Ice Harbor Traffic Study Funds
.~~
.".~
c.:. "
""
. ",~
_"O'
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
February 2, 2000
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Ice Harbor Traffic Study
In May, 1999, the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (DMATS) Policy Board
approved funding of a study to look at improving access to the Ice Harbor from the major
highways in the downtown area. Public Works Director Mike Koch is recommending a
supplement to that contract to include the following additional work:
1.
Study of the intersection of Third and Main Street to determine the feasibility of an
additional two-lane bridge parallel to the existing two-lane Third Street overpass.
2.
Study of the delay to traffic of the railroad crossing at Fifth Street.
3.
4.
Identify access approaches that will not work and describe reasons.
Discussions with IDOT regarding signage for the Ice Harbor.
5.
Presentation to the DMATS Policy Board.
The additional $10,293 in cost would be funded $8,234 from DMATS and $2,059 from
the City of Dubuque.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
MCVM/dd
Attachment
cc:
Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Tim Moerman, Assistant City Manager
Mike Koch, Public Works Director
Vi 'eni:;(K!no
8:JJJJO 1\1!0
I +¡ :ZI Hd £: - 83.:1 00
O:3/\13~3tJ
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
February 2, 2000
FROM:
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
Michael A. Koch, Public Works Director /flliÝtl
TO:
SUBJECT:
Ice Harbor Traffic Study
INTRODUCTION
The following is a request for additional City funding for the traffic study on improved access
to the Ice Harbor, sponsored by DMA TS and the City of Dubuque.
DISCUSSION
In May, 1999, the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (DMA TS) Policy Board
approved a Transportation Improvement Program Amendment to fund a study to look at
improving access to the Ice Harbor from the major highways in the downtown area from US
61 and US 20. This Study was proposed to provide a preliminary identification of
improvement concepts, which would then later be more fully developed in a more detailed
analysis, if the initial study identified potential improvements worth pursuing further. The
total projected cost of the study was to be $12,365, with $9,892 in DMATS STP Funds
(Federal Funding) and the balance of $2,473 being funded by the City of Dubuque.
The draft report of the study is dated November, 1999. This report was reviewed by staff
from the City of Dubuque and DMA TS on November 17, 1999, at which time it was
generally agreed that the report was not detailed enough in its evaluation of the various
alternatives nor the level of discussion of the alternatives.
Consequently, HDR was requested to provide additional work to more fully evaluate and
substantiate their conclusions through additional study in the following areas:
1.
Study of the intersection of Third and Main Street to determine the feasibility of an
additional two-lane bridge parallel to the existing two-lane Third Street overpass.
2.
Study of the delay to traffic of the railroad crossing at Fifth Street.
3.
Identify access approaches that will not work and describe reasons.
4.
Discussions with IDOT regarding signage for the Ice Harbor.
5.
Presentation to the DMA TS Policy Board.
Since this higher level of investigation was not incorporated into the preliminary study, HDR
has proposed an additional fee of $10,293 to complete the additional study work, preparation
of the final document and presentation to the DMA TS Policy Board. The Federal share of this
cost, which would be funded by DMA TS, would be 80 percent of the total, or $8,234. The
remaining local match would be $2,059.
RECOMMENDATION
At the DMA TS Policy Board meeting of January 13, 2000, the Board approved an
amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 - 2002 Transportation Improvement Program Budget to
increase the federal STP funds for the project by the previously-mentioned $8,234, subject
to the City of Dubuque's willingness to cover the local match of the project in the additional
amount of $2,059.
In my review of the December, 1999 report from HDR, it was my opinion that the written
document required additional substantiation through more detailed study and additional
narrative to discuss various alternatives considered. It is my recommendation that the
additional $10,293 be added to the HDR contract and that the City provide the additional
local match for this extra scope of services of $2,059. The funds would come from the
City's Fiscal Year 2001 Street Program appropriation.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
The City Council is requested to approve the recommendation to fund the additional $2,059
cost of the traffic study.
MAK/vjd
ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUESTED
ICE HARBOR TRAFFIC STUDY
CITY OF DUBUQUE
This scope outlines the additional work tasks that were discussed in our 12/21/99 telephone
conversation. The following tasks will be incorporated in the Draft Report and a Final Traffic
Report will be submitted to the City. Once the City has reviewed the Final Report, two members
ofHDR will prepare a presentation to DMATS. The presentation will focus on the findings and
recommendations of the report.
The scope of services is detailed below:
1.
Review 3rd St/Main St Geometries. The consultant will provide a preliminary
geometric layout of the proposed 3rd StlMain St intersection. The layout will include
consideration of a new two-lane bridge (adjacent to the existing 3rd Street bridge over US
61) and reconstruction of the bridge abutment. The layout will included transition from
the bridge to the existing 3rd street four-lane undivided section, and will consider the
proposed Chan1ber building and parking garage.
2.
Review Train Delay Data. The consultant will review the video of the at-grade railroad
crossing at 5th Street and summarize the number of train crossings and the amount of
traffic delay caused by the crossing, and estimate the impact to traffic capacity caused by
crossing. This data will be documented in the final traffic study.
3.
Coordinate with the DOT on Overhead Signing Issues. The consultant will contact the
DOT to discuss providing additional overhead signing to Ice Harbor on U.S. 20 similar to
the existing signing provided on U.S. 61. The final report will document the resolution of
additional signing request.
4.
Prepare Updated Draft Traffic Report. HDR will provide two copies of an updated
draft traffic report. This report will include the items noted above and issues discussed at
the coordination meeting. A conference call with the City and the MPO will be conducted
to review comments on the updated Draft Report.
5.
Prepare Final Trame Report. Following review and comment, HDR will prepare and
submit five copies of a final traffic report.
6.
Meetings. HDR will present the results of the study at a DMA TS meeting to be setup by
the City.
7.
Out of Seope Items Incurred To Date. Two distinct areas have been identified where
out of scope effort was required to complete the draft study. The first area included
determining the total anticipated development for the ice harbor area. We had to review
numerous studies completed to date, use engineering judgement, and coordinate with City
staff to identify all the proposed development anticipated in Ice Harbor. The second area
included a more involved effort in the evaluation of additional direct access from U.S. 61
to Ice Harbor. We had originally estimated 24 hours for this task. The task took
considerably more time than estimated to adequately develop concepts and evaluate
constructability, cost, and access.
SCHEDULE
The updated Draft report will be submitted three weeks after receipt of the information requested
from the City. The final report will be submitted two weeks after receiving comments on draft
report.
DATA COLLECTION ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY
1. Preliminary layoUt of the proposed Chambers building located near the 3'0 StlMain St
intersection.
2. Preliminary layout of the proposed City parking garage near the 3,d Stt1vlain St intersection.
3. Video Taping of the railroad crossing just north of the 5'h Street/6th Street & White Street
intersection. Time stamps should be included so time of day can be retrieved.
FEE
HDR's cost estimate for the scope is a lump sum fee of$ 10,293. Refer to the attached sheet for
a breakdown of this lump sum cost.
ICE HARBOR REDEVELOP~IDT
TRUFIC STUDY
CITY OF DUBUQl'E
DUBUQUE, IOWA
MAN-HoeR SUM~IARY
P.'IJ TR.'FFIC DMITER! CLERICAL
TASK/SeBE" SR. E~G. E~G("ER TECH.
O. QCIP<OJM"". 2 0 0 2
I. R'm" ¡,d SuM"",, G"m"n" 2 2 ]0 0
2. R,,"" r"" 0"" D"" ' i 0 0
J. COO",""""" DOT" """"",,",, 2 0 0 0
,. P"p", Up"'" a"n T""" R'PM ' 16 to 0
;. p"p", "no] T"ft;, R"on ' 2 0 0
6. Co,,',""'on M""'""", D,",TS to 0 , 0
7. 0", o.s,op""m",,"",' '° ",'
,. R",~,"O",iop'mm'"'"h~b,,Ac" 0 , 12 0
b. 0""", R,,',.", A"", Ah,m,"'" ' S 'b 0
(VIAL '0 " ,-
FEE SUM~IARY
EST"IATED DIRECT LABOR
E"im"" lIoudy lobo,
Clm'fi,,"" ",n"ou,", Roo, Co"
I'<OJ'" "'""00' S"",'""",,, 30 SlOS.OO 13.]5000
T"m'E"i"" 39 $78.00 = \3."2.00
a"r",'T,,","" " S63.00 = S3.276.00
C"'k,] , S"OO = S9O.00
To,,]lIou,", 123
TOTAL EST"L\ TED LABOR S9.558.00
ESTI"" TED DIRECT EXPE~SES
Q.,.. e,h U,itR", Co" Tolal.
PL"~ REPRODUCTIO~.< COPYING
G"",] "ho<o'opy,", 200 "p", I"' 0.]0 120
CO," 1'1", , '01"" '"' "'.00 \270
R'pon. 10 '01"" '", >12.00 Sl20
TRAVEL , I,. @ S325.00 sm
T"I,] E"'m",d E'"",,, S7J5.00
TOTAL ESTI~l.nED FEE SIO,293.00
,,' ',. : 7. 2 ;.:::< 3: 12 ':'1
~D\ :¡',G n almA (LC2) 399 49ï9
NO. 1933 P. 2
ì ( C {( Ie (v/
~r¡JO
ICE HARBOR ').oof)('11/) J J
. ,/ÿ\{ef,y
A C CESS
TRAFFI C STUDY
City of Dubuque
November 1999
p¡u\f'f
lilt
HDR Engineering, Inc.
JA1.17.mo 3:12/M
HDR E~G 6ïH OMAHA (4C2) 399-4979
STUDY REPORT
ICE HARBOR ACCESS TRAFFIC STUDY
prepared for the
City of Dubuque
November 1999
prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
NO. 1933
P. 3
.:. Table ofContetlts .:.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................!
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1
PURPOSE............................................................................................................................. I
STUDY ApPROACH ..................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 - STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION............................................................ 2
SITE AREA CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................... 4
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES.............................................................................................4
EXISTING ACCESS AND SIGNING SUMMARY................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 4 - FORECASTING METHODOLOGIES ................................................ 6
OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 6
TRIP GENERATION ..............................................................................................................6
TRIPÐISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................9
TRIP ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 5 - TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ...................................................................13
LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY CALCULATIONS ............................................................. 13
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS........................................................""""""""""""""'" 13
PROJECTED 20 YEAR (2019) No BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS """"""""""""""""""'" 14
PROJECTED 20 YEAR (2019) BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ......................................... 14
CHAPTER 6 - FUTURE ACCESS INTO ICE HARBOR .........................................18
OVERIEW........................................................................................................................... 18
ALTERNATIVE I-LoCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSION WEST OF ICE HARBOR.................. 18
ALTERNATIVE 2 - LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSION ACROSS ICE HARBOR................... 19
ALTERNATIVE 3 - ÐIRECTRAMP ACCESS FROM U.S. 61 TO THE 3'D ST. OVERPASS...... 19
CHAPTER 7 -RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................22
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 23
Ice Harbor RedevelDpment Traffic SIudy
Page i
November 1999
.:. Table of Contents .:.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I - LOCATION MAP.......................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 2 - EXISTING 1999 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES............................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3 - PROPOSED LAND USES WITHIN ICE HARBOR............................................................................ 7
FlGURE 4 - PROJECTED 2019 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ................................................. II
FlGURE 5 - PROJECTED 2019 BUILD PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................ 12
FlGURE 6 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................. 17
FIGURE 7 - ACCESS ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................."""""""""""""", 21
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I - PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION FOR TYPICAL LAND USES........................................................... 8
TABLE 2 - PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION FOR MAJOR ATTRACTION LAND USES ....................................... 9
TABLE 3 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY ROADWAY........................................................................................... IO
TABLE4 - AVERAGE INTERSECTION DELAY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA...................................... I3
TABLE 5 - SU~I~IARY OF AVERAGE INTERSECTION DELA Y AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................... 16
.-
k" I 1;1< ¡", Rcdc,.<t"I'",c'H l'nHlk S"'dy
PJge ii
November 1999
':'lntroduction .:.
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of a traffic study for the proposed
redevelopment of Ice Harbor. Recenlly, the City of Dubuque has had several studies completed in
eonjunction wilh the potential redevelopment of the 100 acres of land known as Ice Harbor. These
studies ranged from parking studies within Ice Harbor to the potenlial economic impact that a proposed
convention center eould have on the City. The studies to date have been completed to address different
aspects of the potential redevelopment of the Ice Harbor, otherwise known as 4'" Street Peninsula.
The purpose of this study is to determine the potential impact the proposed redevelopment is anlicipated
to have on the surrounding roadway network. Existing PM peak hour traffic counls were collected along
the main entrances/exits of Ice Harbor. In addition, this study also analyzed the allematives for additional
access to and from US 61. The methods and assumptions used for determining the potential impact along
the surrounding roadway network associaled with the proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor are
documenled wilhin this report.
STUDY APPROACH
The following tasks were completed for the traffic analysis of the proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor.
Data Collection: Several items were collected and reviewed to obtain the necessary information
required to complete this traffic study. The following includes some of the items that were used as
resources for this traffic study.
~ 4'" Street Peninsula Parking Study (BRW/April 1999)
~ Mississippi River Discovery Center Pamphlet
~ Market, Program and Economic Analysis Related to Existing and Polential Convention
Facilities in Dubuque, Iowa (CS&UDecember 1998)
~ The land uses proposed by the City in the Ice Harbor area
~ Existing signal timing of the signalized intersections
~ Existing intersection lane geometry
~ Interseclion tuming movement counts during the PM peak hour
Trip Generalion: This step determines how much traffic is anticipated to be generated by the
proposed land uses within Ice Harbor.
Trip Distribution: This step determines the spatial allocation of the local and regional trips
generated by the additional development of Ice Harbor.
Trip Assignment: This step assigns the trips to the exisling roadway network based on the origins
and destinations determined in Ihe trip distribution step.
Capacitv/Operations Analvsis: The final step determined the level of service for the existing and
projected future traffic volumes. This step determined Ihe potential increase in delay that is
anticipated to occur at the intersections analyzed due to Ihe proposed development within Ice Harbor.
It also identified capacity improvemenls required 10 serve the additional traffic generated by the
proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor.
tce Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Siudy
November 1999
.:. Study Area Description .:.
CHAPTER 2 - STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
SITE AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor includes approximately 100 acres of land located within the
area presently known as the 4'" Slreet Peninsula. The area included within this study is bordered by US
61 on the west, the Mississippi River on the east, the railroad tracks on the north, and the harbor on Ihe
south.
The following list contains the primary businesses that currently reside in Ice Harbor.
Iowa Welcome Center
Port Side Lounge
Diamond Jo Casino Boat and Restaurant
Spiril of Dubuque Dinner Boat
Mississippi River Museum
Various CommerciallIndustrial Businesses
Patrons traveling 10 these businesses have several inters eel ions that they must travel through in route to
Ice Harbor. The analyses focused on the inlersections within Ice Harbor as well as the selected
intersections along key access routes to Ice Harbor. The following lists Ihe inlersections that were
analyzed for Ihis study:
Signalized Intersections
. US 61 and Locust Street/US 61 Connector
. Locust Street and Locust Slreet/US61 Connector
. Locust Street and US 20
. Centr.ll Avenue and 5'" Street
. 3"' Street and Main Street
11nsignalized lnlersections
. Locust Street and 3"' Street
. Bluff Street and 3"' Street
. 5'h Street and White Street
. 3"' Slreet and Bell Street
. 6'" Street and Bell Street
. 5"'/4'" Stre'et and 6'" Street
Displayed in Figurc I are the primary businesses in the Ice Harbor development and the intersections that
We're :malyzed.
--
1« ",,',,' R"'OI.tI"I'IIIcnt Tml1i< Sindy
Novembe, 1999
s.
gfj '?
~s 8
:ïs ,¡,
~~~:Ii
'.Q~
~¡;gi
;2..~
¡~[L
'.~u
'lii*
~~.t
400 0
~--
SCALE IN FEET
400
LEGEND
SIGNALIZED
. INTERSECTIONS
.Â. UNS/GNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
R REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
LOCATION MAP
1
.:. Existing Conditions .:.
CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing PM peak hour tuming movemenl counts were collected from various sources for the key
intersections in the study area. Based on a review of the intersection turning movement data and the trip
generation characteristics of the proposed land uses, it was delermined that the PM peak hour generates
the highest overall traffic volumes.
Displayed in Figure 2 are the existing PM peak hour turning movement volumes that were analyzed for
this study.
EXISTING ACCESS AND SIGNING SUMMARY
Patrons currenlly have two existing alternatives to access the Ice Harbor area, including the 3'. Slreet
overpass over US 61 and the 5'" Street/White Street intersection. The summary below describes what
options are currenlly available for patrons accessing Ice Harbor.
From the North: Those traveling along southbound US 61 are currently signed to access Ice
Harbor by using the 3'. Street overpass via the Locust Street Connector and Locust Street. Those
patrons that enter along Central Street are guided to 4'" Street and the U.S. 61 NB Off-RamplWhite
intersection. No signing appeared to be provided from Bluff Street to Ice Harbor.
From the South: Those traveling along northbound US 61 are currently signed 10 access Ice
Harbor by using the White Street Off-Ramp and 5'" Street. If patrons are traveling along Locust
Street, Ihey are guided to the 3'. Street overpass into Ice Harbor.
From the West: No signing was provided for patrons traveling from the west. The primary route
for patrons traveling from the west is along eastbound U.S. 20/Dodge Slreet and includes Locusl
Street and the 3'. Slreet overpass.
From the East: No signing was provided for westbound U.S. 20/Dodge Street similar to
eastbound u.S. 20 traffic, and the primary route includes Locusl Street and the 3'. Streel overpass.
It should be noted that the existing access point at Ihe 5'" Street/While Street intersection involves
crossing a Chicago, Central, and Pacific Railroad at-grade crossing that includes two mainline Iracks and
one spur Irack. Based on data eompiled by Ihe U.S. Department of Transportation, approximately
fourteen trains use Ihis crossing during the day, and twelve trains use this crossing at night.
We recommend that additional signing be provided along eastbound and westbound u.s. 20 (via Locust
Street and the 3'. Street overpass) and Bluff Street. A more prominenl sign should also be considered at
Locust Street and 3'. Street. During our field review, we observed one traveler that was northbound on
Locust Street that missed the 3'" Street signing and asked for directions. We also recommend thaI fulure
developmenl within the 4'" Street Peninsula reference being located in Ice Harbor.
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Study
Novemb., 1999
",."",
I!
!i.
<!
123 '6
t r
>72 ...
US 2OIDOd S"eo'
360 312 '96 L 301
.J ~ l. f=:
:-+ ~ r
"'. 122 244 101
-
c:=:::J 0..,....
-=== AloG,..o
~ RolI",o. C<OSSing
FIGURE 2
ICE HARBOR REOEVELOPMENTTRAFFIC STUDY
EXISTING 1999 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
fiI\
.;. Forecasting Methodologies .;.
CHAPTER 4 - FORECASTING METHODOLOGIES
OVERVIEW
This chapter discusses the methodologies used to project the potential traffic generated by the proposed
redevelopment of Ice Harbor. The City of Dubuque provided an estimate of the proposed land uses for
full redevelopment of the Ice Harbor area. The following sections provide documentation of trip
generation, trip dislribution, and trip assignment used in this traffic analysis.
The City of Dubuque Planning Department provided a growth rate of 1.5 % per year for calculation of the
background traffic at the study area intersections. This growth rate was applied to each of the existing
PM peak hour turning movement volumes included within Ihis study for a 20-year horizon. Displayed in
Figure 4, on page II, are the projected 2019 background PM peak hour volumes.
TRIP GENERATION
The first step in the forecasting process is trip generalion. This step involves detennining how many
enlering and exiting trips are generated by the proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor. The proposed land
use types and development densities that were analyzed for Ihis study were based on discussions with
City of Dubuque personnel and review of previous studies completed. For purposes of this study, the
land uses were divided into the two categories due to their overall intended usage and trip generation
eharacteristics. As classified below, the "Typical"land uses are those generally used by people in the
metropolitan area. The "Major Attraction" land uses, on the other hand, may be used by people from
across the region. The following list summaries the two categories that were used for this study. The
proposed land uses are depicted in Figure 3.
Typical Land Uses
Convention Center Hotel
Diamond Jo Casino Hotel
Industrial (15 acres of warehousing/light industrial)
Commercial (30 acres specialty retail)
Commercial (30 acres shopping center)
General Office (15 acres)
Residential (10 acres of apartments)
Maior Attraetion Land Uses
City of Dubuque Convention Center
Mississippi River Discovery Center
Amphilheater
The proposed Mississippi River Discovery Center was included as a "Major Attraction" due to the
projected annual attendance of between 134,000 and 217,000 patrons. Most of these patrons, over time,
are anticipated to be regional trips.
Depicted in Table I is the proposed total trip generation by land use for the PM peak hour for the
"Typical" land uses wilhin the proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor. The trip generation characteristics
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Study
November 1999
Q)
C9
!
e; ..
n" !:!
~6 g
..8 '?
~';!i::¡
~§5~
~'ÉðC
f?~i
¡~ã2
n.~~
:J~*
O_OL
.:. Forecasting Methodologies .:.
of the proposed land uses were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual, 6" Edition. For purposes of trip generation, the acres of each land use were converted to a unit
of measure that was consisteni with trip generation rates that were available in the above referenced
manual. Within the total number of acres for each land use, there are parking lots, internal roadways, and
other infrastructure that are not part of the building's usable floor space. The floor-to-area ralio (FAR) is
a measure of the amount of building floor space compared to the total site acreage. Based on sinùlar
types of developments, an assumed (FAR) of 0.50 for the industrial uses and an (FAR) of 0.20 for the
commercial uses was used to obtain the gross building floor space available for lease.
Once the magnilude of each land use was estimaled, a trip rate for a typical PM peak hour was
determined. Due to the relatively high number of closely spaced complementary land uses, there is a high
potential for internal trips between two or more land uses. To account for this, an assumed reduclion of
30% was applied to the trip generation of the hotels, commercial, and the residential land uses. Overall
Ihis relates 10 a 25% reduclion in the total number of lrips to Ice Harbor. This reduction lies within the
range of sinùlar nùxed-use developments documented in Ihe Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Handbook. The ranges for the percentages of field-measured internallrips for sinùlar
developments were between 28% and 41 %. Since the development within Ice Harbor has some industrial
and office space uses in the proposed plan, the overall rate used should be lower because these land uses
are less complementary and would thus tend to have lower internal trips rates Ihan a typical nùxed-use
development With this internal reduction rate applied, over \,800 additional vehicle trips are expected to
be generated from Ice Harbor's "Typical"land uses during the PM Peak hour.
Table 1- Proposed Trip Generation for Typical Land Uses
II I Weekday PM Peak Hour
I Velùcle Velùcle Trip % Adjusted Velùcle Trip
Proposed Land Use Units Number Trip Generation Internal Generation
otUnits Rate Total Enter Exit Reduction Total Enter Exit
DiamondJo Hotel (I 13.050 sq. ft.) Rooms 170 0.52 88.4 46.9 41.5 30% 61.9 32.8 29.1
Convention Center Holel (139.700 sq. ft.) Rooms 220 0.52 114.4 60.6 53.8 30% 80.1 42.4 37.6
IuduSirial (15 acres orwarehonsingllighl industrial) Employees 325 0.59 191.8 67.1 124.6 0% 191.8 67.1 124.6
Commercial(30 acres of specially relail) 1.000 GFA 260 2.59 673.4 289.6 383.8 30% 471.4 202.7 268.7
Commercial(30 acres or shopping cenler) l.oooGFA 260 3.74 972.4 466.8 505.6 30% 680.7 326.7 354.0
General Office(15 acres) 1.000 GFA 164 1.49 244.4 41.5 202.8 0% 244.4 41.5 202.8
Residential (apaomenlS @ 20 units per acre) Units 200 0.62 124.0 83.1 40.9 30% 86.8 58.2 28.6
I Tolal 11~c::=JD 2409 1056 1353 1817 772 1045
Depicted in Table 2 is the proposed tolal trip generation by land use for the PM peak hour for the "Major
Attraction" land uses within the proposed redevelopment of Ice Harbor. The trip generation
characteristics of the proposed land uses within Ihis eategory vary from the typical land uses due to their
relatively large attendance levels. The trip generation rales for these land uses are based on patron
attendance levels rather than by square footage or acreage. The following paragraphs briefly describe the
basis for the trip generation included in this sludy.
The trip generation used for the Dubuque Convention Center requires the most discussion due to the
nature of the variety of events that can be accommodated by such a facility. The convention center can
accommodale several types of evenls that range from a local crafts show to a regional convenlion that
draws delegates from several slates. The attendance level for a particular event can vary from less than
200 to as many as 1,000 patrons. In addition to Ihe varying attendance, each type of event draws patrons
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Study
November 1999
.:. Forecasting Methodologies .:.
with different needs and expectations. For the purposes of this report, a regional convention was chosen
with an attendance level of 750 patrons. This type of convention requires patrons to rely on positive
guidance given by roadway signs to locate their deslination in Ice Harbor. Half of the attending patrons
were assumed to arrive during the PM peak hour. These patrons will generally arrive via the airport or
from the major roadway networks of the surrounding cities. The distributions of these patrons are
described in the Trip Distribution section of this report.
The trip generation used for the Amphitheater was based on the number of seats that are provided for a
particular event. According to the City of Dubuque, a maximum of 1,000 seats would be provided for
events at this amphitheater. Generally, for events of this type Ihat start at a fixed time and last between
two or three hours, approximately 55% of Ihe projected number of patrons arrive during the hour before
the start of an event. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the event started at 6:00 pm and
the majority of the traffic accessed the facility during the PM peak hour.
The trip generation used for the Mississippi River Discovery Center was based on an average daily
attendance during the year. The projected attendance for a year of bel ween 134,000 and 217,000 was
provided by Ihe City of Dubuque Historical Society. Based on review of the previous parking study and
researching traffic patterns at similar museums, an average daily attendance of 560 palrons was used for
Ihis study. This relates to approximately an average annual attendance of 200,000 patrons. Based on
engineering judgement, it was assumed that 50% of the 560 patrons were entering, while the other 50%
were exiting during the PM peak hour.
Table 2 - Proposed Trip Generation for Major Attraetion Land Uses
Vehicle Trips Generated
Number , Patrons I Driver TDtal Percent Total Vehicle
PropDsed Land Use Units DfUnits Occupancy PrDjected During Trips
Vehicle Trips Peak HDur Generated
Convention Center Sq. ft. 105,500 750 2.25 333 50% 167
Amphitheater (7,500 sq. ft.) Seats 1,000 1,000 2.75 364 55% 200
Mississippi River Discovery Center Sq. ft. 44,000 560 2.75 204 50% 102
Total 2310 I I 901 468
Overall, nearly 2,300 additional vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed Ice Harbor
development during the PM peak hour.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution refers to the allocation of generaled lrips between their origins and destinations. The trip
distribution for the proposed trips was also dependent on the proposed land use eategory whether
"Typical" or "Major Attraction". Each category had a slightly different distribulion due to the nature of
the patrons included within each category.
The trip distribution for the 'Typical" land use category was based on the general travel patlems through
the intersections that were analyzed for this study. These travel patterns were verified with the ECIA's
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Study
November 1999
.:. Forecasting Methodologies .:.
Regional Transportation Model. The existing travel pattems matched closely with Ihe travel patterns that
were produced with a model run that included a large attraction located in Ice Harbor. Depicted in Table
3 is the lrip distribution by roadways used to travel to/from Ice Harbor.
Table 3 - Trip Distribution By Roadway
ROADWAY PERCENT AGE OF
TRIPS DISTRIBUTED
3'" St/5rn St West ofBluffSt 5%
Bluff St/Central St 36%
U.S. Highway 61 35%
U.S. 20/Dodge St 24%
The "Major Attraction" land use Irip distribution was based on patrons that generally originate from
across the region. With the existing access points for this study, half of the trips generated wilhin Ihis
category were distributed to US 20/Dodge Street, while the other half were distributed to U.S. 61. The
distribution is consistent with the existing travel patterns.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Once the trips have been assigned to the intersections within the sludy area, Ihe newly generated trips
were then added to the 2019 background traffic projeclions. This represents the total traffic that could be
expected with the proposed land uses within Ice Harbor described at the beginning of this chapter. The
2019 baekground PM peak hour volumes are displayed in Figure 4, while the proposed 2019 PM build
PM peak hour volumes are displayed in Figure 5.
Ice Harbor Redevetopmen! Traffic S!udy
JO
November 1999
~.",S'
170 60
770 74<1
US 201Dod St,..t
60S 420 67' L 40'
J ~ l. f= ~;~
~~- ~ r
155. 165 335 135
!.t!IItm;
c==::J 0..,....
~ ~:;= c......"
FIGURE'
ICE HARBOR REDEVEWPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
PROJECTED 2019 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
IiI!
1145 740
US '00" .51«..
6" 60s ." L 505
J¡l.f=~~:
~-- "l ~
155. ,.. .,. 135
-
c:::=:J O~.....
~ AtoG«d.
-mrmrrmmr- R.II,~d C"""9
FIGURES
ICE HARBOR REDEYEWPMENI'TRAFFIC STUDY
PROJECTED 1019 BUIW PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
375 ..
!ill
.:. Traffic Operations .:.
CHAPTER 5 - TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY CALCULATIONS
This study included the analysis of both signalized and un signalized intersections. For the signalized
intersections, the existing signal timing plans were oblained from the City of Dubuque. The roadway
geometries used for this analysis were obtained from field visits to the interseetions included in this study.
The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual's methodology was used to calculate the average intersection delay
and level of service. Level of Service (LOS) and intersection delay are typical measures of effectiveness
that are used to quantify traffic operations at signalized and the unsignalized intersections. Displayed in
Table 4 are the six LOS categories that are used for signalized and unsignalized intersections that are
included in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.
Table 4 - A veral!e Interseetion Delav and Level of S
LEVEL OF STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC.)
SERVICE SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALlZED
INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTIONS
A <-5.0 <-5.0
B 5.1 to 15.0 5.1 to 10.0
C 15.1 to 25.0 10.1 to 20.0
D 25.1 to 40.0 20.1 to 30.0
E 40.1 to 60.0 30.1tD45.0
F >60.0 >45.0
ervice Criteria
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Using the above described methods and information, the existing 1999 traffic operations were evaluated
during the PM peak hour. All of Ihe signalized intersections included within Ihis study had an exisling
overall LOS of B, except the intersection of U.S. 20/Dodge Street and Locust Slreet. This intersection
had a LOS C indicative of a significant number of vehicles stopping. Periodic cycle failures are also
occurring where the full traffic queue is not cleared in a single cycle.
All of the unsignalized intersections included within this study had overall LOS of A. It should be noted
that the intersections of 3'. StreetILocust Street and 3'. StreetIBluff Slreet were analyzed differently than
an isolaled intersection due to their proximity with a nearby signalized intersection. At each of these two
intersections, the traffic along 3'. Streel stops for Ihe cross street traffic along Bluff Street and/or Locust
Street. Each of these intersections has an upstream signalized interseclion that influences the flow of
traffic along Bluff Street or Locust Street. The upstream signalized intersection causes platoons of traffic
that pass 3'. Street in large groups. Two volume scenarios were analyzed based on the traffic counts of
Ihe signalized and unsignalized intersections. The first assumed that 80% of the traffic that pass 3"' Street
arrives in a plaloon, while the other 20 % are considered to have random arrivals. Average intersection
delays were computed for each of the two volume scenarios and a composile level of delay was
calculated.
Displayed in Table 5, located on page 16, are the LOS and Delay for the existing PM Peak Hour volumes.
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Trame Study
13
November 1999
JA'I. II. nu~
j: 121M
hD~ E~G 6TH OMAHA (~O2) 399-4979
NO. 1933
P. 4
~~ Traffic Operations ~.
PROJECTED 20 YEAR (2019) NO BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The 2019 no build traffic operations analysis considered the existing geometries, existing traffic control,
and the projected 2019 background traffic demand without the proposed Ice Harbor redevelopment. All
of the signalized intersections are projccted to operate at LOS D or better. The U.S. 201Dodge Street and
Locust Street intersection dropped from a LOS C to a LOS D, while the intersection of the Locust Street
and the Locust Street Connector dropped from a LOS B to a LOS C. Tlús decrease in LOS was primarily
due to the overall increase in the intersection traffic volumes. It is anticipated that the U.S. 20/Dodge
Street and Locust Street intersection will becomo an interchange in the future and thus the traffic
operations should improve. A summary of the overall intersection delay and level of service is displayed
in Table 5.
The unsignalized intersections located within lee Harbor remained at level of services A. The
unsignalized intersections at 3'" StreeUBluff Street and 3rd Street/Locust Street however require some
additional discussion. The combination of the increase of t...ffic alo~ Locust StreeUBluff Street and
along 3rd Street causes increased delays for patrons traveling along 3 Street. The overall avenge
intersection LOS decreased from A to B at the intersection of 3rd StreetlLocust Street, while the eastbound
approach delay increased by over 10 seconds. At the intersection of 3rd StreetIBluff Street, the overall
intersection LOS decreased from A to C. This occurs due to thc significant increase in delay along the
westbound approach of 3"' Street. Along this approach of 3rd Street, there is a high left turning volume.
The increase in traffic along Bluff Street reduces the gaps available, thus significantly increasing the
delay at the intersection for the westbound approach. The delay a!ong the westbound approach increased
by over 45 seconds to LOS F. The projected no-build PM peak hour traffic volumes satisfy the peal< hour
traffic signal warrant and a signal would need to be considered to provide acceptable traffic operations.
PROJECTED 20 YEAR (2019) BUILD TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The 2019 build traffic operations analysis considered the projected 2019 traffic demand assuming full
redevelopment of Ice Harbor. The combiDation of anticipated background traffic growth and the nearly
2,300 additional vehicle trips that are anticipated from the Ice Harbor redevelopment have a subslantiaJ
impact on the existing intersection traffic control and lane configurations in the study area.
A conservative approach was used for the Ice Harbor redevelopment trip generation. This assumed
severa! concurrent major attractions within Ice Harbor, including a major convention ccnter event and an
amphitheater event. It is estimated that this magnitude of trip generation wi!! occur less that ten times a
year. Based on the OCcurrence interval of this major eVent, a minimum level of service criteria of D was
utilized for the operations analysis.
Based on this criteria, a capacity analysis was conducted with the existing geometries and traffic control
in the study area. Due to the changes in traffic volumes and patterns, traffic signal cycle lengths and
phasing were optimized based on coordinated semi-actuated signal operations. This capacity analysis is
included in the appendix. Based on this analysis, several capacity improvements wiJt be required.
Ice IùrIx>o- Rcx!:velopment Tnoffi, Study
14
November 1999
.:. Traffic Operations .:.
Based on a review of peak hour signal warraI]ts ~nd to me~t.p~.oiect level of service criteria, traffic
signalization is recommended at following inlersecÎÎ<>ns: <.-
3" Street and Bell Street
. 5th Street 14th Street and 6th Street
3" Street and Locust Street
3" Street and Bluff Street
5th Street and White Street
Based on the capacity analysis, additional lanes will also be required at several areas. Elimination of on
street parking on 3" Street from Main Slreet to Bluff Street is recommended to provide additional traffic
capacity. We propose operating 3'" Street as a four-lane undivided facility in this area. Based on the
unbalanced Iraffic flows and heavy westbound left-turn movement at the Bluff Street intersection, we
recommend separate traffic phases for the eastbound and westbound traffic movements.
We assumed left-turn lanes would be provided on all approaches at the 3" Streel and Bell Slreet
inlerseclion. We also assumed a right-turn lane would be provided for the southbound movement This
area is subject to change based on the internal eirculation roadways within the redevelopment area.
Table 5 details the estimated level of service and traffie delay for the 2019 build PM peak hour traffic
operations considering the capacity improvements noted above. The proposed lane configurations and
traffie control are detailed on Figure 6.
Ice Harbo, Redevelopmenl T..ffic Study
15
Novembe, 1999
JM,17.20GO 3:12iM
H~\ m 6TH OMAHA (402) 399-4979
NO. 1933
P. 5
.:. Traffic Operations ~~
Table 5 - Summary of A vera¡;¡e Intersection Delay and Level of Service
20 YEAR PM 20 YEAR PM
EXISTING 1999 PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR NO-BUll..D BUll..D
VOLUMES VOLUMES VOLUMES WITH
WITH EXISTING WITH EXISTING PROPOSED
GEOMETRY GEOMETRY GEOMETRY
2.0 2.2 16.0
A A C
1.3 1.4 5.6
A A B
0.4 0.5 5.6
A A B
3.5 6.1 18.5
ABC
4.1 11.9 24.4
A C C
2.4 3.6 14.5
A A B
7.4 7.8 8.6
" B ß
7.3 9.1 17.7
B B ç
23.9 29.0 30.5
C D D
12.2 21.9 27.3
BCD
5.8 8.3 25.0
B B D
INTERSECTION
MEASURE
OF
EFFECI1VENESS
3 Slteet & Bell SlreCt
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
ó' Street & Bell SlreCt
5 14 Slreet & 6 Street
3' Street & LoCUSI Street
3' Strœt & Bluff Street
5' Street & While SIrect
3 Street & Main Street
5 Strect&CentralStreet
U.S. 20 & Locust Street
U.S. 61 & Locust Street Connector
Locust Street & Connector
Notes:
I. Red text indicates signali2ed intersection.
Ice H..."" R<d,velop...., Tn/fl, StUdy
November 1999
IG
c
"
"
'"
E~ :;
;~ ~
"8 '
:'I:!i;!
~ß,,:!:
S'Ósi
i!~,,~
~.ß~
;H*
8;;:!!:.t:
LEGEND
SIGNALIZED
. INTERSECTIONS
.Â. UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
R REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
TERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
6
.:. Future Access Into Ice Harbor .:.
CHAPTER 6 - FUTURE ACCESS INTO ICE HARBOR
OVERIEW
Several aceess alternatives to Ice Harbor were considered. The main goals of these altematives were to
provide a higher level of direcl access from U.S. 61 and to provide capacity and operational
improvements to Ihe Ice Harbor area. A wide range of alternatives were considered, and were evaluated
based on the ability to meet the goals stated above.
The access alternatives studied are shown graphically on Figure 7. The alternatives shown are very
schematic. Additional studies of these alternatives should eonsisl of: a detailed capacily analysis
(including an assessment of impacts to Ihe surrounding street syslem), horizontal and vertical geomelry,
intersection geometry. and operational analysis. Coordination would also be required with the railroads
and the Stale for their respective concerns relating 10 a particular alternative. These tasks are outside the
scop.: of this study. and would be required to make a recommendation for or against the proposed
alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 1- LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSION WEST OF ICE HARBOR
The first alternative studied included constructing an extension of the Locust Street Connector. This two-
wav. two-lane extension would be located on the west side oflhe Harbor. A left-turn lane would be
p";vided for the westbound approaeh at the Locust Street Connector interseclion. At Ihe 3,d Slreet bridge,
the extension would spIiI into two one-way Slreets. The inbound one-way street would merge into 3'd
Stn.'Ct. The oulbound one-way street would extend 10 5'" Slreet to form an inlernal circulation loop for the
site. This alternative would involve construction of a new at-grade railroad crossing for three 10 four
r.lilro:ld tr.lcks. and elimination of a spur track and a rail maintenance facility.
This :lltemative w,'uld also impact the west side of Ihe harbor and require conslruclion of a wall between
the Lc,."ust Strè<'1 Conneclor Extension and the harbor. Approximately 30' of clearance is proposed
~tween the parallel r;Iilroad tracks and the roadway. Due 10 the poor site distance on Ihe extension
approaching Ihe Locust Street Conneclor. split phasing is recommended between the Locust Connector
and Ihe extensi,'n approaches.
We w,'uld also rècommend 3"1 Street and 5'" Street be converted from two-way streelS to one-way streets
to improve ,'pet.nions. The :lceess from the U.S. 61 While Street northbound off-ramp 10 Ice Harbor
w'\IIld be maintain,'d wilh this concept.
c.~'I: An ol\k'r of magnitude construction COSI for this alternative is $2,000,000.
Cuuslrll<'lnhilil)': Difli<'ult
A,','es.': A dil\'ct <"'lIIlection is provided fur U.S. 61 traffic. bnt this lraffic must travel through an al-
gra,le 1~lill\\:ld ,'rossing.
Olh,'r Is.",,'s: The c""..,'pt wonld have an impact of the proposed layout of the Mississippi River
Discovcry (','m,'r. The concept would :tlso rèquire approval from Ihe State and the railroads. Storage for
vchicks during:l mil ct'l>ssing m:lY 11<::ln issue for northbound and southbound U.S. 61 as well as the
l.",ust Street Conlk'ct",.. Additionally. there may be potential operational issues for weaving traffic from
the ('cnlml Slt~<'t s,'uthhound on-nllnl1 to the extension.
".. U..tw 1\"1"."'1'1\\<,,,"\,,11" s.."ty
18
November 1999
.:. Future Access Into Ice Harbor .:.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSION ACROSS ICE HARBOR
The second allernative studied included constructing a new bridge over the western half of Ice Harbor to
provide a connection from the Locust Connector to 3,d Street. SiI1Úlar to Alternative 1, this alternative
would involve a new at-grade railroad crossing for Ihree to four railroad tracks, and eliI1Únation of a spur
Irack. This two-lane roadway would be two-way, and a left-turn lane would be provided for the
weslbound approach at the Locust Street Connector intersection.
Due to improved sighl distance, overlap phasing could be ulilized between the eastbound and westbound
approaches, resulting in more efficient operations at the Locust Street Connector inlersection (compared
to Altemative I).
Cost: An order of magnitude construction cost for Ihis allemative is $3,000,000.
Construetability: Difficult
Aeeess: A direct connection is provided for u.S. 61 traffic, but this lraffic must travel through an at-
grade railroad crossing.
Other Issues: The eoncept would impact have a significant impact on the functionality of the harbor.
Aesthetics and pedestrian access are also anticipated to be key areas of concern with the Diamond Jo
Casino and the Mississippi River Discovery Center. SiI1Úlar to Alternative I, this alternative would
require approval from the State and the railroads, and storage for vehicles during a rail crossing may be an
issue. Additionally, there may be potential operational issues for weaving traffic from the Central Street
southbound on-ramp to the extension.
ALTERNATIVE J - DIRECT RAMP ACCESS FROM U.S. 61 TO THE JRD ST. OVERPASS
The third alternative studied included constructing two new ramps from U.S. 61 to the 3,d Street overpass.
The northbound single lane ramp may require that an auxiliary lane be conslructed for northbound U.S.
61 frorn Jones Street. This ramp would require eliI1Únation of the existing White Slreet northbound off-
ramp from u.S. 61, and the proposed ramp would have a steep grade approaching the 3'd Street bridge.
The ramp gore for the proposed southbound off-ramp would be located a I1Únimum 1000 feet from the
southbound 9th Slreet on-ramp gore. Due to the tight spacing of the on and off ramps, an auxiliary lane
would be required between Ihe ramps. Bridge construction would be required for the entire southbound
ramp and auxiliary lane, and at least one existing building would be impacted. Straddle bent piers would
also be required to build ramp temùnal intersection (at the 3'" Street overpass) over the existing Central
Slreet soulhbound on-ramp.
Without widening the existing Iwo-Iane 3'" Street overpass, only a single lurn lane could be próvided
from Ihe proposed ramps to Ice Harbor. Signalized ramp terI1Únal intersections are anlicipated on the 3,d
Street overpass, impacting Ihe capacity of the bridge.
Cost: An order of magnitude construction cost for this alternative is $5,000,000.
Constructability: Difficult
Access: A direct eonnection is provided for U.S. 61 inbound traffic only.
Ice Harbor Redevelopment T",mc Study
19
November 1999
.:. Future Access Into Ice Harbor .:.
Other Issues: With the elimination of the US 61 northbound White Street off-ramp, the concept would
have a substantial impact to aecess from northbound U.S. 61 to the downtown area. A capacity analysis
would also need 10 be conducled to determine if weaving operalions between Ihe soulhbound 9th Street
on-ramp and the proposed 3'" Street off-ramp would be acceptable.
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Traffic Study
20
November 1999
Z
Q
0
"
e~ ;\
~5 ~
"'§ ~
;S~~~
~i~j
~~ãÈ
,,~:::t
iHl
400 0
~--
400
I
LEGEND
CD LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSI'
WEST OF ICE HARBOR
ø
LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSI
ACROSS ICE HARBOR
DIRECT RAMP ACCESS FROM
U.S. 61 TO THE 3RD STREET 0
REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
SS ALTERNATIVES
@
7
.:. RecommendaJions .:.
CHAPTER 7 - RECOMMENDATIONS
This study addressed capacily, access, and operalional issues concerning the redevelopment of Ice
Harbor. Based on the trip generation analysis, nearly 2,300 additional vehicle trips will be generated by
the Ice Harbor Redevelopment.
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, the additional traffic generated by the site can be primarily
handled by the existing infrastruclure (wilh elimination of selecled on-street parking areas and the
addition of several signalized intersections).
However, we understand that the level of direct access for regional traffic may limit the development
potential of Ice Harbor. We have presented several schematic alternatives to begin the brainstonning
process on potential access improvements to the Ice Harbor area. We would recommend Ihat these
alternatives be studied carefully by the City staff to detennine which alternatives would warrant
additional detail and study. We also recommend implementation of additional signing on U.S. 20, Bluff
Street, and Locust Street to Ice Harbor.
Additional study should also be conducted to ensure that the development occurs in a coordinated, orderly
fashion. Although it was outside the scope of this study, we feellhat the intemal sile access is a critical
component to a successful development with such diverse land uses. The timing to plan the internal
circulation of the site is critical while the additional development is in the planning stages. Careful
consideration of the intemal circulation should be done to assure that conflicting movements (both
vehicles and pedeslrians) of the proposed land uses are minimized. For example, the proposed location of
a proposed parking garage should be planned as to minimize conflicts with patrons walking tolfrom Ihe
Diamond Jo Casino and the proposed convention eenter and hotels.
Ice Harbor Redevelopment Tmffic Study
22
November 1999
.:. Appendix .:.
Appendix A-
Appendix B -
Appendix C-
Appendix 0 -
Appendix E-
APPENDICES
List of References
Existing 1999 PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Operations Analysis
Projected 2019 Background PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Operations Analysis
Projected 2019 Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Operations Analysis - No
Improvements
Projected 2019 Build PM Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Operations Analysis - With
Proposed Improvements along the Existing Access Roadways
1« IIMI", R"lc\~I"I'",cut Trnffi< Study
23
November 1999
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Highwav Capacitv Manual, Special Report 209, 3" Edition, Transportalion Research Board,
Washington D.C., 1994.
2. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of Slate
Highways and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1994.
3. Trip Generation. 6th Edilion, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 1997.
4. Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, October 1998.
5. Market Program and Economic Analysis Related to Existing and Potential Conyention
Facililies in Dubuque. Iowa, Conventions Sports & Leisure, December 21, 1998.
6. 4th Street Peninsula Parking Study Final Draft, BRW, April 1999.
7. 4th Street Peninsula Parking SludyŒotel and Conyention Center) Transmittal, BRW, August
24, 1999.
8. America's River: Celebratin!! Ihe Past. Embracin!! the Future
Mississippi River Discovery Center. Riyerwalk. and Amenities Phamplet
400
0
400
3
E0 n
ou -
an5 0
',0 0
m -iK g
s E W E-1u
0
0= in
ow no.
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
14
ICE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
LOCATION MAP
ICE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
PROPOSED LAND USES
ICE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
+oo
400
Z
W
E
O_
L.
O
430 O
0 co
�V
J 4Da 00
mOiceE
}.0 }
0
'tm m0
0 = aD l
014 DO.
SCALE IN FEET
LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSIO
WEST OF ICE HARBOR
LOCUST CONNECTOR EXTENSI
ACROSS ICE HARBOR
DIRECT RAMP ACCESS FROM
U.S. 61 TO THE 3RD STREET 0
eN
ICE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
NOVEMBER 1999