mr. Robert Lentz Brice, Petrides, Donohue 501 Sycamore, Suite 222 Waterloo, IA 50704 Dear Bob: Enclosed are copies of the. following Iowa DOT origin and destination study reports which contain information about the Dubuque urban area. • "Dubuque, Iowa Origin and Destination Traffic Report", published February 1967. Survey information was collected in the Fall, 1965. • "Iowa Statewide Origin and Destination Traffic Study, External Survey", published July, 1975. Survey information was collected in the Summer 1972. The 1965 origin and destination study included surveys of dwelling units, truck traffic, taxi and city bus travel and were used in developing the initial Dubuque urban area travel forecast models. The 1975 external origin and destination survey was conducted as part of the Mississippi Valley Multiple Screenline Study and was used primarily for making traffic forecasts for Iowa's Interstate highway system. I hope these studies will be useful in your analysis of Dubuque's "Northern Route" corridor. I would appreciate the return of these reports at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions concerning the two studies, please call me at 515-239-1651. - -Sincerely, ngelo 0. Stefani Office of Advance Planning Planning and Research Division ADS:rel Enclosures 7 11 THE CITY OF D U B U Q U E / Mr. William E. Cary, P.E. Brice, Petrides - Donohue Company 501 Sycamore Street, Suite 222 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 RE: U.S. 52 Corridor Project OFFICE OF THE CITY EMGt0EER CITY MALL • 0U8000E. IOw4 5200E TE L EP,.OHE 1319 5$9 4270 January 28, 1991 Dear Bill: Enclosed is the information you requested in your December 21, 1990 letter to Frank Murray. Specifically included are the following items: 1. Two large City street maps. 2. Manual traffic counts at the locations requested. 3. A map of the signalized intersections within the project area. In addition to the material which you requested, I am including the City's records on accident statistics. The statistics may vary from the Iowa Department of Transportation's statistics since different ADT's are used in the computation of the accident rates. The Development Services Division is working on the land use and zoning maps which you have requested. These should be available in the next two weeks. With regard to your request for the comprehensiveplan for the City of Dubuque, I would suggest that you contact Laura Carstens, City Planner (589-4210) on this item. I do not believe that a "Comprehensive Plan" is currently available, however the Planning Services Division is currently working toward such a goal. Should you have any questions on any of the enclosed information, please advise. Sincerely, Michael A. Koch City Engineer MAK/ksa Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010 515-239-1456 April 11, 1991 Ref. No. 707 Mr. Bill Cary Brice-Petrides-Donohue 501 Sycamore Street, Suite 222 P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 Dear Bill: We have evaluated results of the travel simulation (PLAN PAC) model for the Dubuque metro area 2008 Transportation Plan and conclude the computer generated traffic forecasts should not be directly used for system or operational planning in your "Northside Major Arterial Traffic Study". Comparisons of observed and simulated traffic volumes in the Central Avenue/White Street corridor, as well as other corri- dors, indicate the modeled traffic assignment volumes require some hand -adjusting before using them in planning arterial street system improvements. The hand -adjusting primarily compensates for the trip generating effects of the plan's 2008 socio-economic forecasts which are outdated and no longer represent land development trends in the urban area. Another factor contributing to the traffic simulation problem is the external station traffic forecasts which have not been updated for the model since 1974. The socio-economic and external station traffic forecasts were pre- pared as inputs to the model for the urban area's 1990 transportation plan and were not updated when the Dubuque Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) advanced the plan year from 1990 to 2008. For this reason and others, the results of the computer model need to be adjusted.based on updated socio-economic and traffic data to obtain realistic travel forecasts. In response to your request for technical assistance on the "Northside Major Arterial Traffic Study", we have enclosed the following informa- tion: two MPO plan year (2008) traffic assignments and Iowa Department of Transportation 1975, 1979, 1981, 1986, and 1989 traffic count maps and 1965 origin -destination survey data. The 2008 traffic assignments reflect two differing network configurations: 1) The Dubuque urbanized area 2008 transportation plan and 2) The 2008 plan without two of its proposed elements --the US 20 freeway and the Couler Valley expressway. Mr. Bill Cary Page 2 April 11, 1991 If you have any questions or need additional assistance, please call me at 515-239-1651. v ADS:rel Enclosures S4ncerely, Stefani Office of Advance Planning Planning and Research Division EAST CENTRAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASSOCIATION DUBUQUE METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY EAST CENTRAL IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EASTERN IOWA REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NETWORK JOB TRAINING PROGRAM - SDA VIII E.C.I.A. BUSINESS GROWTH INC. March 18, 1991 Mr. William Creger Office of Advance Planning IDOT 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 Dear Mr. Creger: This is to formally request IDOT technical assistance for the Northside Major Arterial Transportation Facilities U.S. 52 Corridor Study currently being conducted by the Brice-Petrides- Donohue Consulting Firm. Specifically, weareasking for computer modeling assistance to be done using IDOT ?LAN'PAC capabilities. Bill Cary, who is a member of the consulting team, will be able to explain the computer needs in more detail. His telephone number is 1/800-772-2028. Further discussions of this matter should involve Frank Murray and Laura Carstens. Let me know if there is any further information you might need as part of this request. Cordially, Dave Pesch Senior Transportation Planner cc: Bill Cary' - Frank iurrav Laura Carstens Angelo Stefani DP:lj A Satellite Center of the Iowa Department of Economic Development Suite 330. Nester Centre • P.O. Box 1140 • Dubuque. IA 52004-1140 • (319)556-4166 • Fax (319) 556-0348 Engineering Division City Hall. 13th & Central Avenue Dubuque, Iowa 52001 (319) 589-3'_'0 June 6, 1991 Mr. Bob Lentz Brice, Petrides - Donohue 501 Sycamore Street Suite 222 P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 RE: Highway 52 Corridor Study Dear Bob: Enclosed are the topographic maps of the area surrounding the "toe of the Bluff" corridor alignment which we discussed at our Hay 29th meeting. Also, enclosed is a larger scale corridor map of the U.S. 61 highway improvements. This hopefully will give you a better understanding of the on and off ramps in the vicinity of 9th and llth Streets. The City has made contact with John Deere and Company with regard to gathering their employment data. Coincidentally, they have just completed a summary of their employees residences. Hopefully the attached summary meets your needs. I believe this includes all of the follow-up material resulting from our recent meeting. Should you need anything further, don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 4// Hicbael A. Koch City Engineer MAK/ksa Service People Integrity Respor Ibility Innovation Teamwork -ED FI) LAYOFF 30 May 1991: 0 11. E1t1PLOYAlENT STATISTJCS *Active Employment: 0_ )i91 Dutbuclue Work Wcck Ending Hourly Incentive Wage W.I. Sub -PEG PEG Salary Wage Salary 12May91 S 11 U T D 0 W N 19 May 91 984 1063 2047 50 2017 2017 **1069 575 289 26 May 91 993 1056 2049 47 2017 2017 **1071 02 Jun 91 995 105.1 2049 48 2017 2017 **1072 (25 Aug 86 strike began 3096) (02 Feb 87 strike ended 3083) Inactive Employment: LAYOFFS Dubuque Works • **Dept. 300 - 85 **Dept. 600 - 143 (Updated Monthly) Dubuque Week Ending Hourly Incentive Waee Salary Wage ***LTD SUB Wage .v Salary 12May91 S H U T D 0 W N 19 May 91 86 248 334 0 91 4 53 5 4 26 May 91 79 245 324 0 4 52 5 2 02 Jun 91 79 244 323 0 3 53 5 0 1I1. TOTAL RECALLS SINCE 1 JAN. 1991: Wage ... 29 PEG fool: 180 IV. TOTAL PERMANENT SEPARATIONS: Wage Loss of Seniority....2009 Salary Loss of Recall 77.... Separation Pay..._45 Service Terminations 100 - Wage; 90 - Salary Exempt; 12 - Co-ops V. EEO/AA STATUS: Active Temp. Separated Salary Wage Female Minority Female Minority 216 11 10 7 0 0 7 0 VI. SALARIED EMPLOYMENT: Exempt: 714 Nonexempt: 351 VII. SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPATION RATE: TDSP....47% SIP....84% Vill. EMPLOYEE RESIDENT BY COUNTY (ACTIVE & LAID OFF): IOWA: Dubuque (city) 1827 52.0% WIS: Grant. 603 17.1% Dubuque (county) 2212 63.0% LaFayette 56 1.6% Delaware 26 0.7% Iowa. 34 1.0% Clayton 103 2.9% Crawford 3 0.1% Jackson 156 4.4% Jones 7 0.2% ILL: 258 7.3% IX. EMPLOYEES RECALLED FROM LAYOFF EFFECTIVE MONDAY, 3 JUNE 1991: Waae 0 *ACC!VE EMPLOYMENT INCLUDES:those employees absent because of an illness of less than 52 wks., those physically at work and those in PEG. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE: employees receiving PTD pensions; employees on LTD; (LTD changes made 22 July 1988) employees on leave of absences of over four weeks ***This includes one employee who is on layoff and is receiving LTD benefits. !'LEASE NOTE TIIAT ITEMS VI TIIRU VIII ARE AS OF 30 APRIL 1991. crre OF DUB Engineering Division 50 %Vest 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-845 (319) 5894270 May 20, 1992 Mr. William E. Cary Brice, Petrides - Donohue 501 Sycamore Street, Suite 222 P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 RE: Northside Major Arterial Study - U.S. 52 Corridor Dear Bill: Enclosed is a memorandum relating to a telephone call from a City Council Member concerned with the negative effect on air quality which he perceives may result from a new highway corridor in the study area. My assessment is that the study is addressing the methodology of coping with the existing traffic volumes, as opposed to studying the need for a new highway generator through this area. As such, the traffic improvements contained in the study would tend to disburse the vehicle air emissions over a wider area as opposed to concentrated at the intersections with capacity restrictions. This issue should be worked into the upcoming worksession with the City Council on June 8, 1992. As a reminder, we had wanted to send an agenda to the City Council, together with some background information prior to that meeting. Please keep me informed of your progress in this regard. Sincerely, Michael A. Koch City Engineer MAK/ksa Service People Integrity Responsibility Innoti:ahon Teamwork CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA MEMORANDUM April 9, 1992 TO: Mike Koch, Public Works Director/City Engineer FROM: Jim Burry Community and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Call from Council Member Deich Regarding Couler Valley Arterial Planning I received a call from Council Member Don Deich this afternoon concerning planning for the Couler Valley Arterial. He said that he just got a few calls from area residents who are concerned with the possibility of a major roadway being built through the neighborhood. He asked if the study is still underway. I advised him that it is and that I believe that a worksession with the City Council would be held before the report is finalized. He asked that I pass along to the people doing the study that he .is very concerned with the impact of a big roadway on air quality in the narrow valley. He said that the Couler Valley experiences frequent inversions which last for 2 to 3 days during which time the oxygen content of the air is reduced. His own readings show that during these times in the summer the oxygen content of the air is 17 to 18 %. I told Council Member Deich that I would pass this information along to the people doing the study. Please consider the message passed. cc: Don Deich, Council Member W. Kenneth Gearhart, City Manager rEcrn,o, DUB Engineering Division 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-1845 (319) 589-4270 June 11, 1992 Mr. Bill Carey Brice, Petrides - Donohue 501 Sycamore Street, Suite 222 P.O. Box 1497 Waterloo, IA 50704-1497 RE: Northside Major Arterial Traffic Study Dear Bill: I have not heard any further comments from the City Council as a follow-up to the June 8, 1992 worksession. Therefore, you can proceed with the preparation of the final report and recommendations. The City Council indicated at the worksession that Alternative #3, in their opinion was not a workable program. As such, no additional study should be undertaken on this alternative. Should you have any questions stemming from the meeting, or need clarification or direction on any of the issues, please advise. Sincerely, Michael A. Koch City Engineer MAK/ksa Service People Integrity Respor+sibthty Inno•'ahon Teamwork City ponders Elm Street changes By B3f Arnold Z or tern rehorson f+srakt��- Some Dubuque residents and city of- ficia lls may hive discovered the `miss- ingr+tot a hunched, hairy, prehistoric man -ape, but a new two- to three -lane in d traffic sins owntowre Dubuque_ • A plan would extend Elm Street north to 32nd Street, with a possible ltntirer exdension north of 32nd-tying into U.S. 52 near John Dee Rani but a �1s changes are only a dream, Monday night said the es coukl p-relieffor' motorists who have to use Central Avenue and Jailer a'7. R t or: Dubu- que's north side. - 'Th CV1)°5Sd. would fol- low existing Elm Street from rt• i2 20th to 2Eith-streets and an abandoned rali- road bed from nth to 32nd_ Dili liam E. C3rey. a consulting engi- neer with Brice, Patrides-Dornoh a of- - Waterloo, Iowa. told the cittr council and a U.S. 52 corridor study committee that the new road would operate 'at a t relatively high level of service." ; ; ' - Carey said downtown streets have ben used at the maxum capacity for the last 10 years, MaYar Jinn Brady saiii'the` proposaI- would spread out trails in the corridor and mild provide a direct lick with a future beltline highway- smart around and through the city -- Brady suggested that a new iwjw y could extend east from 22nd Street to ' Kerper Boulevard via Kniest Street, pproviding a dieter link to the Dt 1x gee- : Wisoansin bridge and US 61, bypass- ing the Elm Sheet area between 22ad and llth streets Brady and other counts] members Scoot Cey d Mb:fp* _ - also keel the w y the proposed road, way could tie inter a lhtwe litterelumge with the Northwest Arterial near the TJS JJohn Deere Road/Kennedy Road kitez‘.lw:ge. That part of the pica could help the city compete fear state and federal fund- ing for the completion of the Northwest Arterial. Braclytaster or i�make a realistic_ Cadman Don Deich warris to have any improvements in reads routed around populated acres He erg. gestcd the city rrse an existing railroad alb along the h s- sissippi River to relieve down- town congestion. - Deich said exhaust fumes from current traffic in tie northside bothers residents. He also said Dubuque should have a freeway system that Is constructed around urban areas_ _ Jim Gicsen. a member of the study committee_ said any con- - (TH mg) by Mice Da motion: -relieving alternative must have a minimal impact on the n°rthside's housing. Officials n[xexi the Idea of changing Central and Jackson into one-way venues (like White Street to 32nd Street to list streets) out Brady said those one-way streets would promote higher speeds and would severely re- uce Parking- dCarey said a master plan of the Eke. Street project should be de - "eloped so that long- and short- term plans can be acted on imme- diatey when money becomes availe. A 30-pbege report will be sub- mitted to the city by the engi- neers in about two to three months, Carey said. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 11.0 FINAL EVALUATION The final alternatives were evaluated as portions of the same master plan. Phase I of the master plan includes TSM improvements within the corridor. Phase II involves the construction of the Elm Street/Railroad Arterial and related construction on 32nd Street and Central Avenue. Refer to Technical Memorandum No. 12.0 for details about the master plan. The following sections describe the benefits and impacts resulting from the implementation of the master plan. 11.1 TRAFFIC EVALUATION The TRANSYT-7F program was used to analyze existing conditions on Central Avenue, White Street and Jackson Street within the study limits. Analysis was also done to evaluate the various phases of the master plan. Table 11-1 shows the results of the arterial analysis. The results show that excellent traffic benefits can be achieved with the implementation of the master plan. Level of Service B can be expected throughout the corridor if traffic does not grow significantly. Analysis was done to compare traffic operations of the Central Avenue/Jackson Street one-way couplet with extending White Street one-way to 24th Street. The results, as shown in Table 11-2, indicate a slight increase in traffic benefits with extending White Street one-way operation to 24th Street. Because of this and reduced impacts, proposed TSM (Phase 1) improvements include the extension of one-way operation on White Street to 24th Street. Further analysis was done to determine how much traffic could grow before reaching capacity. Table 11-3 summarizes the findings of this analysis. A combination of Phases I and II will offer substantial growth potential. 11.2 IMPACT EVALUATION The proposed master plan was further evaluated to determine the levels of negative impact that would be experienced with its implementation. Potential impacts were examined and evaluated as the final alternatives were developed and refined. After details of the master plan were determined, a numerical evaluation of estimated impacts was performed. Tables 11-4 and 11-5 summarize estimated impacts to parking, private property and buildings. Impacts to access and the environment are somewhat more difficult to quantify, but overall the positive impacts will be greater than the negative ones. For example, there will be some inconvenience associated with proposed one-way changes and street closings; however, the overall accessibility throughout the corridor will be increased due to improved traffic flow and a better connection to the U.S. 61/151 bridge. No significant environmental impacts have been identified. Air quality is expected to improve due to reduced congestion and fuel consumption. R/ DubnoNi/A B7 11-2 17-NM-92 TABLE 11-1 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY ARTERIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FINAL EVALUATION SYSTEM TOTALS ARTERIAL TOTALS FILE ALT. NAME NAME ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERIOD - TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE (V-NI) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) 4 6 (GAL) (MPH) ($) INDEX TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE (V-81) (V-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) 4 X (GAL) (KPH) ($) INDEX CENTE2 CENTE3 CENTE2A CENTE3A CENT1 CENT2 CENT2B CENT028 CENTP2B CENTP2D WHITE2 WHITE3 WHIT1 WHIT2 JACKE1 JACKEIA JACKI JACK1A JACK01 JACK2 JACKS EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING PHASE I PHASE I PHASE I PHASE II PHASE II CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXISTING WHITE EXISTING WHITE PHASE I WHITE PHASE I WHITE EXISTING EXISTING PHASE I PHASE I PHASE I PHASE I JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON EXISTING CONDITIONS OPT OFFSETS ADJUST CENTE2 V/C ( 1.0 ADJUST CENTE3 V/C ( 1.0 OPT TIMING, OFFSETS 1-WAY TO 24TH CENT2 M/ 2 PHASE 8 14 TH 1-MAY CENTRAL/JACKSON REDUCED M/5 TRAFFIC 11/0 PHASE I EXISTING CONDITIONS OPT OFFSETS OPT TIMING, OFFSETS 1-WAY TO 24TH EXISTING CONDITIONS ADJUST JACKET V/C ( 1.0 OPT TIMING, OFFSETS ADJUST JACK1 V/C ( 1.0 1-WAY NB, LT A RT LANES 22ND JACK1 If/ LT LANES 22ND JACK2 W/ WHITE 1-WAY TO 24TH 2523 328 229 43,6 11971 63 330 2523 323 224 42,6 11142 59 323 2475 221 124 23,9 12505 67 253 2475 217 120 23.1 11811 63 247 2523 190 91 17.4 10464 55 224 2660 178 76 14.3 10409 55 217 2660 170 68 12.8 10068 53 210 2489 173 75 14.4 9805 52 208 1975 127 51 11.8 7933 51 159 1838 139 67 15.8 9413 62 171 697 57 29 11.6 5423 59 76 697 55 28 11.0 4618 50 71 697 53 26 10.1 4568 50 70 913 64 29 9.9 4785 46 82 1471 164 106 39.5 6795 70 172 1468 112 54 20.5 6724 71 134 1471 129 72 26.1 6537 68 146 1468 105 47 17.9 6401 67 127 1599 112 49 16.8 5881 56 132 1471 99 41 15.4 5997 62 122 1376 91 37 14.2 5765 62 113 7.7 918 215.5 2301 231 141 41.5 7190 59 235 10.0 578 131.8 7.8 896 208.4 2301 226 136 40.0 6372 52 228 10.2 566 124.8 11.2 758 140.4 2255 170 81 24.3 7142 64 191 13.3 483 90.5 11.4 740 134.6 2255 166 78 23.1 7040 58 186 13.6 414 84.9 13.2 682 108.7 2301 131 40 11.9 5248 43 153 11.6 414 50.4 14.9 679 97.6 2452 130 35 10.3 5411 44 157 18.9 430 48.3 15.6 661 90.6 2452 125 30 8.7 5126 41 152 19.7 420 43.2 14.4 641 94.3 2288 120 30 9.2 4501 38 143 19.0 394 40.3 15.5 500 69.4 1793 90 21 8.4 3517 39 109 19.9 304 29.9 13.2 529 86.4 1648 90 25 10.4 4775 54 111 18.3 296 37.7 12.3 240 43.2 588 37 14 10.1 2607 54 47 16.1 111 20.3 12.6 224 38.9 588 36 12 9.2 1897 39 43 16.6 112 16.7 13.1 219 27.1 588 34 11 8.0 1883 39 42 17.4 109 11.2 14.2 259 29.9 668 38 11 7.8 1931 36 46 17.7 122 12.0 9.0 491 104.7 1282 68 18 14.5 3068 70 82 18.8 224 25.2 13.1 410 66.6 1282 68 18 14.6 3077 70 82 18.8 224 25.3 11.4 433 78.5 1282 90 40 32.9 3069 70 99 14.2 258 41.6 14.0 394 60.2 1282 71 20 16.8 3062 70 84 18.1 228 27.2 14.3 405 59.3 1281 65 15 11.9 2103 46 77 19.6 215 19.4 14.8 379 54.3 1282 68 17 14.2 2398 55 19 19.0 220 22.2 15.1 355 50.1 1171 61 15 13.6 2292 56 73 19.1 201 20.4 17-Nov-92 TABLE 11-2 DUBUQUE, IOWA NORTHSIDE MAJOR ARTERIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY ARTERIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS CORRIDOR COMPARISON SYSTEM TOTALS ARTERIAL TOTALS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AVG. FUEL SYSTEM TOTAL PERFOR- FILE ALT. TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE TRAVEL TIME DELAY DELAY UNIFORM STOPS CONS SPEED COST MANCE NAME NAME ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION (11-MI) (Y-HR) (Y-HR) (SEC/V) f 5 (GAL) (MPH) ($) INDEX (V-MI) (Y-HR) (V-HR) (SEC/V) 1 S (GAL) (MPH) ($) INDEX CENTE2A CENTRAL EXISTING CONDITIONS 2475 221 124 23.9 12505 67 253 11.2 758 140.4 2255 170 81 24.3 1742 64 191 13.3 483 90.5 WHITE2 WHITE 697 51 29 11.6 5423 59 76 12.3 240 43.2 588 37 14 10.1 2607 54 47 16.1 111 20.3 JACKEIA JACKSON 1468 112 54 20.5 6724 71 134 13.1 410 66.6 1282 68 18 14.6 3077 70 82 18.8 224 25.3 TOTALS 4640 390 207 21.0 24652 67 463 12.0 1408 250.2 4125 215 113 19.3 13426 64 320 15.4 824 136.1 CENT1 CENTRAL OPT TIMING, OFFSETS 2523 190 91 17.4 10464 55 224 13.2 682 108.7 2301 131 40 11.9 5248 43 153 17.6 414 50.4 WHIT1 WHITE 697 53 26 10.1 4568 50 70 13.1 219 21.1 588 34 11 8.0 1883 39 42 11.4 109 11.2 JACKIA JACKSON 1468 105 47 17.9 6401 67 121 14.0 394 60.2 1282 71 20 16.8 3062 10 84 18.1 228 27.2 TOTALS 4688 348 164 16.5 21433 58 421 13.4 1295 196.0 4171 236 71 12.9 10193 51 279 11.7 751 88.8 CENT2R CENTRAL 1-800 TO 24TH 2660 110 68 12.8 10068 53 210 15.6 661 90.6 2452 125 30 8.7 5126 41 152 19.7 420 43.2 WHIT2 WHITE 913 64 29 9.9 4785 46 82 14.2 259 29.9 668 38 11 7.8 1931 36 46 17.7 122 12.0 JACK3 JACKSON 1316 91 37 14.2 5765 62 113 15.1 355 50.1 1111 61 15 13.6 2292 56 73 19.1 201 20.4 TOTALS 4949 325 134 12.7 20618 54 405 15.2 1215 170.6 4291 224 56 9.9 9349 44 271 19.2 143 75.6 CENT028 CENTRAL 1-507 CENTRAL/JACKSON 2489 173 75 14.4 9805 52 208 14.4 641 94.3 2288 120 30 9.2 4507 38 143 19.0 394 40.3 WHIT1 WHITE 697 53 26 10.1 4568 50 70 13.1 219 27.1 588 34 11 8.0 1883 39 42 11.4 109 11.2 JACK01 JACKSON 1599 112 49 16.8 5881 56 132 14.3 405 59.3 1281 65 15 11.9 2103 46 T7 19.6 215 19.4 TOTALS 4785 338 150 14.6 20254 53 410 14.2 1265 180.1 4157 219 56 9.9 8493 41 262 19.0 718 70.9 TABLE 11-3 Critical Critical Volume/ Level Corridor Growth Constraint Capacity of Status Potential Locations Ratio* Service* Existing 0% Central/22nd 1.00+ E/F Conditions Jackson/22nd Phase I 10-15% Fulton School X-ing .88 D Jackson/22nd Central/ llth Elm/ 16th Phase II 50-60% Central/11th .64 B Central/ l4th 60-70% Central/22nd .60 A/B Jackson/22nd Elm-RR/22nd * Assuming existing traffic. R/Dubnorth/AB7-3 TABLE 11-4 ESTIMATED PARKING IMPACTS Estimated Parking Phase Location Spaces Lost (1) II 22nd Street 18 24th Street 4 White Street 4 Central Avenue -13 (2) SUBTOTAL PHASE I 13 Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue 14 Rhomberg Avenue to 22nd Street 19 North of 22nd Street 4-8 North and South of 24th Street 8-16 South of 26th Street 4-8 22nd Street 12 24th Street 4-8 TOTAL PHASES I & II 78-98 (1) Includes all curb space "available" for parking, not just existing designated spaces. (2) Parking added north and south of 22nd Street along west side of street. (3) Includes 13 spaces along Dubuque Stamping and Manufacturing property between the building and the street. 11-4 TABLE 11-5 ESTIMATED PROPERTY AND BUILDING IMPACTS Phase Location Estimated Right - of -Way Area (SF) Estimated Building Impacts Number Description I White St. & 22nd St. Intersection 630 N.A. White St. & 24th St. Intersection 300 II Elm/RR Arterial: Kerper Blvd. to Garfield Ave. on 280,000 1 Industrial Bldg. S. of Elm St./RR Alignment Garfield Ave. Along Kniest St. Extd. Garfield Ave. to Rhomberg Ave. 49,600 2 Residential Bldgs. S. of Rhomberg Ave. and E. of Kniest St. 2 Commercial/Industrial Bldgs. E. and W. of Kniest St., N. of Garfield Ave. S. of 24th St. 3,000 N.A. N. of 26th St. 2,300 N.A. N. & S. of 29th St. 40,700 8 Residential Bldgs. E. or W. of New Alignment N. & S. of 32nd St. 11,400 N.A. 32nd St. to Central Ave. 130,000 N.A. TOTAL 517,930 S.F. (11.9 Acres) 11-5 ri TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 12.0 FINAL RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed master plan is significantly different form the two preliminary major alternatives selected for final evaluation. These changes and refinements came about through final traffic and impact evaluation and local input. The following is a summary of the major phases of the master plan. Figure 12-1 shows recommended lane configurations associated with the master plan improvements. PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) 1. Traffic Signal Improvements • Determine detailed system needs through preparation of final design plans. • Install new coordinated traffic signal system hardware and communications. • Implement new traffic signal timing plans. • Monitor traffic and update timing plans on a regular basis. 2. 22nd Street Improvements ■ Remove parking on both sides of the street between White Street and Jackson Street and from one side between Jackson Street and Washington Street. ■ Add left turn lanes (via pavement markings) on 22nd Street at Jackson Street. • Reconstruct White Street intersection adding a westbound right turn lane, an eastbound left turn lane, and realigning for one-way operation northbound. • Install traffic signals at White Street intersection. ■ Modify traffic signals at Central Avenue intersection for one-way southbound operation. 3. 24th Street Improvements • Reconstruct 24th Street for 1 lane, 1-way westbound operation between Central Avenue and White Street, including intersection improvements. 12-1 • Install traffic signals at White Street and Jackson Street. 4. Other Improvements ■ Implement Central Avenue and White Street one-way couplet from 21st Street to 24th Street. Install/revise signing and pavement markings. ■ Resurface or Reconstruct White Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street. • Reconstruct the intersection of White Street and 21st Street to extend two- lane, one-way operation north of 21st Street. PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT 1. Construct E1m Street/Railroad Arterial From Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue Along Kniest Street Alignment (2 to 4 Through Lanes). Planning and construction of this segment needs to be coordinated with plans for the proposed Kerper Boulevard industrial park site. ■ Close Garfield Avenue between Elm Street and Johnson Street. ■ Construct new intersection at Rhomberg Avenue. ■ Reconstruct E1m Street and 20th Street intersection, eliminating the north and - east legs (Elm Street and Garfield Avenue). • Construct railroad overpass at Garfield Avenue, with probable railroad relocation. ■ Construct new T-intersection at Kerper Boulevard. • Install traffic signals at locations where warrants are met. 2. Construct Elm Street/Railroad Arterial From Rhomberg Avenue to 32nd Street (2 Through Lanes) ■ Construct new intersections at Lincoln Avenue, 22nd Street, 24th Street, 26th Street, 29th Street and 32nd Street; 32nd Street intersection to include left - turn lanes at all approaches. • Close the following streets: Elm Street at 20th Street and 22nd Street, with cul-de-sacs or dead - ends, providing access to this area via 21st Street. 12-2 E1m Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street to be replaced by new arterial. - Prince Street south of 24th Street, with a cul-de-sac or dead end. 25th Street East of Washington Street, with cul-de-sac or dead -ends. - 27th Street, 28th Street and 30th Street Between E1m Street and Pinard Street, with cul-de-sacs or dead -ends. It is necessary to limit side -street access to the new arterial to preserve capacity and safety and minimize delay. 26th Street and 29th Street will have new intersections with the new arterial. This will allow access to the Pinard Street area and east - west access at 29th Street. (NOTE: It was previously proposed to provide an intersection at 30th Street and close the 29th Street intersection. This would have resulted in lesser right-of-way and building impacts, but would cause additional inconvenience for 29th Street through traffic. Intersection locations in this area should be re- evaluated during final design to determine the extent of impacts and relative traffic benefits.) • Provide on -street parking or continuous left -turn lanes between Rhomberg Avenue and 26th Street. ■ Install traffic signals at locations where warrants are met. 3. Construct Elm Street/Railroad Arterial From 32nd Street to Central Avenue, North of Flexsteel Industries (2 Through Lanes). ■ Construct new 2-lane rural arterial with left -turn lanes at 32nd Street and Central Avenue. • Exact location of this roadway to be determined during final design based on compatibility with current development and utility corridor needs. ■ Reconstruct portion of Central Avenue to provide southbound left -turn lane at E1m Street/Railroad intersection. 12.2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST For this study, costs and impacts are considered separately with costs including only construction and equipment installation costs. The following is a list of the preliminary estimated construction costs (in 1993 dollars) for both phases of the master plan: 12-3 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE I. PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) Item 1. Traffic Signal Improvements 2. 22nd Street Improvements 3. 24th Street Improvements 4. Other Improvements PHASE I TOTAL II. PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT 1. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - Kerper Boulevard to Rhomberg Avenue, Including Railroad Overpass 2. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - Rhomberg Avenue to 32nd Street 3. Elm Street/Railroad Arterial - 32nd Street to Central Avenue PHASE II TOTAL GRAND TOTAL - PHASES I AND II Estimated 1993 Construction Cost $360,000 180,000 230,000 130,000' $900,000 $3,800,000 - $5,400,0002 2,100,000 1,200,000 $7,100,000 - $8,700,0002 $8,000,000 - $9,600,0002 ' Cost assumes resurfacing of White Street from 22nd Street to 24th Street. 2 The lower estimate represents a 2-lane roadway between Rhomberg Avenue and Kerper Boulevard. The higher estimate represents a 4-lane roadway. 12-4 12.3 RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PHASE I - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM): Begin implementation process immediately for construction in 1994 and 1995. PHASE II - NEW ALIGNMENT: Begin planning and design process. Target completion of construction for 1997-1999. R/Dubnorth/AB8meunol2 12-5 PHASE I 1 ti Central Avenue 24th Street White Street 24th Street Whi to Street 21st Street 4 ...___ 22nd 22nd -1L ,---L- 22nd Street -2 Street Street 1 r Central White Jackson Avenue Street Street PHASE II UL Central Avenue El m Street / Rail road -IL j 32nd Street r II El m Street / Rail road -IL -it- El m Street / Railroad 29th Street -IL .4- El m Street / Railroad 26th Street -IL El m Street / Rail road 24th Street -IL (4--- =-rj Elm Street / Rail road 22th Street Lincol n Avenue El m Street / Rail road -IL El m Street / Railroad Rhomber Avenue ai El m Street I / Rail road Kerber Boulevard 20th Street Elm Street Rhomberg 40e Avenue EC As ppiviiitutE .re Potrides FIGURE 12-1 PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATIONS DUBUQUE, IOWA U.S. 52 CORRIDOR STUDY RugENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE © 1993 RUST Environment 6-Infrastructure Inc. Printed with soybean -based ink tJ