East West Corridor Study AdoptionMasterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
bierd
All-America City
1
2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: East -West Corridor Connectivity Study Final Report - Formal Adoption
DATE: February 15, 2012
City Engineer Gus Psihoyos recommends City Council formal adoption of the East -West
Corridor Connectivity Study in support of the Engineering Department's continuing effort
to implement the report recommendations.
On August 29, 2007, the City Council listed the completion of the East — West Corridor
Connectivity Study as a "High- Priority" on its Goals and Priorities for Policy Agenda
2007 -2008. The US 20 corridor is the primary east -west route in the City of Dubuque
and future traffic projects indicate US 20 alone will not provide sufficient capacity for
east -west travel in the city. Capacity along alternate east -west corridors will need to be
improved to provide connectivity between the western growth areas and the downtown.
On February 18, 2008, the City Council approved the consultant selection of HDR /IIW
Engineers & Surveyors, PC to complete the study.
The purpose of the study was to: analyze the east -west traffic flow in the City; identify
corridor improvements or modifications to support growing traffic demands; and to
consider transit needs, pedestrian needs, and sustainability.
On July 20, 2009 a City Council work session was held to seek Council input and
guidance in determining the proper balance between road improvements and private
property impacts. Input from this meeting was used by the Engineering Department and
HDR to finalize the corridor analysis and make final improvement recommendations.
On November 17, 2009 the Engineering Department presented the East -West Corridor
Connectivity Study Draft Report the City Council during a work session.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
2
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
bitil
All-America City
hill!
2007
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
SUBJECT: East -West Corridor Connectivity Study Final Report — Formal Adoption
DATE: February 15, 2012
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to request formal adoption of the East -West
Corridor Connectivity Study by the City Council in support of the Engineering
Department's continuing effort to implement the report recommendations.
BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2007, the City Council listed the completion of the East — West Corridor
Connectivity Study as a "High- Priority" on its Goals and Priorities for Policy Agenda
2007 -2008. The US 20 corridor is the primary east -west route in the City of Dubuque
and future traffic projects indicate US 20 alone will not provide sufficient capacity for
east -west travel in the city. Capacity along alternate east -west corridors will need to be
improved to provide connectivity between the western growth areas and the downtown.
On February 18, 2008, the City Council approved the consultant selection of HDR
(Omaha, Nebraska) /IIW Engineers & Surveyors, PC (IIW - Dubuque) to complete the
study. On July 22, 2008, an agreement was signed between the City and HDR
Engineering, Inc. (HDR) of Omaha, Nebraska, to provide professional engineering,
consulting, and related services to the East -West Corridor Connectivity Study.
The purpose of the study was to: analyze the east -west traffic flow in the City; identify
corridor improvements or modifications to support growing traffic demands; and to
consider transit needs, pedestrian needs, and sustainability. In addition to reviewing the
east -west corridor needs for the City of Dubuque, Asbury Road west of the Northwest
Arterial, including Asbury Road within the City of Asbury, was reviewed to determine
recommended improvements for this corridor. The City of Asbury has paid for this
portion of the study.
On July 20, 2009 a City Council work session was held to seek Council input and
guidance in determining the proper balance between road improvements and private
property impacts. Input from this meeting was used by the Engineering Department and
HDR to finalize the corridor analysis and make final improvement recommendations.
On November 17, 2009 the Engineering Department presented the East -West Corridor
Connectivity Study Draft Report the City Council during a work session. As part of the
council memo for the work session, the Engineering Department requested "input from
the City Council and approval to create an implementation plan for the
recommendations contained in the East -West Corridor Connectivity Report."
DISCUSSION
During the November 2009 work session, the following findings and recommendations
of the East -West Corridor Connectivity Draft Report were discussed:
Phase I Study — Corridor Identification
— The corridors included in the analysis are: Asbury Road; Pennsylvania Avenue;
University Avenue; and Loras Boulevard.
— Per Council direction, the recommended improvements should generally not extend
beyond the available right -of -way.
— University Avenue, from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard ( "Overlap
Section "), was noted as a location where major right -of -way impacts could be
considered.
— The study should include recommended improvements supporting complete streets
concepts and multi -modal transportation.
Phase 2 Study — Recommended Corridor Improvements
Detailed corridor screening process and analysis.
Four travel demand management strategies: 1) Aggressive land use /urban design;
2) Trip reduction ordinance; 3) Transportation Management Association (TMA); and
4) Updated transit system to support a multi -modal transportation solution.
— Vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and recreational improvements.
— Overlap Section conversion of three intersections along University Avenue to
roundabouts.
— Series of intersection realignments, turn lane additions, and cross section
modifications along each corridor.
After discussion of the various design alternatives contained in the report for each of the
four corridors, the work session concluded with the endorsement of the report's
concepts by the City Council and direction that the Engineering Department should
proceed with an implementation plan. Since the last 2009 work session, the
Engineering Department has developed a prioritized list of Capital Improvement
Projects involving the four east -west corridors and included the highest priority projects
each subsequent year as part of the annual budget adoption proceedings.
After the November 2009 work session HDR was directed not to complete the final
report until after the adoption of the FY11 budget in the Spring of 2010. During the
FY11 budget process it was clarified that no immediate design or construction work
would be initiated on any of the East -West Corridor projects. After the short term
funding decisions had been made, HDR issued the attached final version of the report
which is dated September 2010.
At this time, the Engineering Department would like to formalize the City Council's
support of the East -West Corridor Connectivity Study Final Report. As discussed during
the November 2009 work session, each of the report's 32 proposed projects along the
four corridors will be fully evaluated during their preliminary design phase to determine
exact traffic capacity needs and corresponding design options, consideration of public
stakeholder input, and specific property impacts.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
The Engineering Department seeks formal adoption of the recommendations contained
in the East -West Corridor Connectivity Study Final Report by the City Council.
cc: Chandra Ravada, ECIA
David Heiar, Economic Development Director
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Dan Brown, Fire Chief
Mark Dalsing, Police Chief
Barbara Morck, Transit Division Manager
Randy Gehl, Public Information Officer
Rich Russell, Building Services Manager
Bob Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer
Attachs.
RESOLUTION NO. 58 -12
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EAST -WEST CORRIDOR CONNECTIVITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT (SEPTEMBER, 2010)
Whereas, the City of Dubuque has adopted the 2008 Comprehensive Plan that
includes a Transportation Element; and
Whereas, the City of Dubuque has reviewed the East -West Corridor Connectivity
Study Final Report dated September, 2010, and finds it to be consistent with the 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
Section 1. That the East -West Corridor Connectivity Study Final Report
(September, 2010) is hereby adopted.
Attest:
1
Kevin
Passed, approved and adopted this 20thday of February, 2012.
irnstahl, ity C erk
Roy D. Buol, Mayor
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Asbury
`v r Ilmn liw I r n fnvyine'
Ent Cis nbmmel/o.of nmenuinuoain non
EAST -WEST CORRIDOR CONNECTIVITY STUDY
Roadway Concept and Traffic Operations Study
Prepared For
City of Dubuque
City of Asbury
By
HDR Engineering, Inc
September 2010
I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal
supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa.
William H. Sharp, Jr. (date)
My license renewal date is December 31, 2010.
Pages of sheets covered by this seal:
All Pages
E Ca, tlt
pus E Asbury
Masterpiece on the MiuL ippi "v.tMtwo "'°t"•
East Centsallnte■govetnmcntal assoelatton
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Report Purpose and Format 1
Phase 1 Study Corridors 1
CHAPTER 2. CORRIDOR SCREENING 3
Travel Demand Management Initiatives 7
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 9
Data Collection 9
Existing Conditions 9
Traffic Operations 9
CHAPTER 4: YEAR 2031 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS 15
Year 2031 Volume Development 15
Year 2031 Traffic Operations 15
CHAPTER 5: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 24
Complete Streets Considerations 24
Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations 26
Recommended Concept 29
Cost of Improvements 38
Project Sequencing 40
CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 58
Dubuque City Council Work Session November 2008 58
Public Information Meeting November 2008 58
Dubuque City Council Work Session July 2009 58
Agency Coordination and Stakeholder Meetings September 2009 58
Dubuque City Council Work Session November 2009 59
amogNme
Public Information Meetings November 2009 59
CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GO
East -West Corridor Recommended Concept East of Northwest Arterial 60
Incorporating Travel Demand Management 60
Additional Considerations 60
Asbury Road West of Northwest Arterial Recommended Concept 61
Additional Considerations 61
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -1. Dubuque East -West Connectivity Study Corridors 2
Figure 3 -1. Existing Conditions for Phase 2 Corridors 10
Figure 3 -2. Existing Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along Asbury Road13
Figure 3 -3. Existing Conditions Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along
Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue, and Loras Boulevard 14
Figure 4 -1. Year 2031 No -Build Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along
Asbury Road 18
Figure 4 -2. Year 2031 No -Build Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along
Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue, and Loras Boulevard 19
Figure 4 -3. Year 2031 Build Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along Asbury
Road
22
Figure 4 -4. Year 2031 Build Volumes, Geometrics, and Levels of Service along
Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue, and Loras Boulevard 23
Figure 5 -1. Preferred Concept Overview 30
Figure 5 -2A. Asbury Road Proposed Cross Section 31
Figure 5 -2B. Asbury Road Proposed Cross Section from Hillcrest Road to Clarke Drive3l
Figure 5 -2C. Asbury Road Proposed Cross Section from Green Street to University
Avenue 31
Figure 5 -3A. Pennsylvania Avenue Proposed Cross Section East of Hempstead High
School 33
Figure 5 -3B. Pennsylvania Avenue Proposed Cross Section from NW Arterial to
Hempstead High School 33
Figure 5 -4. University Avenue Overlap Section Proposed Cross Section 35
Figure 5 -5. University Avenue Proposed Cross Section east of Loras Boulevard 36
Figure 5 -6. Loras Boulevard Proposed Cross Section 37
Figure 5 -7A. Asbury Road West of Northwest Arterial Proposed Cross Section between
Seippel Road and Hales Mill Road 37
Figure 5 -7B. Asbury Road west of Northwest Arterial Proposed Cross Section East of
Hales Mill Road 37
Figure 5 -8. Recommended Concept - Asbury Road 42
LT1� I ONE COMPANY
�f Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
5 -9. Recommended Concept
5 -10. Recommended Concept
5 -11. Recommended Concept
5 -12. Recommended Concept
5 -13. Recommended Concept
5 -14. Recommended Concept
5 -15. Recommended Concept
5 -16. Recommended Concept
5 -17. Recommended Concept
5 -18. Recommended Concept
5 -19. Recommended Concept
5 -20. Recommended Concept
5-21. Recommended Concept
5 -22. Recommended Concept
5 -23. Recommended Concept
LIST OF TABLES
HE CITY ni
DUB
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Iluramlmlosam;••
Asbury Road 43
- Asbury Road 44
- Asbury Road 45
- Asbury Road 46
- Pennsylvania Avenue 47
- Pennsylvania Avenue 48
- Pennsylvania Avenue 49
- Pennsylvania Avenue 50
- University Avenue Overlap Section 51
- University Avenue and Loras Boulevard 52
- University Avenue and Loras Boulevard 53
Asbury Road West of NW Arterial 54
Asbury Road West of NW Arterial 55
Asbury Road West of NW Arterial 56
Asbury Road West of NW Arterial 57
Table 2 -1. Corridor Screening Scenario Comparison Table 8
Table 3 -1. Level of Service Description 9
Table 3 -2. Existing Conditions Analysis Results 11
Table 4 -1. Year 2031 No -Build Analysis Results 16
Table 4 -2. Year 2031 Build Analysis Results 20
Table 5 -1. Improvement Priority Summary Including Approximate Order of Magnitude
Costs 39
-C.I .A
East Ccntral Intorgovere montatAssoo lotion
71111CITY OF
Asbury
Masterpiece on the Missisippi un�rwwt rz+.•
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
REPORT PURPOSE AND FORMAT
The U.S. 20 corridor in Dubuque, Iowa is the primary east -west route in the City. Future traffic projections
indicate that U.S. 20 alone will not provide sufficient capacity for east -west travel in the City. Capacity along
alternate east -west corridors will need to be improved to provide connectivity between the western growth areas
and the downtown. The purpose of this study was to analyze east -west traffic flow in the City and identify corridor
improvements or modifications needed to support growing traffic demands. Additionally, consideration was given
to transit needs, pedestrian needs and sustainability.
In addition to reviewing the east -west corridor needs for the City of Dubuque, Asbury Road west of the
Northwest Arterial, including Asbury Road within the City of Asbury, was reviewed to determine recommended
improvements for the corridor.
The remainder of this chapter provides a description of the Phase 1 study corridors.
Chapter 2 provides a detailed discussion of the corridor screening process and analysis. Additionally, the Phase 2
study corridors are identified and a discussion of four travel demand management strategies is provided as noted
below:
• Aggressive Land Use /Urban Design
• Trip Reduction Ordinance
• Transportation Management Association (TMA)
• Updated Transit System
Chapter 3 includes a review of the existing conditions
of the Phase 2 corridors. Data Collection, geometric
conditions and traffic operations are discussed in
Chapter 3.
The year 2031 vehicular volume development process
and traffic operational analysis is discussed in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 provides a review of several components of
the concept development process including a discussion
of Complete Streets and pedestrian accommodations,
the preferred concept, probable construction costs and
project sequencing.
Page 1
Uniiersi,
Avenue Signalised Pedestrian Crossing West of Loras Boulevard
Study
ajk
Chapter 6 includes a summary of the public involvement activities that have occurred for the study including:
• 2 Dubuque Public Information Meetings
• 3 Dubuque City Council Work Sessions
• Dubuque Agency Coordination and Stakeholder Meetings
• 1 Asbury Public Information Meeting
Chapter 7 provides summary of the findings and recommendations for the study.
PHASE 1 STUDY CORRIDORS
Several primary east -west corridors were included in a screening analysis to determine which corridors were the
most influential to east -west travel within the City of Dubuque. A future year planning -level analysis for a various
improvement alternatives was performed for these Phase 1 study corridors. The corridors included in the analysis
were:
• Asbury Road
• Pennsylvania Avenue
• University Avenue
• Loras Boulevard
• Fremont Avenue
• Kaufmann Avenue
• 32nd Street
• North Cascade Road
These Phase 1 study corridors are shown in FIGURE 1 -1.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
117/
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
411',
Or
.�1 lSt.l.l. i1
FIGURE 1 -1. DUBU�UE EAST -WEST CONNECTIVITY STUDY CORRIDORS
IHECITY OA
DuAsbury EaseCentrallnletao■ernment4lAssociation
'Arent. .1 ealinvv•
Masfcryirr on the Mississippi
HIGHWAYS
DUBUQUE CITY LIMITS
ASBURY CITY LIMITS
hL � ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions.
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 2
THECXTY OF
ASbUfV
Mnsterpicu on the MissiRzippi xt�eto.nt„r nl.r:,t.'
East Central lnt, ovecnmental Psreci.lon
CHAPTER 2. CORRIDOR SCREENING
A corridor screening analysis was conducted to test transportation improvement alternatives and determine
their impact on travel patterns in the Dubuque metropolitan area. A key evaluation criterion of the corridor
screening was the traffic volume diversion potential from U.S. 20 and other heavily travelled east -west roadways.
The alternatives were tested using the volume forecasts for year 2031 from the East Center Intergovernmental
Association (ECIA) travel demand model. Evaluation of various capacity improvement scenarios helped identify
which improvements would be studied in further detail.
Twenty -two corridor improvement scenarios were evaluated. These scenarios were approved by the City of
Dubuque and presented to the City Council. Based on input from City Council, study improvements that would
require major right of way acquisition along any of the study corridors were removed from further consideration
except along the University Avenue Overlap section (Pennsylvania Avenue through Loras Boulevard). Additionally,
the City Council suggested Complete Streets amenities, specifically bicycle accommodations, be considered along
the study corridors.
The 22 corridor screening scenarios are summarized in this chapter. Figures illustrating the corridor screening
scenarios are shown in the appendix, and are based on the roadway network used in the travel demand model.
The volumes shown are raw travel demand model assignments, and should be used for comparison purposes only.
The figures show daily traffic volumes as compared to the capacity of the roadway. The relationship between
the daily volume and the capacity is illustrated by color, with green depicting roadways where the daily traffic
volume is `under' the daily capacity, or, a volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio below 0.9. Yellow segments of roadway
represent those with a daily traffic volume `at' the daily capacity, or a v/c between 0.9 and 1.1. The roadway
segments shown in red are projected as `over' capacity, or a v/c above 1.1. The thickness of the roadway segment
corresponds to the number of lanes for the roadway segment in the given scenario.
For comparison purposes, the existing conditions (year 2005) base scenario is shown with daily v/c ratios.
It should be noted that the v/c is representative of the capacity levels on a daily basis (24 -hour aggregate).
Therefore, peaking conditions, such as heavy travel in one direction during high commute times, are not
characterized.
The horizon year for all future traffic forecasts is year 2031. The future base scenario is representative of only
future improvements included in the Transportation 2031 Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), published by
the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (DMATS). For example, the Grandview Avenue extension
and the Southwest Arterial are included as new roadway facilities in the future base scenario. Several segments of
the east -west corridors, including U.S. 20, are projected to be over capacity in the future year 2031 but are not
over capacity in the existing conditions year 2005.
The 22 corridor screening scenarios for year 2031 include the 2031 LRTP improvements as well as specific
improvements that are listed in each scenario. It should be noted that similar capacities were used for 2 -lane
undivided with left -turn lanes and 3 -lane corridors based on capacities provided by ECIA, thus more capacity may
be realized for a 3 -lane cross section given the high number of driveways along the study corridors.
The following listing contains a brief description of each screening scenario.
Page 3
SCENARIO 1
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive, along the University Avenue Overlap section and along
University Avenue to Locust Street
Despite capacity improvements on Asbury Road, major portions of the Asbury Road corridor were still projected to
be at or over capacity. The Asbury Road daily traffic volume in Scenario 1 approximately doubled compared to the
future base scenario, as an additional 13,000 to 17,000 daily trips were projected to be attracted to this corridor.
The University Avenue corridor would attract nearly 9,000 more daily trips than the future base scenario, but the
additional lanes in this scenario would allow University Avenue to remain under capacity.
SCENARIO 2
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive, along the University Avenue Overlap section and along
Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
Similar to Scenario 1, despite improving capacity on Asbury Road to a 5 -lane section major portions of this
corridor were still projected to be at or over capacity as an additional 13,000 to 17,000 daily trips were attracted
to these segments. The Loras Boulevard corridor would attract nearly 12,000 more daily trips than the future
base scenario, but the additional lanes in this scenario would allow Loras Boulevard to shift from segments over
capacity in the future base, to segments either under or at capacity in Scenario 2.
SCENARIO 3
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive, along the University Avenue Overlap section
• 3 -lane along Loras Boulevard from University Avenue to Locust Street
• 3 -lane along University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
Despite capacity improvements on Asbury Road, major portions of the Asbury Road corridor would be at or over
capacity as an additional 13,000 to 17,000 daily trips were projected to be attracted to this corridor. With Loras
Boulevard and University Avenue each improved to 3 -lane cross sections, they each would attract on the order of
2,000 more daily trips. The v/c classifications on Loras Boulevard and University Avenue would not improve over
those shown in the future base scenario, and sections of Loras Boulevard would still be over capacity.
SCENARIO 4
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
The results of Scenario 4 were similar to Scenario 3, but there was not as much additional traffic projected to
be attracted to the University Avenue Overlap section without capacity improvements on Loras Boulevard or
University Avenue. Despite improving capacity on Asbury Road, major portions of the Asbury Road corridor were
still projected to be at or over capacity as an additional 13,000 to 16,000 daily trips were attracted to this corridor.
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
SCENARIO 5
Improvements:
• 3 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
• 5 -lane along the University Avenue Overlap section (Asbury Road to Loras Boulevard)
Improving Asbury Road to a 3 -lane cross section would attract approximately 20 percent more traffic volume
to the corridor (projected to be less than an additional 3,000 daily trips). This scenario would not improve daily
operations for the majority of the Asbury Road corridor. Without capacity improvements east of the University
Avenue Overlap section, the increase in traffic volume would be less than 3,000 trips resulting in improved v/c on
the University Avenue Overlap section compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 6
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Pennsylvania Avenue from Seippel Road, along the University Avenue Overlap section to Loras
Boulevard
• 3 -lane along Loras Boulevard from University Avenue to Locust Street
• 3 -lane along University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
The added capacity on Pennsylvania Avenue in Scenario 6 would attract up to an additional 12,000 daily trips
to the corridor. The v/c ratios on Pennsylvania Avenue would improve compared to the future base scenario.
However, Pennsylvania Avenue would not divert enough traffic volume from major portions of U.S. 20 and
Asbury Road, since these streets would remain over capacity. Loras Boulevard and University Avenue would each
attract in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 daily trips over the traffic volume forecast for the future base scenario. No
improvement to the v/c ratios on Loras Boulevard and University Avenue were realized with Scenario 6 compared
to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 7
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Pennsylvania Avenue from Seippel Road to just east of Northwest Arterial (Hempstead High
School)
• 5 -lane University Avenue Overlap section
In Scenario 7, the capacity improvement to Pennsylvania Avenue would not extend east past Hempstead High
School, and therefore the projected changes to the traffic volume forecasts would be minimal when compared to
the future base scenario. Modifying the University Avenue Overlap section to 5 lanes would attract an additional
2,000 daily trips to this segment, and would improve the v/c ratio such that the volume forecast would be
relatively equal to the daily capacity.
1L�
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
SCENARIO 8
Improvements:
• 5 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
• 7 -lane University Avenue Overlap section (Asbury Road to Loras Boulevard)
• 5 -lane Loras Boulevard from University Avenue to Locust Street
Scenario 8 is most similar to Scenario 2, except that Scenario 8 would improve the University Avenue Overlap
section capacity to 7 lanes instead of 5. In Scenario 8, Asbury Road was projected to attract as much as 17,000
additional daily trips above the future base scenario. With a 7 -lane cross section and an average daily traffic
volume of nearly 45,000, the University Avenue Overlap section v/c ratio was projected to be below capacity.
However, a major portion of Asbury Road would remain over capacity. Increasing the capacity on Loras Boulevard
to a 5 -lane section would reduce the University Avenue forecast by 2,300 daily trips compared to the future base
scenario, and would add 10,000 daily trips to Loras Boulevard. With these improvements, the Loras Boulevard and
University Avenue v/c ratios would be under capacity.
SCENARIO 9
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
• 5 -lane University Avenue Overlap section
• 3 -lane Loras Boulevard from University Avenue to Locust Street
• 3 -lane University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
Improving Asbury Road to a 3 -lane cross section would increase traffic volume forecasts up to 3,000 daily
trips compared to the future base scenario. Asbury Road was projected to be over capacity with the 3 -lane
improvement. The University Avenue Overlap section was also projected to be over capacity. As in previously
discussed scenarios, 3 -lane improvements to Loras Boulevard and University Avenue would attract additional
traffic to these corridors, yet the v/c ratios in these areas would not change compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 10
Improvements:
• 5 -lane Asbury Road from Spring Green drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
• 7 -lane University Avenue Overlap section
• 5 -lane Loras Boulevard from University Avenue to Locust Street
• 3 -lane University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
Scenario 10 is similar to Scenario 8, but Scenario 10 improvements include a 3 -lane section along University
Avenue. The results of this analysis are also similar to Scenario 8, with projected increases in daily trips on the
improved corridors. Although many segments of the improved corridors would result in improved v/c ratios
compared to the future base scenario, a significant portion of Asbury Road would remain over capacity.
Page 4
ast Central Intergovernmental Psroelation
SCENARIO 11
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to Rosedale Avenue
• 3 -lane Rosedale Avenue (Clarke Drive in model) to Grandview Avenue
• 3 -lane Grandview Avenue from Rosedale Avenue to Loras Boulevard
• 3 -lane Loras Boulevard from Grandview Avenue to Locust Street
• 3 -lane University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
The improvements in Scenario 11 were intended to provide an alternative route from Asbury Road to the west,
via Rosedale Avenue and Grandview Avenue, to Loras Boulevard and the downtown area. The difference in traffic
volume forecasts between Scenario 11 and the future base scenario would be minor and the overall v/c ratios
would not change significantly compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 12
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to Clarke Drive
• 3 -lane Clarke Drive/ Locust Street to Loras Boulevard
• 3 -lane University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
The improvements in Scenario 12 were intended to provide an alternative route from Asbury Road to the west, via
Clarke Drive and Locust Street, to Loras Boulevard and the downtown area. The traffic volume forecast on Locust
Street would increase by nearly 5,000 daily trips over the future base scenario clue to the additional capacity on
this route. However, the overall v/c ratios would not change significantly compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 13
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to Bonson Road
• 3 -lane Kaufmann Avenue from Bonson Road to Central Avenue (U.S. 52)
In Scenario 13, the Kaufmann Avenue improvements would add approximately 3,000 to 4,000 daily trips to this
corridor and would result in a v/c ratio under capacity. The v/c ratios for other east -west corridors would not
significantly change compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 14
Improvements:
• 3 -lane W. 32nd Street from Grandview Avenue to Central Avenue (U.S. 52).
• 3 -lane Grandview Avenue extension from W. 32nd Street to Northwest Arterial (2 -lane in Base)
In Scenario 14, approximately 2,000 more daily trips would be added to W. 32nd Street compared to the future
base scenario. With these cross section improvements, the Grandview Avenue extension would still be over
capacity. The traffic volume diverted from other east -west corridors would be minor, and therefore the v/c ratios
Page 5
for these corridors would not significantly change compared to the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 15
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Fremont Avenue/ N. Cascade Road from U.S. 20 to SW Arterial
The improvement to Fremont Avenue and N. Cascade Road would not significantly change the volumes or v/c
ratios on the east -west corridors. The improved route would draw an additional daily traffic volume ranging from
500 to 2,600.
SCENARIO 16
Improvements:
• 5 -lane along Asbury Road from Springreen Drive, along the University Avenue overlap section and along
University Avenue to Locust Street
• 6 -lane Northwest Arterial from U.S. 20 to Plaza Drive
Scenario 16 is similar to Scenario 1, with the addition of upgrading Northwest Arterial to a 6 -lane facility for
a majority of the corridor. With the additional Northwest Arterial capacity, an additional daily traffic volume
ranging from 1,000 to 3,00 was projected between U.S. 20 and Plaza Drive with v/c ratios that would be under
capacity. Although daily traffic volume forecasts would be reduced along Pennsylvania Avenue compared to the
future base scenario, additional traffic volume would be attracted to the Asbury Road corridor (higher than the
additional volume realized in Scenario 1).
SCENARIO 17
Improvements:
• 3 -lane Asbury Road from Springreen Drive to the University Avenue Overlap section
• 5 -lane University Avenue Overlap section (Asbury Road to Loras Boulevard)
• 3 -lane University Avenue from Loras Boulevard to Locust Street
• 6 -lane Northwest Arterial from U.S. 20 to Plaza Drive
Scenario 17 is similar to Scenario 5, with the addition of improving a portion of University Avenue, as well as
Northwest Arterial. Compared to Scenario 5, Scenario 17 would reduce the traffic volume on U.S. 20, and add
more traffic volume to Asbury Road and University Avenue. In this scenario, the v/c ratio on Northwest Arterial
would improve such that the corridor would be under capacity, yet other east -west corridors would remain similar
to those shown in the future base scenario.
SCENARIO 18
Improvements:
• 8 -lane U.S. 20 from Old Highway Road to Devon Drive
Widening U.S. 20 would attract additional daily trips, ranging from 2,000 to 7,000, to this corridor. The
improvements would allow some segments of U.S. 20 to achieve v/c ratios that would be under capacity. However,
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutionst
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
there would not be a significant reduction in volumes on east -west roadways such as Asbury Road and University
Avenue, which would be over capacity.
SCENAPJO 19
Improvements:
• Southwest Arterial removed
Scenario 19 was assessed for comparison purposes to the future base scenario, to determine the impacts of the
Southwest Arterial on the roadway network. Without the Southwest Arterial coded into the year 2031 travel
demand model network, most segments of the east -west corridors would have an increase in daily traffic volumes.
The U.S. 20 corridor would attract additional daily traffic volume ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 east of Northwest
Arterial. Traffic volume forecasts would be reduced on U.S. 20 west of Northwest Arterial, as more trips were
projected to travel on roadways south of U.S. 20, such as N. Cascade Road, English Mill Road, Kelly Lane and Cedar
Cross Road. It was found that without the Southwest Arterial in the future, the travel demand for the local streets
south of U.S. 20 would increase.
SCENAPJO 20
Scenario 20 incorporated land use modifications, by intensifying the downtown land use. This scenario contains
no transportation roadway network improvements beyond those assumed in the future base scenario. The land
use data was modified such that population and employment growth that was previously allocated to western
Dubuque were reallocated to the downtown area.
Land Use Data Adjustments:
• ECIA and City Planning staff adjusted the land use data with migration of population and employment to the
downtown area as follows:
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that fall outside the 6 -mile downtown radius had 16 percent of their
population and 21 percent of Non - Retail Employment moving to downtown.
TAZs that fall within the 6- to 4 -mile downtown radius had 6 percent of their population and 12 percent
of Non - Retail Employment moving to downtown.
TAZs that fall within the 4- to 2- mile downtown radius had 2 percent of their population and 6 percent
of Non - Retail Employment moving to downtown.
Over all it was assumed that 5,977 people and 3,259 jobs would move into the downtown area.
Land use modifications presented in this scenario would result in traffic volume reductions on many of the study
corridors. The land use modifications in this scenario include population and employment densifications in
the downtown area. Given this assumption, the downtown area would be a more attractive destination. Traffic
volume would increase, up to as much as 6,000 daily trips, on U.S. 20, which can be attributed to the migration
of population and employment centers. Traffic volume forecasts were projected to slightly decrease on Asbury
Road compared to the future base scenario, but the v/c ratios on this corridor would still be over capacity along
some major segments. A reduction in daily traffic volume by as much as 9,000 daily trips was projected along
the University Avenue Overlap section. Projected volumes on Loras Boulevard and University Avenue east of the
Overlap section would decrease by 4,000 to 6,000 daily trips.
1L�
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
SCENAPJO 21
Improvements:
• University Avenue converted to a one -way (2 lanes eastbound) between the University Avenue Overlap section
and Locust Street
• Loras Boulevard converted to a one -way (2 lanes westbound) between the University Avenue Overlap section
and Locust Street
• 5 -lane University Avenue Overlap section
Scenario 21 includes the conversion of Loras Boulevard and University Avenue into one -way pairs. Creating
one -way pairs on Loras Boulevard and University Avenue would result in a minor increase in traffic volume
along both of the corridors, of approximately 1,000 to 2,000 daily trips. Minimal traffic volume changes would
occur on Pennsylvania Avenue, Asbury Road and U.S. 20. This scenario would be politically challenging given the
potential concerns of business owners (lack of access) and residents (issues with cut - through traffic within the
neighborhood) .
SCENAPJO 22
Improvements:
• University Avenue 2 lanes eastbound and 1 lane westbound between the University Avenue Overlap section
and Locust Street
• Loras Boulevard 1 lane eastbound and 2 lanes westbound between the University Avenue Overlap section and
Locust Street
• 5 -lane University Avenue Overlap section
Scenario 22 reflects imbalanced capacity along Loras Boulevard and University Avenue with two lanes in one
direction and one lane in the other direction. Increasing capacity on Loras Boulevard to two lanes westbound and
one lane eastbound would add about 6,000 daily trips on this corridor. Increasing capacity on University Avenue
to two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound would increase the daily traffic volume by approximately 2,000
to 3,000. More traffic would be attracted to these two corridors compared to Scenario 21; however this scenario
would not result in any significant volume reductions on Asbury Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. U.S. 20 volumes
would decrease minimally with this scenario. This scenario would be challenging to implement given the need to
eliminate of on- street parking.
SET,FC"ED CORRIDORS
A series of figures summarizing the volume differences and capacities of the Scenario 1 through 22 corridor
improvements are provided in the appendix.
TABLE 2 -1 provides a general comparison of the scenarios. Traffic operations for key east -west corridors including
U.S. 20, Asbury Road, Pennsylvania Avenue, Loras Boulevard and University Avenue, are classified for each
scenario. Public acceptance and impacts, probable costs and additional lane -miles of capacity are also Listed for
each of the corridor screening scenarios. This table shows that none of the corridor screening scenarios solve all of
the issues.
Based on the findings of the corridor screening process and through discussions with City Council and technical
Page 6
staff, Phase 2 corridors were identified for further detailed study. These corridors include Asbury Road,
Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue and Loras Boulevard.
As noted previously, none of the improvement scenarios fully met future capacity needs for the east -west corridors.
Travel Demand Management strategies were reviewed and utilized to develop future volumes (as discussed in
Chapter 4) for the study corridors. ECIA and City Planning staff reviewed and revised the future land use data
to represent more dense development in the downtown area. This change was consistent with new development
including IBM and the proposed Millwork district in the downtown area. Scenario 20 in the corridor screening
exercise proved the beneficial impacts of land use modifications on the transportation system. These land use
changes were necessary to provide acceptable future year operations.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
Given the direction of City Council to minimize right of way impacts, Travel Demand Management (TDM)
strategies were investigated to accommodate future travel demand. TDM strategies are designed to reduce the
demand for transportation and thus reduce the number of vehicles using the system. TDM strategies accomplish
their goals by effectively changing people's travel behavior and focus on reducing the number of single occupant
vehicle (SOV) work -trips during peak periods. TDM can be geared towards the general population (transit), those
living in the same neighborhood (carpool/vanpool) and to individuals (telecommuting, flex- time).
TDM strategies that the City of Dubuque may consider would offset the need for infrastructure improvements.
There are several reasons that the Dubuque area may benefit from TDM initiatives:
• SOLVING TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. Improved transportation options can help reduce traffic congestion,
facility costs, road risk, environmental impacts and consumer costs.
• EFFICIENCY. Consumer choice is necessary for economic efficiency. Improved transportation options allow
consumers to choose the most efficient option for each trip.
• EQUITY. Inadequate transport options often limit the personal and economic opportunities available to people
who are physically, economically or socially disadvantaged. Increasing transportation options can help achieve
equity objectives.
• LIVABILITY. Many people value living in or visiting a community where walking and cycling are safe, pleasant
and common. There are also public health benefits from increased walking and cycling. As a result, trans-
portation options can help communities become more "livable," resulting in increased property values and
commercial activity.
• SECURITY AND RESILIENCE. Improved transportation options results in a more diverse and flexible transpor-
tation system that can accommodate variable and unpredictable conditions. Even people who do not currently
use a particular form of transport may value the availability of other forms as insurance to accommodate
future needs.
Page 7
Four TDM strategies were assessed during this study. These strategies are:
1 ilk i
• STRATEGY 1: AGGRESSIVE LAND USE/ URBAN DESIGN. Land use patterns and urban design will have signif-
icant effects on how much demand is put on the transportation network. Where people live, work, shop
and recreate generate the need for transportation. Components to this strategy include higher densities near
transit, programs to reduce parking, streetscape improvements, rezoning to allow for mixed use environment,
master planning growth areas to ensure connectivity and decreased dependence on the single occupant
automobile.
• STRATEGY 2: CREATE TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE. Establishing a city -wide Trip Reduction Ordinance
(FRO) is a regulatory approach that would influence new development to reduce vehicular trips in the
community. A TRO would be tied to the unified development code, and the City would oversee and enforce
the ordinance to ensure that a trip reduction goal is achieved. The goal would be achieved through employer -
based programs such as accommodating bicycle parking, setting caps on vehicular parking and design guide-
lines. The TRO may be presented with a menu of options and include flexibility on how trip reduction would
be achieved.
• STRATEGY 3: CREATE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AssOCIATION (TMA). A Transportation Management
Association (TMA) is a public /private partnership formed so that employers, developers, building owners, and
government entities can work collectively to establish policies, programs and services to address local trans-
portation problems. The TMA may be made up of a non - profit entity / public- private partnership (employers,
developers, government) . TMA's are incentive based, and may include programs such as ride home programs,
incentives for carpools, transit subsidy program, bicycle program, flex -time and staggered work shifts.
• STRATEGY 4: UPDATE TRANSIT SYSTEM. An improved transit system could potentially reduce vehicular trips
in the community. A transit study is currently underway, which will evaluate the existing transit service and
assess new concepts for the Keyline transit system, including which corridors Keyline can best serve east -west
travel in the metro area.
These four strategies were discussed with City staff and the City Council. Through these discussions, many
potential benefits of a TMA were identified.
A TMA could be developed that would strongly encourage membership from employers within Dubuque. Funding
could be secured for important programs and services that support a successful initiative and increase the use of
mobility options such as taking transit and walking to work. Programs that should be considered for a future TMA
include:
• Guaranteed Ride Home Program • Car Share Program
• Personalized Carpool Matching • City -wide Bicycle Sharing Program
• Vanpool Creation ■ Flextime
• Transit Pass Subsidy Program • Compressed Workweek
• Employee Commute Programs • Staggered Shifts
Many rideshare programs and groups already exist within and near Dubuque. Recommended elements of a
Dubuque TMA would also include identifying these resources and coordinating efforts with organizations such as
bicycle groups and carpooling databases.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
117/
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
rFrkY
TABLE 2-1. CORRIDOR SCREENING SCENARIO COMP LSON TABLE
Scenario
Traffic ° perations
Public Acceptance/ Impacts
Cost
Additional
Capacity (Lane -
miles)
U.S. 20
Asbury Rd
Pennsylvania Ave
Loras Blvd
University Ave
Base Existing
O
•
•
Q
N/A
N:A
N/A
Base 2031
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
N, A
N/A
Scenario 1
•
•
•
•
Q
• Requires purchase of numerous homes/ businesses and right -of -way along Asbury Rd, the Asbury/
University overlap section and University Ave
•
11.4
Scenario 2
•
•
•
Q
Q
• Requires purchase of numerous homes/ businesses and right -of -way along Asbury Rd, the Asbury/
University overlap section and Loras Blvd
•
11.4
Scenario 3
•
•
•
•
Q
Requires purchase of numerous homes and right -of -way along Asbury Rd; some business/ right -of -way
• purchases required in the Asbury/ University overlap section; eliminates most or all on- street parking
along Loras Blvd and University Ave
•
10.0
Scenario 4
•
•
•
•
Q
• Requires purchase of numerous homes and right -of -way along Asbury Rd; some business/ right -of -way
purchases required in the Asbury/ University overlap section
•
7.7
Scenario 5
•
•
•
•
Q
0 Minimal impacts to Asbury Rd; some business/ right -of -way purchases required in the Asbury/
University overlap section
O
2 2
Scenario 6
•
•
•
Q
Requires purchase of numerous homes and right -of -way along Pennsylvania Ave; some business/ right -of-
• way purchases required in the Asbury/ University overlap section; eliminates most or all on- street
parking along Loras Blvd and University Ave
•
12 1
Scenario 7
•
•
•
•
Q
• Minimal impacts to Pennsylvania Ave; some business/ right -of -way purchases required in the Asbury/
University overlap section
Q
r
Scenario 8
•
•
•
Q
0
• Requires purchase of numerous homes/ businesses and right -of -way along Asbury Rd, the Asbury/
University overlap section and Loras Blvd
•
11 ?
Scenario 9
•
•
•
•
Q
O Minimal impacts to Asbury Rd; some business/ right -of -way purchases required in the Asbury/
University overlap section; eliminates most or all on- street parking along Loras Blvd and University Ave
O
46
Scenario 10
•
•
•
Q
0
• Requires purchase of numerous homes/ businesses and right -of -way along Asbury Rd, the Asbury/
University overlap section and Loras Blvd; eliminates most or all on- street parking along University Ave
III
13 2
Scenario 11
•
•
•
•
•
O Minimal impacts to Asbury Rd; requires purchase of several homes/ businesses and right -of -way along
Rosedale Ave and Grandview Ave; eliminates most or all on- street parking along Loras Blvd
0
3
Scenario 12
•
•
•
•
Q
O Minimal impacts to Asbury Rd; requires purchase of some homes and right -of -way along Clarke Dr and
Locust St; eliminates most or all on- street parking along University Ave
0
Scenario 13
•
•
•
•
Q
O Minor home and right -of -way impacts along Asbury Rd and Kaufmann Ave, eliminates on- street parking
along Asbury Rd and Kaufmann Ave
^
V
3 r
Scenario 14
•
•
•
•
Co
O Minimal impacts to W 32nd St; no impacts to the Grandview Ave extension since it has not been built yet
0
14
Scenario 15
•
•
•
•
Co
O Minimal impacts to Freemont Ave; eliminates most or all on- street parking along Fieemont Ave; would
require new bridges over the Middle and South Forks of Catfish Creek
Q
3
Scenario 16
•
•
•
•
Q
• Requires purchase of numerous homes/ businesses and right -of -way along Asbury Rd and University Ave;
minimal impacts along NW Arterial
•
9
Scenario 17
•
•
•
•
Q
Minimal impacts to Asbury Rd; some business/ right -of -way purchases required in the Asbury/
O University overlap section; eliminates most or all on- street parking along University Ave; minimal impacts
along NW Arterial
•
73
Scenario 18
Q
•
•
•
Co
Moderate right -of -way purchases and impacts to businesses along U.S. 20
•
9.6
Scenario 19
•
•
•
•
Q
N/A
0
0.0
Scenario 20
•
•
•
O
O
O No right -of -way purchases or capacity improvements to the roadway network. Growth assumed in the
downtown area
0
0.0
Scenario 21
•
•
•
•
O
0 Minimal impacts to University & Loras; some business/ right -of -way purchases required in the Asbury/
University overlap section
O
0.2
Scenario 22
•
•
•
•
O
Requires removal of on- street parking along University Ave and Loras Blvd. Some business/ right -of -way
purchases required in the Asbury/ University overlap section
0
0.2
Symbol Key:
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
i
0
Operations - Over Capacity; Public Acceptance /Impacts - Extremely Challenging; Cost - High
Operations - At Capacity; Public Acceptance /Impacts - Challenging; Cost - Moderate
Operations - Under Capacity; Public Acceptance /Impacts - Fair; Cost - Low
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 8
Asbu:°v
Mmhrpicu an the Missi.Rdppi
CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection included gathering ground -level site photos, site videos along study corridors, travel time runs,
gathering existing intersection turning movement counts and obtaining existing signal timings from the City.
Travel time runs were conducted by the consultant from the middle of September through the first week of
October 2008. Information gathered included east /west travel time between major intersections, stop duration
and observed queues on all approaches. The travel time runs were conducted to help identify bottleneck areas. A
summary of the data collection is provided in the ECIA model review and screening analysis memorandum, which
is provided in the appendix.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions of Phase 2 corridors were reviewed to identify roadway cross sections including number of
driving lanes, on- street parking and adjacent sidewalks. This information was used to determine locations that may
be available for capacity improvements. A summary of the existing conditions review is shown in FIGURE 3 -1.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Traffic capacity analysis was performed for the existing conditions using simulation for the Phase 2 corridors. The
following details the methodologies utilized for the analysis and the analysis results.
ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION
Observations of traffic volumes provide an understanding of the general nature of traffic, but are insufficient to
indicate either the ability of the street network to carry additional traffic or the quality of service provided by the
street system. For this reason the concept of level of service (LOS) was developed to correlate numerical traffic
operational data to subjective descriptions of traffic performance at intersections. Each lane of traffic has delay
associated with it and therefore a correlating LOS. The weighted average delay for each of these lanes of traffic
for a signalized intersection is the intersection LOS. Stop - controlled intersections are analyzed by identifying the
amount of delay for each movement that conflict with other intersection movements (i.e. all movements except the
free flow through lanes). The LOS for unsignalized intersections is typically determined from either the delay of
the worst case stop - controlled approach or the delay of a specific movement. LOS categories range from LOS "A"
(best) to "F" (worst) as shown in TABLE 3 -1.
The intersection capacity analyses were completed with CORSIM software. CORSIM is a microscopic simulation
tool that models individual vehicle behavior to emulate realistic operations and gather realistic delays and queues.
LOS `C' has generally been established as the standard for planning of transportation facilities for peak hour traffic
conditions in urban areas. For this study, LOS `C' for the overall intersection was used as the minimum standard for
acceptable operations; however it should be noted that in highly developed urban areas LOS `D' is often considered
acceptable. A review of the analyses for existing volumes and geometries is provided in the next section. It should
be noted that existing conditions analysis was performed for the year 2008 whereas the corridor screening analysis
described in Chapter 2 was performed utilizing the existing base model (year 2005).
Page 9
TABLE 3-1. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
:Jodi
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
DELAY
(SECONDS)
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
DELAY
(SECONDS)
■
TRAFFIC FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
A
<10.0
C10.0
Free flow, insignificant delays.
B
10.01 -20.0
10.01 -15.0
Stable operation, minimal delays.
C
20.01 -35.0
15.0 1 -25.0
Stable operation, acceptable delays.
D
35.01 -55.0
25.01 -35.0
Restricted flow, regular delays.
E
55.01 -80.0
35.01 -50.0
Maximum capacity, extended delays. Volumes at or near
capacity. Long queues form upstream from intersection.
F
> 80.0
> 50.0
Forced flow, excessive delays. Represents jammed
conditions. Queues may block upstream intersections.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board 2000
STUDY IN ERSECTIONS
Not all intersections along the Phase 2 corridors were analyzed in detail. The intersections included in the analysis
were:
• Asbury Road /Lore Mound Road
• Asbury Road /Seippel Road
• Asbury Road /Springreen Road
• Asbury Road /Radford Road
• Asbury Road /JFK Road
• Asbury Road /Carter Road
• Asbury Road /Chaney Road
• Asbury Road /Poplar Street
• Asbury Road /Hillcrest Road
• Asbury Road /Clarke Drive
FDa
• Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Entrance
• Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road
• Pennsylvania Avenue /University Avenue
• Loras Boulevard /University Avenue
• Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
• Asbury Road /University Avenue
• Delhi Street /University Avenue
• Grandview Avenue /University Avenue
• Nevada Street /University Avenue
• Booth Street /University Avenue
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
FIGITRE 3 -1. EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR PILISE 2 CORRIDORS
rt. CITY OF
Dus t E
ntiurerpi.a un the Mississippi
A.sbury E C-I'A
ImE
LEGEND
2 -Lane Roadway
3 -Lane Roadway
4 -Lane Roadway
5 -Lane Roadway
Parking
Sidewalk
LT1� I ONE COMPANY
h�J
Many Solutions,
In Association with
117/
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 10
r11ECrre tl
pus E Asbury, EC.' C - I ,.'..,.A
Masterpiar on the Mississippi xv.rMwo^ � so.e,��enre
EXISTING CONDITIONS A ALYSIS RESULTS
Delay and the maximum queue lengths were reviewed for the study intersections. All intersections currently
operate at LOS `C' or better except at the following locations:
PM Peak
• Asbury Road /JFK Road (LOS `D')
• University Avenue /Asbury Road (LOS `D')
The majority of queue lengths at the study area intersections were minor (less than 10 vehicles in length). Queues
in excess of 15 vehicles were recorded at the following locations:
AM Peak
• Eastbound and westbound approaches of Asbury Road /JFK Road
• Eastbound approach of Asbury Road /Carter Road
• Westbound approach of Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Drive
• Eastbound and westbound approaches of Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road
• Eastbound approach of Pennsylvania of University Avenue
• Southbound approach of University Avenue /Asbury Road
PM Peak
• Westbound approach of Asbury Road /Radford Road
• Eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches of Asbury Road /JFK Road
• Eastbound approach of Asbury Road /Carter Road
• Eastbound approach of Asbury Road /Chaney Road
• Westbound approach of Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Drive
• Eastbound and westbound approaches of Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road
• Eastbound approach of Pennsylvania Avenue /University Avenue
• Southbound approach of University Avenue /Asbury Road
Detailed simulation results are shown in TABLE 3 -2. A summary of the simulation results as well as the existing
geometrics and volumes are shown for the study intersections in FIGURE 3 -2 and FIGURE 3 -3. Simulation output
including recorded queues is provided in the appendix.
Page 11
TABLE 3 -2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK HOUR
LOS AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
Asbury Road /Lore Mound Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
SB Approach
A
3.1
A
3.0
Asbury Road /Seippel Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
4.7
A
5.1
SB Approach
A
5.0
A
5.5
Asbury Road /Springreen Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
4.6
A
4.7
SB Approach
A
5.3
A
5.4
EB Approach
A
8.2
A
7.2
IX�B Approach
A
6.4
B
12.3
Asbury Road /Radford Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
NB Approach
A
8.7
A
8.3
Asbury Road /JFK
Signalized
B
18.7
D
37.2
I\TB Approach
B
18.9
C
28.7
SB Approach
B
18.7
C
29.1
EB Approach
B
19.2
C
27.5
IX�B Approach
B
18.1
E
55.9
Asbury Road /Carter Road
Signalized
A
8.8
B
10.7
NB Approach
C
32.6
D
35.3
SB Approach
C
23.6
C
26.4
EB Approach
A
4.1
A
7.3
IX�B Approach
A
2.5
A
4.1
Asbury Road /Chaney Road
Signalized
A
5.0
A
7.0
NB Approach
B
12.2
B
12.7
SB Approach
A
9.1
A
6.2
EB Approach
A
3.7
A
7.2
IX�B Approach
A
4.2
A
6.6
Asbury Road /Hillcrest Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
I�B Approach
B
14.7
B
- 13.2
Asbury Road /Clarke Drive
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
SB Approach
A
9.4
C
19.2
Asbury Road /Poplar Street
Unsignalized
n/a
_
n/a
NB Approach
_ A
_ 6.1
A
_ 5.4
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
TABLE 3 -2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK HOUR
LOS AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
Asbury Road /St. Ambrose Street
Signalized
A
4.8
A
5.1
SB Approach
A
6.8
A
6.6
EB Approach
A
4.5
A
5.5
WB Approach
A
4.5
A
4.5
Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High
School Drive
Signalized
B
11.0
A
6.3
SB Approach
C
22.2
C
22.8
EB Approach
A
6.0
A
3.6
WB Approach
B
11.2
A
6.0
Pennsylvania Avenue/JFK
Signalized
C
21.1
C
29.0
I\TB Approach
B
18.0
C
25.9
SB Approach
C
20.3
C
27.2
EB Approach
C
21.4
C
32.8
U7BApproach
C
27.0
C
30.8
University Avenue /Pennsylvania
Avenue
Signalized
A
9.6
A
9.3
SB Approach
B
17.4
B
17.6
EB Approach
A
6.0
A
8.1
WB Approach
A
4.3
A
4.9
University Avenue /Asbury Road
Unsignalized
n/a
_
n/a
-
SB Approach
C
20.0
D
34.9
EB Approach
A
9.7
B
14.4
WB Approach
A
8.8
C
17.4
University Avenue /Loras Boulevard
Unsignalized
n;r`a
_
n/a
SB Approach
A
5.9
A
7.7
University Avenue /McCormick Street
Unsignalized
n'`a
_
n/a
-
I\B Approach
A
6.5
A
5.5
University Avenue /Delhi Street
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
NB Approach
A
7.9
B
13.1
University Avenue /Grandview Avenue
Unsignalized
i
n; %a
n/a
-
NB Approach
B
10.5
B
12.3
SB Approach
B
10.3
A
8.3
EB Approach
A
8.4
A
8.5
WB Approach
_ A
8.3
A
_ 6.9
L11 T1
. I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TABLE 3-2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Inrrawmrlo.nm;w•
-C.I .A
East Ccnlrallntorgovere montata.,.o lotion
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
University Avenue /Booth Street
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
5.9
A
6.2
SB Approach
A
5.1
A
6.5
University Avenue /Nevada Street
Signalized
A
3.0
A
3.6
NB Approach
A
3.2
A
3.0
SB Approach
A
3.3
A
2.7
EB Approach
A
2.2
A
3.8
WB Approach
A
4.1
A
3.7
Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
Signalized
B
12.2
B
10.8
NB Approach
A
9.3
B
12.3
SB Approach
B
12.9
B
10.5
EB Approach
B
13.2
B
11.6
WB Approach
B
13.2
A
9.3
Notes:
1. All streets lasted first in the `Intersection' column are assumed to have EB/ I.Y B orientation at the intersection
2. Only stop - controlled approaches are shown for unsagnali ed intersections
Page 12
IIIE CITY tl
Du E I A
Eart COn lral lntn■6overnnacnlal6ssotlation
Masterpiece on the Mississippi Nvn)...so esr
FIGURE 3 -2. EXISTING VOLUMES, GEoMET12ICS, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ALONG ASBURY ROAD
Page 13
Asbury Rd
I 1,000
Asbury Rd
(1 0)
(30)
Lewis Rd &
0
2
0
J
4 --- -•
(10) (20)
10 20
A
A
0
60
Asbury Rd
15,100
500
4- 5 (10)
30 5
00
-a
CC
Q
Q
(n
(25) (50) (70)
5 50 70 20
40
40
T A
A
5
I 2,800 I
(5)
(90) 11 0
(20) 50
1 12,000 I
(75')
(20) (330) (110)
30 240 110 ` 50
4— 320
r 110
C
+il 4
(300) (140) 60
(390) 390
(125') (130) 90
0
0
4 --
(355) (5)
195 5
A
C
(60) (325) 325 —t-
(445) 535
21,000
2008 AM Peak Hour Volume
2008 PM Peak HourVolume
2008 Annual Daily Traffic
2008 Geometrics
2008 Storage Length
(14 CD (125)
(530)
(220) (100)
41 tr
90 150 60
(200) (390) (190)
(175')
I16,200I
11,000
5 (5)
375 (570)
16,700
LEGEND
11.500
(60)
(100)
(50)
25 10 40
(30) (20) (30)
I 3,100 I
19.300
CC
Q)
m
0
1 4,200
5,700
I 6,800 I
(60')
(140) (60) (60)
120 50 50 AL 20 (40)
300 (690)
r 10 (20) (100)
4
(80') (110) 60 J
(520) 450
(10) 10
A
A _IL
(435) 485
(5) 5
Q
0
0_
Stop Sign
-0
c
0)
Q
0)
(20) (5) (60)
40 10 70
41
(30)
(60')
I 2,500
30 10
(90) (10)
385 (485)
5 (5)
I 200 I
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
11,500
(60) 20
(250) 340
(5) 5
13.400
A
B AL
1
I 2,000
10 (40)
100 (310)
20 (30)
10 10 30
(10) (10) (15)
800
(80) (70)
20 40
1
CC
0)
a)
m
0
4- -
(100)
(40)
80
(50) 30
(500) 490
(10) 10
Ambrose St
(5) (135)
5 135
I 7,300 I
I 5,400 I
140 (40)
290 (690)
♦ 5 (10)
W7
0.400
190 (450)
110 (180)
A
10 30 10
(20) (40) (10)
I 2,700 I
135 (135)
385 (485)
1 15,300 I
A
(370) 480
(50) 60
I 4,400 I
Radford Rd
r
15 200
(40) (160)
(150')
11,700
4 — 420 (695)
150 (230) (50)
(5) 5
(435) 485
14.700
(535) 635
(5) 5
Hillcrest Rd
B
4r
5 225
(5) (235)
4-- .
I 7,600
24.500
(400) (580)
360 300
4iC
(390) 470 D AL
(125') (180) 150 + 1
60 510
m (220) (560)
a
0)
c
21,000
Note:
1. Asbury Road is assumed to run east -west for the purpose of this figure. It is recognized that Asbury Road is more north -south at the east end of the corridor.
Sources:
1. Existing Volumes - HDR, November 2008 (based on counts received from IDOT, IIW and City of Dubuque).
2. Traffic Capacity Anaysis (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
N
Not to scale
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
almitkr
FIGURE 3 -3. EXISTING CO 1DITIONS VOLUMES, GEOMETRICS, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ALONG PEI%1NSYLVANLI AVENUE, UNIVERSITY AVENUE, AND LO RAs Bo ULEVARD
Asl/
m..n..ASJA;w.•
D 0
o
o0
3
Q •
0).2
1 1
(200)
(70) (60)
130 150
Pennsylvania Ave
1"00
I?!
(300) (60) 21 i
(670) 430 -
r sylvania Ave
(100)
(60) (410)
40 4010
University Ave �1E6
10,200 1 18,400
(60) 30
(370) 270
5.300
150 (50)
4 t 420 (600)
t— 200 (390)
4— 250 (370)
(620)
7110
University Ave
0n
11
1
1 24,500
(50
b111-as Er', Li
1 14,1 00
(125)
(110) (400 (140)
30 3!0 40
D
D'_
0, 0
Q
(125)
(180) (390)
150 1470
c
1'9,500 (
L 40
4 — 230
, — 60
v1 11,800
(50) (150)
(330)
(140) (150)
(200) (180) 160 —
(370) 290
(110) 100
4-
1
14,700
360 (400)
300 (580)
1101
(1701
(2017)
' 1 = '7171
(220) 160
(560) 510
415
15 1= 1111 =1
2008 AM Peak Hour Volume
2008 PM Peak Hour Volume
2008 Annual Daily Traffic
2008 Geom etrics
2008 Storage Length
0,4U
D
1 24,500
Grandview Ave
(10) (210) (55)
10 300 145
T�
(4 511)
A
4 11 Ui
A
0,
0)
(390) (370)
200 250
4J
(330) 280
(600) 680
(20) 20
40
275
4ii
A
A
03
0
E
0
0
(75)
(300)
(65) (60)
319)
(10)
LEGEND
"r Stop Sign
X
X
5 250 50
(60)
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
-top- Controlled Approach Level of Service
P111 Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
=top- Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized I ntersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized I ntersection Level of Service
700
1 6,111111
(410) 400
(100) (60) 40
18,400
-TT
30 270
(60) (370)
1 1=1, 2' 11111
(400)
A (5
D 10,300 4
(345) 380
u)
0
B -
115
9,000
0)
0)
N
m
(1 01 (2201 (501
10 2201 70
40'S B
10
315 —i-► 65 2601 10
I 7,100
(10)
(280)
(5)
6,200
35 (50)
200 (290)
65 (15)
5 (106? __ _)
C_
D 9.000
(10)
LL
1 L1
T
(11( 11
(4111) 4 Al
6
A
A !
500
10 (20) (10)
0 (440) 5
10 (30)
15 5 15
(15) (5) (10)
10,600
03
D
m
0)
z
N
Not to scale
111,
5u 17)
(10)
(395)
(20)
5
435
15
10
171
(4U)
Notes:
1. On the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor, University Avenue is shown as a northrsouth street; however, it is recognzed that University Avenue is a northeastlsouthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
2. On the University Avenue corridor, Pennsylvania Avenue is shown as a northrsouth street; however, it is recognzed that Pennsylvania Avenue is an east/west street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
3. On the University Avenue corridor, Loras Boulevard is shown as a northrsouth street; however, it is recognized that Loras Boulevard is a northeastlsouthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
4. On the University Avenue corridor, Delhi Street is shown as a northrsouth street; however, it is recognzed that Delhi Street is a southeastlnorthwest street at this location and
was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
5. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, McCormick Street is shown as an east/west street; however, 6 is recognized that McCormick Street is a northrsouth street at this location and
was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
6. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, University Avenue is shown as an east/west street; however, it is recognzed that University Avenue is a southeastlnorthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
Sources:
1. Existing Volumes - HDR, November 2008 (based on counts received from IDOT, IIW and City of Dubuque).
2. Traffic Capacity Anal0sis (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions-
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
C . I . A
Page 14
CHAPTER 4: YEAR 2031 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT AND
ANALYSIS
YEAR 2031 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
From the corridor screening analysis, Phase 2 corridors were identified. Volume development and analysis was
only completed for Phase 2 corridors. Detailed information about the corridor screening analysis is presented in
Chapter 2. Phase 2 corridors include Asbury Road, Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue and Loras Boulevard.
In Phase 2, year 2031 daily and peak hour traffic volume forecasts were developed in close coordination with
ECIA. Several steps were taken to forecast 2031 daily traffic volumes for the study area. The volume development
methodology included utilization of the 2005 and 2031 travel demand model assignments, 2005 count data, 2008
peak hour data and engineering judgment.
2031 NO BUILD
The 2031 No -Build scenario was based on a travel demand model network similar to the future base scenario
assessed in Phase 1; however an increased population and employment control total were used reflective of IBM
locating in downtown Dubuque. Additionally, socioeconomic data was reallocated to reflect the IBM development.
The DMATS 2031 LRTP improvements were included in the network, however no additional roadway capacity
improvements were assumed for the No -Build condition.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were developed through a post - processing exercise where base year (2005)
count data was available. Deviation between the calibrated 2005 model volume and a 2005 count volume was
measured on an absolute basis and a percentage basis, and applied to the year 2031 assignments. These 2031
"corrected assignments" were used as the 2031 No -Build forecasts at most locations. For locations where 2005
counts were not available, year 2031 ADT's were estimated using engineering judgment and a combination of
calculations including annual growth rates from 2005 counts to the 2031 "corrected assignments" from adjacent
areas.
The 2031 "corrected assignment" at some locations resulted in less volume than the 2005 count or showed nearly
no growth into the future, based on reductions in the model assignments. In some areas, a minimum annual
growth rate was applied.
2031 BUILD
Based on the findings of the corridor screening analysis and City Council and technical staff input, the 2031 Build
scenario included a capacity improvement to the University Avenue Overlap section from Pennsylvania Avenue to
Loras Boulevard. In the Build scenario, the University Avenue Overlap section was coded as a 5 -lane section. For
locations where 2031 No -Build and Build model assignments were available, a ratio of the 2031 No -Build model
assignment to 2031 No -Build "corrected assignment" was applied to the 2031 Build model assignment to generate
a 2031 Build "corrected assignment ". This methodology was applied at most locations. For locations where the
2031 Build model assignment was lower than the 2031 No -Build model assignment, the 2031 Build "corrected
assignment" was adjusted to match the 2031 No -Build "corrected assignment ".
For locations where 2031 Build model assignments where not available, ratios of the 2031 No -Build model
Page 15
assignment to 2031 No -Build "corrected assignment" from adjacent areas were used to generate 2031 Build ADTs.
YEAR 2031 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Traffic capacity analysis was conducted for Phase 2 corridors for year 2031 No -Build and Build conditions using
CORSIM and VISSIM simulation. CORSIM software was originally utilized for the simulation analysis; however
VISSIM software was utilized to analyze the recommended roundabouts due to its ability to replicate more realistic
vehicular behavior associated with roundabouts compared to CORSIM. The following presents the assumptions
and results for each condition.
2031 NO BUILD
Future 2031 No -Build analysis was conducted utilizing existing geometrics conditions with the addition of
planned improvements at Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Drive and Pennsylvania Avenue/
Northwest Arterial. No traffic control changes were made for the 2031 No -Build analysis compared to existing
conditions other than signal timing optimization.
Base on the operational analysis, the following locations would operate outside of the LOS `C' criteria under 2031
No -Build conditions:
AM Peak
• University Avenue /Asbury Road (LOS `F')
PM Peak
• Asbury Road /Springreen Drive (LOS `D')
• Asbury Road /Radford Road (LOS `F')
• Asbury Road /JFK Road (LOS `D')
• Asbury Road /Hillcrest Road (LOS `D')
• Asbury Road /Clarke Drive (LOS T')
• Asbury Road /Poplar Street (LOS T')
• Asbury Road /St. Ambrose Street (LOS `D')
• Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road(LOS `D')
• University Avenue /Asbury Road (LOS `F')
• University Avenue /Loras Boulevard (LOS T')
• University Avenue /McCormick Street (LOS `D')
• University Avenue /Delhi Street (LOS `D')
Observations of the CORSIM simulation showed that there would be excessive queuing at the University Avenue/
Asbury Road intersection causing traffic to spill back to adjacent intersections, resulting in excessive delays.
Additionally, long queues would occur at most of the study area intersections. Detailed simulation results are
shown in TABLE 4-1. A summary of the simulation results as well as the 2031 No -Build geometries and volumes
are shown for the study intersections in FIGURE 4-1 and FIGURE 4-2. Simulation output including recorded queues
is provided in the appendix.
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
TABLE 4 -1. YEAR 2031 No -BUILD ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
Asbury Road /Lore Mound Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
51.2
SB Approach
A
3.4
A
3.3
Asbury Road /Seippel Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
8.9
B
10.3
SB Approach
B
10.1
B
10.3
Asbury Road /Springreen Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
EB Approach
NB Approach
A
6.7
A
6.1
SB Approach
A
8.0
A
7.3
EB Approach
C
15.6
B
12.4
IX�BApproach
A
8.2
D
27.5
Asbury Road /Radford Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
EB Approach
NB Approach
B
14.6
F
94.7
Asbury Road /JFK
Signalized
B
17.7
D
37.2
NB Approach
B
16.2
C
31.2
SB Approach
B
19.8
D
36.1
EB Approach
B
16.8
C
24.9
IX�BApproach
B
18.4
D
55.0
Asbury Road /Carter Road
Signalized
A
8.6
B
11.4
NB Approach
C
31.8
D
35.7
SBApproach
C
23.1
C
27.3
EB Approach
A
4.8
A
8.7
IX�B Approach
A
2.3
A
4.5
Asbury Road /Chaney Road
Signalized
A
5.9
A
8.5
NB Approach
A
9.4
B
15.5
SB Approach
A
7.0
A
8.1
EB Approach
A
3.8
A
8.3
Ii/J3 Approach
A
7.7
A
7.9
Asbury Road /Hillcrest Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
n/a
NB Approach
C
19.5
D
28.4
Asbury Road /Clarke Drive a
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
13.4
SB Approach
C
16.2
F
14.0
Asbury Road /Poplar Street a
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
NB Approach
A
7.9
F
150
LT1� I ONE COMPANY
�f Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
HE CITY ni
DUB
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TABLE 4 -1. YEAR 2031 No -BUILD _INALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Inrrammrlo.nm; v.
-C.I .A
East Ccntral Intorgovere montatAssoo lotion
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
Asbury Road /St. Ambrose Street a
Signalized
A
7.2
D
51.2
SB Approach
B
18.9
F
121.1
EB Approach
A
6.0
F
91.9
Ii/J3 Approach
A
4.9
A
4.7
Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High
School Drive
Signalized
B
11.8
A
7.8
SB Approach
C
20.7
C
22.8
EB Approach
A
8.0
A
5.5
IX�B Approach
B
12.2
A
7.6
Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK
Signalized
C
24.2
D
36.6
NB Approach
C
21.6
D
35.4
SBApproach
C
25.3
D
37.4
EB Approach
C
25.4
D
41.4
IX�B Approach
C
24.1
C
30.1
University Avenue /Pennsylvania
Avenue
Signalized
B
12.4
B
14.2
SB Approach
B
17.4
B
16.7
EB Approach
B
12.8
C
22.6
Ii/J3 Approach
A
6.5
A
6.9
University Avenue /Asbury Road
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
SBApproach
F
97.9
F
> 150
EB Approach
B
12.3
C
23.8
Ii/J3 Approach
B
11.7
F
86.6
University Avenue /Loras Boulevard a
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
SBApproach
B
11.9
F
> 150
University Avenue /McCormick Street a
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
NB Approach
A
8.8
D
27.0
University Avenue /Delhi Street
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
NB Approach
B
12.0
D
33.3
University Avenue /Grandview Avenue
Unsignalized
n/a
-
n/a
-
NBApproach
C
18.0
C
23.8
SB Approach
C
24.3
B
13.4
EB Approach
C
16.4
B
14.0
Ii/J3 Approach
C
16.0
B
_ 14.5
Page 16
TH.CXTY OF
Asbury
Mmtrrpiw nn the MrsstaipFti annrnc,,,t,nwi.,
- C - I - A
Fast Cent,a l Intargovetnmentallssoelatlon
TABLE 4-1. YEAit 2031 No-BUILD _ANALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
University Avenue /Booth Street
Unsignalized
n/a
_
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
9.0
B
11.1
SB Approach
A
6.8
A
9.3
University Avenue /Nevada Street
Signalized
A
4.1
A
4.5
NB Approach
A
3.8
A
4.1
SB Approach
A
4.0
A
3.8
EB Approach
A
3.2
A
5.3
Ii/J3 Approach
A
5.3
A
3.9
Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
Signalized
B
15.4
C
31.4
NB Approach
A
8.9
C
22.9
SB Approach
B
16.1
C
24.3
EB Approach
B
18.6
B
13.8
Ii/J3 Approach
B
18.2
E
5 9.5
Notes:
1. All streets listed first in the `Intersection' column are assumed to have EB/W'B orientation at the intersection
2. Only stop - controlled approaches are shown for unsignalied intersections
3. Traffic queued at the southbound and westbound approaches of the University Avenue /Asbury Road intersection would spill back to adjacent upstream
intersections during the PM peak hour causing excessive delays
Page 17
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
•
FIGURE 4-1. YEAR 2031 No-BUILD VOLUMES, GEOMETRICS, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ALONG ASBURYROAD
D
CC
.62
CO o
00)) 0
J J
4 - -.
I 800
(20) (2,m
11 1
4-4 — 10 1,1 1
Asbu ry Rd
D
1,600 4 .- A •
A . 1,7031 1�
-f.
(20) 10
(50) 1011
Asbury Rd
Asbury Rd
21,700 Q
(40) 270)
70 251.1
4-11
(75')
(111(
11 C1
1 3, 4(1(1
-a
o'
0.
0.
(n
140( (170) x100)
1 150 100
aii
120
T B
4.4011
(1401 (125')
4- 411(1 (591(0
1111 (2201 (1(87)
(100)
(120)
(120)
B !±2'U) 1..11
1 -10 On 30 120
(8115 (70) (80)
(300') (240) 121
OW) 4312 —
(125') (210) 1071
0
0)
00
0
(430) (10)
240 10
17,200
T
C
qtr
160 160 60
(330) (390) (190)
(175)
1 18,200
1 4,1 00
10 (10)
4 f 420 (630)
00
(60) (400) 390 J
(490) 600 —►
2031 No -Build AM Peak Hour Volume
2031 No -Build PM Peak Hour Volume
2031 Annual Daily Traffic
Existing Geometrics
Existing Storage Length
1 12,900
D
CC
0)
1J
00
0
6,700
4 - - - -•
10,01 i0i
I 5,700
(60')
(140) (60) (60)
130 50 50 T 20 (40)
IL • 240 (790)
r 10 (20) (100')
ink
v
(80) (110) ro
(611115 510
(10) 10
(20) (5)
40 10
le
Springreen Rd
(65)
80
30 10
(40) (00) (10]
(15(7)
425 (540)
5 (5)
A
F2 !
(405) 545 —
(5) 5 -4"f♦
LEGEND
-0- Stop Sign
x
X
CO
00
0.
0
CL
5 5
(5) (5)
4 --- -.
I 200
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
12,900
_51
10
15,000
C
D
2,200
10 455
40 (55)
20 10 50
(20) (10) (30)
I 1,300
D
CC
0
(100')
(80) (70) (40)
20 40 80
v117,200
(50) 30
(560) 550
(20) 10 10 30
(30) (40)
11,600
I 5,400
140 (40)
330 (770)
20 (20)
1 ®1
511 1C11
1e11 _45;
B
Ambrose St
(10) (160)
111 1511
3,400
160 (160)
430 (540)
(570) 690
(140) 110
I 6,400
C
F
Radford Rd
30 2r
(110) (180)
(150')
16,600
4--■ 470 (780)
190 (280) (50)
D
(600) 710
20 (10) 10
(20) 10 280
(10) (290)
(10) 10
(480) 540 6.
16,600
0)
0
1
(45u ) ( 7,1_1;
420 2RilIi
I 9,700
29,2200
(440)
(125') (2011)
5411 r
1511 /IP
t
173 640
(243) (700)
N
Not to stale
Note:
1. Asbury Road is assumed to run east -west for the purpose of this figure. It is recognized that Asbury Road is more north -south at the east end of the corridor.
2. Traffic queued at the southbound and westbound approaches of the University AveJAsbury Rd intersection would spill back to adjacent upstream intersections during the PM peak
hour causing excessive delays. Intersections affected by spillback include: Asbury Rd /Poplar St, Asbury RdlSt. Ambrose St, University AveJLoras Blvd and University
Ave /McCormick St. This also resulted in a metering of traffic to downstream signals and would therefore result in better operations at downstream signals since the total demand of
traffic was unable to be served.
Sources:
1. 2031 Volume Forecasts- HDR Engineering, June 2009.
2. Traffic Capacity Analysis (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
C . I . A
Page 18
Etit CCnl1011 ter GOVerllmental♦sse0.10n
FIGURE 4-2. YEAR 2031 NO BUILD VOLUMES, GEOMETRICS, ANI) LEVELS OF SERVICEALONGBENNSYLVANLAAVENUE, UNJ ERSITYAi'ENUE, AND LO.RAS BOULEVARD
Page 19
Pennsylvania Ave
(200)
(100) (60)
190 160
+.1L
University Ave
21,500
v
(300) (90) 300 J
(910) 600
c
7
a
c
c
0
(100')
(120) (5207
pC
12,77171
(1211) -r
(421) °'7171
I 6,700
t— 160 (50) (200)
4— 590 (820)
15,100
260 (500)
4— 280 (430)
o
co
s_
o
7
. C 2bl 21 :I I_I
(750) (400)
850 350
t_ 2:r-
ii 4 20 (21 (50')
1
p22,200
(240)
(700)
18,200
(125)
(120) (580) (180)
150 390 50
4-i 1 L.
(200) (210) 1 00
(500) (500) 41112
(150) 140
D
C'_
s_
Q o
a
(125)
(200) (440)
100 540
4J
.- F
F
1711
640
Loras Blvd
(20)
1 13,400
LEGEND
2031 No -Build AM Peak HourVolum e
2031 No -Build PM Peak HourVolum e
2031 Annual Daily Traffic
Existing Geometrics
Planned Improvements Completed by Year 2031
Existing Storage Length
Storage Length for Planned Improvements
x
1 0,000
420 (4571)
24.100
L.— 50 (60) (150)
4— 310 (440)
90 (2111) (150)
o I ®I
150 3711 411
(230) (550) (130)
(200)
24,900 I
Grandview Ave
(20) (280) (60)
30 400 150
m
CO
0
(50')
(380) (20)
280 12i 1
4J Y
s
f
(400)
(730)
(20)
4—
B
F7
350 -
825
25
I 8,000
4-
40
250
40
11'� 47171
A
D'
1121 5
i1 _0 (4c0
E
0
U
0
2
(80)
(360)
(70) (60)
(820)
(30)
0)
(500) (430)
260 280
..1
900
20,'1 00
(520) 510 —I.
(100) (120) 80
(390) 420
(420) 460
1 11,500
(10) 151
(380;
(20) 30
Stop Sign
10 330 50
(20) (370) (60)
8,000 I
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
360
lit
B
D �-
230
(360) (10)
70 300
(120) (420)
12,700
(530)
(10)
12,41111
Grandview Ave
(10) (260) (90)
10 310 140
I 9,100
(11:) 10
(30 3) 415
(10; 0
C
C
8.000
50 (80)
280 (410)
120 (40)
27
I 8,100
330 30
(360) (30)
nr
111
771
(171
15
T
'i
650
15
A
B
600
0)
03
D
03
0)
Z
N
500
15 (25) (15) 10) 10 (15)
430 (665)
171 171 435 (660)
15 (50) � 60 (15)
20 5 20
(2i) (5) (20)
p 15,900 Q
(15)
(610)
(25)
10
655
20
20
15 5 15
(65) (5) (50)
I 1,500
1 14,100
Notes:
1. On the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor, University Avenue is shown as a northrsouth street; however, 0 is recognized that University Avenue is a northeastlsouthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
2. On the University Avenue corridor, Pennsylvania Avenue is shown as a northlsouth street; however, it is recognzed that Pennsylvania Avenue is an east/west street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
3. On the University Avenue corridor, Loras Boulevard is shown as a northlsouth street; however, it is recognzed that Loras Boulevard is a northeastlsouthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
4. On the University Avenue corridor, Delhi Street is shown as a northrsouth street; however, it is recognized that Delhi Street is a southeast/northwest street at this location and
was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
5. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, McCormick Street is shown as an east/west street; however, it is recognzed that McCormick Street is a northlsouth street at this location and
was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
6. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, University Avenue is shown as an east/west street; however, it is recognized that University Avenue is a southeast/northwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
7. Traffic queued at the southbound and westbound approaches of the University AvelAsbury Rd intersection spilled back to adjacent upstream intersections during the PM peak
hour causing excessive delays. Intersections affected by spillback include: Asbury RdlPoplar St, Asbury RdISt. Ambrose St, University AvelLoras Blvd and University
AvelMcCormick St. This also resulted in a metering of traffic to downstream signals and would therefore result in better operations at downstream signals since the total demand of
traffic was unable to be served.
Sources:
1. 2031 Volume Forecasts- HDR, June 2009.
2. Traffic Capacity Analysis (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
j
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
2031 BUILD
Future 2031 Build conditions include recommended improvements to existing geometry and traffic control, which
is documented in detail in Chapter 5 of this report. These improvements are recommended based on safety and
operational benefits. A summary of the changes to existing conditions for future 2031 Build conditions include:
• Roundabouts on University Avenue at the intersections of Pennsylvania Avenue, Asbury Road and Loras
Boulevard
• Realignment of Hillcrest Road at Asbury Road to create a four - legged intersection with the drive on the
opposite side of Asbury Road
• Realignment of Clarke Drive and Wilbricht Lane at Asbury Road to a four - legged intersection and the instal-
lation of a traffic signal
• Realignment of St. Ambrose Street at Asbury Road
• Removal of access to Poplar Street from Asbury Road
• Conversion of Asbury Road to a three -lane section east of the entrance to Sam's Club
• Installation of northbound, southbound and eastbound right -turn lanes at Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road
• Conversion of Pennsylvania Avenue to a five -lane section east of NW Arterial to Hempstead High School and a
three -lane section east of Hempstead High School to University Avenue
• Realignment of Delhi Street at University Avenue
• Installation of left -turn lanes on all four approaches of University Avenue /Grandview Avenue and the instal-
lation of a traffic signal
• Installation of northbound, southbound and eastbound left -turn lanes at Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
Existing signal timings were modified to minimize delay under the 2031 Build conditions. Additional coordination
of signals from existing conditions was not necessary to meet operational criteria and not considered given the
signal spacing and number of driveways between signals; however coordination could be considered in the future
if needed and deemed reasonable to improve capacity. CORSIM software was originally utilized for the simulation
analysis; however VISSIM software was utilized to analyze the recommended roundabouts due to its ability to
replicate more realistic vehicular behavior associated with roundabouts compared to CORSIM. The VISSIM
simulation analysis of the University Avenue Overlap section roundabouts shows:
• Future queues would be "moving queues" that would have minimal effect on delay within the roundabout, but
would affect vehicles using upstream driveways
• During peak times, queues on the eastbound and westbound approaches of the University Avenue /Asbury
Road roundabout would not extend into the adjacent upstream roundabouts at Pennsylvania Avenue and Loras
Boulevard
• Queues on the University Avenue / Loras Boulevard roundabout westbound approach would occasionally
extend into the University Avenue /Delhi Street intersection impacting operations at the intersection
Operational analysis of 2031 Build conditions determined that the recommended geometric improvements would
alleviate the congested conditions identified in the 2031 No -Build analysis. The future 2031 Build analysis showed
that all study intersections would operate within the LOS `C' criteria. Detailed simulation results are shown in
TABLE 4 -2. A summary of the simulation results as well as the recommended 2031 Build geometries and volumes
are shown for the study intersections in FIGURE 4-3 and FIGURE 4-4. Simulation output including recorded queues
is provided in the appendix.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
11 //
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
TABLE 4-2. YEAR 2031 BUILD ANALYSIS RESULTS
INTERSECTION 1
Ili
Asbury Road /Lore Mound Road
TR tIC
CONTROL 2
Unsignalized
AM PEAK
LOS
n;' a
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
{SEC}
-
PM PEAK
LOS
n 'a
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
SB Approach
A
3.3
A
3.2
Asbury Road /Seippel Road
Unsignalized
n a
n/a
NB Approach
A
9.0
B
10.7
SB Approach
B
10.9
B
11.0
Asbury Road /Springreen Road
Unsignalized
n;' a
-
n/a
NB Approach
A
6.7
A
6.2
SB Approach
A
7.6
A
7.3
EB Approach
B
14.3
A
9.9
I.VB Approach
A
7.0
C
20.1
Asbury Road /Radford Road
Signalized
6.8
A
7.0
NB Approach
A
9.3
B
10.0
EB Approach
A
4.7
A
3.4
WB Approach
A
8.7
A
8.4
Asbury Road/JFK
Signalized
17.1
C
27.2
NB Approach
B
16.3
C
27.9
SB Approach
B
19.9
C
32.9
EB Approach
B
15.6
C
24.2
WBApproach
B
17.4
C
26.5
Asbury Road /Carter Road
Signalized
A
8.4
B
12.0
NB Approach
C
32.5
D
36.3
SB Approach
C
23.2
C
28.1
EB Approach
A
4.5
A
9.3
WB Approach
A
2.1
A
5.7
Asbury Road /Chaney Road
Signalized
4.1
A
6. ks
NB Approach
A
8.5
B
15.0
SB Approach
A
7.4
A
3.6
EB Approach
A
2.7
A
2.9
WB Approach
A
4.4
A
3.1
Asbury Road / Hillcrest Road
Unsignalized
n;' a
-
n/a
NB Approach
C
24.8
C
21.2
SB Approach
B
12.8
A
8.5
Page 20
II IE CITY tI
Dus E Asbury ;r E- C- I- A
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
NvrIM4u4...W. East COn lral lntnr6ovelnnacnlal6ssotlatlon
TABLE 4-2. YEAR 2031 BUILD ANALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
Asbury Road /Clarke Drive
Signalized
A
8.8
B
12.4
NB Approach
B
15.4
C
27.4
SB Approach
A
8.1
B
16.9
EB Approach
A
6.6
B
10.0
Ii/J3 Approach
B
14.2
B
12.3
Asbury Road /St. Ambrose Street
Signalized
_
9.2
A
8.3
SB Approach
B
19.8
B
17.9
EB Approach
A
5.5
A
7.1
Ii/J3 Approach
A
9.5
A
6.8
_
Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High
School Drive
Signalized
A
9.3
A
4.4
SB Approach
B
18.4
B
18.2
EB Approach
A
6.2
A
3.0
Ii/J3 Approach
A
8.8
A
3.5
Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK
Signalized
C
22.0
C
30.0
NBApproach
C
20.3
C
26.8
SBApproach
B
20.0
C
26.3
EB Approach
B
15.4
C
26.1
IX�B Approach
D
39.8
D
44.2
University Avenue /Pennsylvania
Avenue
Roundabout
A
5.6
B
11.1
SB Approach
A
8.5
C
22.9
EB Approach
A
7.6
B
10.3
Ii/J3 Approach
A
1.4
A
3.8
University Avenue /Asbury Road
Roundabout
B
11.5
C
16.7
SB Approach
B
12.5
D
30.0
EB Approach
C
18.5
B
10.7
IX�B Approach
A
4.0
B
14.6
University Avenue /Loras Boulevard/
McCormick Street
Roundabout
A
5.2
B
10.7
NBApproach
D
25.1
C
22.8
SB Approach
A
5.1
B
12.3
EB Approach
A
3.8
A
3.8
Ii/J3 Approach
A
7.3
C
18.5
Page 21
TABLE 4-2. YEAR 2031 BUILD ANALYSIS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
INTERSECTION 1
TRAFFIC
CONTROL 2
AM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
PM PEAK
LOS
HOUR
AVE.
DELAY
(SEC)
University Avenue /Delhi Street
Unsignalized
n/a
_
n/a
NBAssroach
B
11.3
C
20.7
University Avenue /Grandview Avenue
Signalized
B
13.3
B
12.2
NB Approach
B
13.3
B
13.3
SB Approach
B
12.1
B
10.9
EB Approach
B
12.6
B
13.0
Ii/J3 Approach
B
15.0
B
11.2
University Avenue /Booth Street
Unsignalized
n/a
_
n/a
-
NB Approach
A
8.4
B
12.0
SB Approach
A
8.6
A
8.9
University Avenue /Nevada Street
Signalized
A
3.8
A
5.8
NB Approach
A
5.4
A
6.2
SB Approach
A
5.1
A
5.3
EB Approach
A
2.8
A
6.5
IX�BAssroach
A
4.8
A
5.0
Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
Signalized
B
10.7
B
10.5
NB Approach
A
8.4
B
11.6
SB Approach
B
12.6
B
11.6
EB Approach
B
10.3
B
10.4
IX�BAs'roach
B
10.8
A
8.9
Notes:
1. All streets listed first in the `Intersection' column are assumed to have EB /WB orientation at the intersection
2. Only stop - controlled approaches are shown for unsignala ed intersections
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
FIGURE 4-3. YEAR 2031 BUILD VOLUMES, GEOMETRIC'S, AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ALONGASBURYROAD
Asll
'Menu, tof Ica
(20) (301
20
1,600 ='I_
Asbury Rd A
D
A
(20) 10
(50) 100 ' ►
Asbury Rd
Asbury Rd
D21,700
800
(200')
(40) (370) (120)
70 260 110
�11 �
(350')' (240)
(480)
(200') (210)
(430) (5)
240 5
..00
(250')' (45i 1)
(5ili)
(5)
1i1 qi
411 ('. II.11
1 1,Si1r1
120
480 —'
160
D
C'_
T.)
Q
5)
CO
(40) (1701 (100)
10 150 100
13,500
50
400
110
4,4000
(10) 1u
(1.0)) 13(
2f
(150) (150)
(690)
(220) (150)'
qtr
160 160 60
(330) (390) (190)
(350)*
18,200
1 14,100
10 (10)
430 (640)
5 (5) (150')'
B
B Z
18,800
Wilbricht Ln
5 5 5
(5) (5) (5)
(15(1)
2031 Build AM Peak Hour Volume
2031 Build PM Peak Hour Volume
2031 Annual Daily Traffic
Existing Geometrics
Recommended Im provements for Year 2031
Existing Storage Length
Recommended Storage Length if
Exceeds Existing Storage Length
Two -Way Left-Tum Lane
Stop Sign
LEGEND
X
1 13,100
30 (100)
4 t 40 (120)
1-- 120 120 150)'
(140) (60)
130 50
120
(661
D
C'_
5)
a3
0
(150')
(60)
50
6,700
J
_,0(111
�t ,1I
1i1
10,800
(150)
(40)
(211) (1001,
D
C'_
5)
a)
B
0)
•Q
07
(20) (5) (65)
40 10 80
(65) 20 — r
(425) 560 —T-►
(10) 10
(200')' (110) 60
(610) 520
(10) 10
St. Ambrose St
(10) (160)
10 160
AF
10 0
OW l0il) (1 -j
160 (160)
440 (550)
(150)* (10) 10
(490) 550 —+
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Recommended Signalization and
AM /PM Level of Service
Recommended Roundabout and
Overall Roundabout AM/PM Level of Service
16,800
1 5,101-
4 - - - --
1i1
1711
4O
B
X0.11011
(45)
(500)
150
C
s
111 50
(l1) (30)
D
C'_
5,
a)
5)
a3
0
(150')
(80) (70) (40)
20 40 80
(150')' (50)
(570)
(20)
(470) (800)
430 440
(200') (450) 550
(160') (200) 160
I ®I
I 5,400
140 (40)
330 (780)
20 (20) (150)'
v
30
0
1 —r►
10
t
15,500
4— 270 (710)
160
24
250')'.
10 i1 20
(30) (40) (20)
3,400
4800
a)
N
5)
It
170 710
(240) (770)
17,400
(150)
(570) 690 —+
(150) (140) 110
I 6,400
CO
a) CO
a)
0)
(5) (5) (5i
5 5
T C
(5) 5 C
(610) 720
(10) 10
Radford Rd
r
30 270
(110) (180)
(150)
(5)
180 (790)
4— 190 (280) (150)'
16,600
280
(290)
I 9,700
1 23,800 I
N
Notes:
1. Asbury Road is assumed to run east -west for the purpose of this figure. It is recognted that Asbury Road is more north -south at the east end of the corridor.
2. Two-way left -turn lanes will provide addtional storage where applicable.
3. Recommended storage was based on traffic simulation results; however, geometric constraints governed the amount of storage available in select locations. Movements where
the recommended storage was reduced based on geometric constraints are: WB Left at Asbury R4IJFK, WB Left at Asbury RdlCarter Rd, WB Left at Asbury RdlHillcrest Rd, and
EB Left at Asbury RdlClarke Dr, SB Left at University AveJAsbury Rd, SB Right at University Ave/Asbury Rd, and EB Right at University Ave/Delhi St. Recommended storage based
soley on the traffic simulation resuts can be found in the appendix.
Sources:
1. 2031 Volume Forecasts- HDR Engineering, June 2009.
2. Traffic Capacity Analysis for non - roundabout intersections (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
3. Traffic Capacity Analysis for roundabout intersections (VISSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, October 2009.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
C . I . A
Page 22
FIGURE 4-4. YEAR 2031 BUILD VOLUMES, GEOIWETRICS, AND LEVELS OF SEi2YICE ALONG PEIVNSYLVANLI AVENUE, UNIVERSITY AVENUE, AND LO.RAS BOULEVARD
Page 23
Pennsylvania Ave
Universit Ave
(200)
(100) (60)
190 160
V21,500
6,700
160 (50)
590 (820)
(200)' (90) 300 J
(910) 600
(250)'
(120) (530)
80 520
.1.L
15,100
(120) 70
(480) 360
McCormick St
Pennsylvania Ave
15,500
270 (51 0)
330 (490)
a)
A
N
L
a)
(20) (790) (420)
25 875 370
900 I lT
&:
(10) 10
(40) 15
24,500
(150') (200')
(120) (580) (180)
150 390 50
o;
(160) (200)
(200) (450)
160 550
31.800
(350)' (2)0) )00
(510) 400
(200') (150) 140
(240) 170
(770) 710 _F
111
430 (470)
440 (800)
► ®I
t— 50 (60) (1501
4— 310 (440)
4— 90 (210) (250)'
alk
41 It
150 3711 40
(230) (5511) 1157M
(250')' i "]
24,900
L 300 (400)
20 (20) (35o) Loras Blvd
J
(350)
(400) (20)
300 20
(420) 370
(790) 875
(20) 25
30 560 20
(30) (880) (20)
20,700
2031 Build AM Peak H our Volum e
2031 Build PM Peak H our Volume
2031 Annual Daily Traffic
Existing Geometrics
Recommended Improvements for Year 2031
Existing Storage Length
Recommended Storage Length if
Exceeds Existing Storage Length
Two -Way Left-Turn Lane
Stop Sign
LEGEND
x
x
atk
I13,700I
arNIL
(n
0
U
E
0
0
2
8,000
16100
J 1 ]:,771I 1 I
20
560
30
(20)
(880)
(30)
a)
.>
c
(510) (490)
270 330
.� 1
15, 500
(250)' (530) 520
(120) 80 -3
10 15
(10) (40)
(150)
(20) (280) (60)
30 400 150
L
Grandview Ave
1 20,700 I
24.500
70 360 t
(1 20) (480)
1 15,100
4— 530 (750)
r 10 (10) 150
(410) 440
(150') (460) 490
40
250
♦ 40
(80)
(360)
(70) (150')
c
(n
a)
0
00 10
(190) (10)
(150')
(10)
(380)
(30)
10 —t
330
40
20 330 50
(30) (370)
(150)
117
AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Worst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
PM Peak Hour Unsignalized IntersectionWorst Case
Stop - Controlled Approach Level of Service
AM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Le,. el of Service
PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Le,. el of Service
Recommended Signalization and
AM /PM Level of Service
Recommended Roundabout and
Overall Roundabout AM/PM Level of Service
(60)
1 11,500 I
14,500
a)
4)
C
8,200
(n
0
0
m
(200)
(10) (260) (100) + 60 (90) (20) (5) (1 5)
10 310 150 300 (430) 15 ♦ 20
I ,F 120 (40) (200)'
Lv
(150')' (10) 10 J •
(400) 430 --r► 230 330 30
(10) 10 i (320) (360) (30)
(250')
1 0,00 0 1
13,800
s
(20)
(635)
(25)
20
20
15
A
B
if20 (30)
440 (680)
15 (50)
20 5 20
(20) (5) (20)
I 1,000
16.500
in
CO
CO
CO
m
z
(20) (5) (10)
15 10 10
N
Not to scale
►
600
10 [15]
445 (675)
60 (15)
(20)
(625)
(25)
15
665
20
20
15 5 15
(65) (5) (50)
I 1,500
14,100
Notes:
1. On the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor, University Avenue is shown as a northlsouth street; however, it is recognized that University Avenue is a northeast/southwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on thisfigure.
2. On the University Avenue corridor, Pennsylvania Avenue is shown as a northlsouth street; however, it is recognized that Pennsylvania Avenue is an east/west street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on thisfigure.
3. On the University Avenue corridor, Loras Boulevard is shown as a northrsouth street; however, 4 is recognzed that Loras Boulevard is a northeast /southwest street at this location
and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on thisfigure.
4. On the University Avenue corridor, Delhi Street is shown as a northlsouth street; however, it is recognzed that Delhi Street is a southeastlnorthwest street at this location and was
depicted as shown for ease of presentation on this figure.
5. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, McCormick Street is shown as an east/west street; however, it is recognzed that McCormick Street is a northrsouth street at this location and
was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on thisfigure.
6. On the Loras Boulevard corridor, University Avenue is shown as an east/west street; however, it is recognized that University Avenue is a southeastlnorthwest street at this
location and was depicted as shown for ease of presentation on thisfigure.
7. Two-way left -turn lanes will provide additional storage where applicable.
8. Recorrmended storage was based on traffic simulation results; however, geometric constraints governed the amount of storage available in select locations. Movements where
the recommended storage was reduced based on geometric constraints are: WB Left at Asbury Rd/JFK WB Left at Asbury Rd/Carter Rd, WB Left at Asbury Rd/Hillcrest Rd, and EB
Left at Asbury Rd/Clarke Dr, SB Left at University AvelAsbury Rd, SB Right at University AvelAsbury Rd, and EB Right at University AvelDelhi St. Recommended storage based
solely on the traffic simulation results can be found in the appendix.
Sources:
1. 2031 Volume Forecasts- HDR Engineering, June 2009.
2. Traffic Capacity Analysis for non - roundabout intersections (CORSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, September 2009.
3. Traffic Capacity Analysis for roundabout intersections (VISSIM Simulation Software) - HDR Engineering, October 2009.
FD
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
CHAPTER 5: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
COMPLETE STREETS CONSIDERATIONS
Improvements along the selected corridors will also consider Complete Streets philosophy in accommodating all
roadway users. This concept stresses the provision of safe access for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit
users. Besides safety, other improvements to the visual and physical environment of the roadway can provide
additional health and economic benefits to users.
The needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users may sometimes conflict, so the benefit to each user
needs to be weighed within the context and constraints of each corridor. For safe and efficient travel, motorists
desire minimal travel delays, minimal visual and
physical conflicts or distractions and consistency
in design. If walking is to be encouraged,
pedestrians need more than a simple sidewalk
and safe crossings to feel secure and comfortable.
Protection from climate, buffering from
motorists, an aesthetically pleasing environment,
and access for the disabled are some of the issues
to be considered. Bicyclists want a connected
network of facilities that are safe and direct,
they want to avoid stoppages, and they need
their visibility to other roadway users improved.
Transit users are defined not only by the riders,
ut also the drivers. Transit operators need space
to operate, minimal delays to keep on schedule,
and minimal conflicts with other roadway users
or facilities. Riders desire accessible, comfortable
and secure waiting areas placed along a well- connected network. Several concept design elements were considered
for this study, in order to incorporate the Complete Streets philosophy.
Dedicated Bicycle Lane with On- Street Parking
LT1� ONE COMPANY
1 �J Many Solurrans=
In Association with
Three -lane Cross Section with Dedicated Bicycle Lanes
1171
IIW Engineers S. Surveyors, P.C.
Dust`
Maskrplme on the Miais43n
E . C - I - A
STREET DESIGN
Long, straight, wide streets often create barriers for pedestrians and transit users and encourage higher vehicular
speeds, which has an impact on the safety of all roadway users. Narrower streets encourage slower speeds and
provide shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. Traffic calming strategies, such as mid -block curb bulbouts
(with on- street parking), center medians, reduced turning radii, benefit the pedestrian and can be weighed with
the needs and safety of bicyclists, and operability of transit vehicles. For bus transit, the use of bulbouts and
turnouts need to be evaluated for effectiveness. Where it is not acceptable to stop a bus in traffic and a bus turnout
is justified, a far -side or midblock stop is generally preferred. Stops located on the far side of a traffic signal are
preferred so a bus does not get delayed waiting to re -enter traffic. Bulbouts allow more room for riders waiting to
access transit, and can reduce delay to motorists waiting behind the transit vehicle by allowing for faster loading
and unloading of passengers, and allow buses to reenter the flow of traffic more quickly.
Pedestrian Crossing with Kazsed Median for l wo -3 tage Gap Acceptance
INTERSECTION DESIGN
Crossing features such as medians, bulbouts, right -turn channelization, pavement markings, distinct pavement
types and pedestrian and bicycle signalization help to regulate different travel modes as well as increase visibility.
Medians and bulbouts shorten crossing distances and provide pedestrians with additional landing areas
while crossing and more space along roadway edges. Median noses that extend beyond marked crosswalks at
intersections help to control the speed of left turning vehicles. Vehicle channelization is another method that
allows for shorter crossing distances, as well as making pedestrians more visible and turning movements safer
for all users. Distinct paving types and pavement markings increase awareness from other motorists that the
crossing space is dedicated to pedestrians or bicyclists. It can also reflect character of a neighborhood or region.
Roundabouts allow vehicles and bicyclists to continue moving through the intersection, at reduced speeds, while
providing shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. Roundabout splitter islands provide refuge to pedestrians and
allow them to cross one direction of traffic flow at a time. Further, the horizontal deflection of vehicles entering a
roundabout slows them to low speeds which allows them to easily yield to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross.
Finally, roundabouts provide opportunities for more visual interest and identifying neighborhood character. At
signalized intersections, it is desirable to mark pedestrian crosswalks and use countdown pedestrian signal heads
on all approaches.
Page 24
nmcnof
B
frrpirc• nrt tllr Mrssiz ppi
Asbury
u.ne.nnurmr�'
.C.I .A
East C.nleai tnta,Lerernmenlal assoclatten
SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are often seen as optional or omitted due to current land use needs. Orientation and alignment are
important considerations so that the walk provides an access between destinations. Pedestrians, and in some
cases bicyclists, are more exposed to the environment as the users of sidewalks. This makes them more aware
of the effects of sidewalk design elements such as Location, width, utility interferences, shading, plantings, and
the presence of amenities. A narrow sidewalk abutting the curb not only gets diminished by sharing space with
utility poles, but makes the user feel Less secure because there is no buffer from traffic. Conversely, a planting strip
with room for trees provides buffering and shade, but require more right --of --way and may interfere with utilities.
Pedestrian comfort is increased if they are
buffered from passing vehicles. Some of the
elements that serve as buffers include planting
strips and Landscaping, bicycle lanes, and on--
street parking. Walking can be encouraged
if the perceived distance can be minimized.
Some ways to shorten a perceived distance
is to create direct connections between land
uses, provide mid - -block crossings, and offer
amenities along the way, such as benches,
Landscaping, defined paving, shelters and
other resting area type design features. These
amenities are also important design elements
for transit stops. Rest areas' functions can e. estnan rossing zvit ' . 'se. edian for Tivo -Stage Gap ' cceptance
be shared between users. Water coolers could
be
provided along a sidewalk that serves as a multi --use trail or shared use path. Bike racks at key points provide full
service for the bicyclists, especially appropriate along commercial corridors within the streetscape, at destinations
along a sidewalk, or at major transit stops.
LIGHTING
Lighting is a key element affecting roadway users' perception and safety. Motorists need better sight distances for
safety, so higher levels of lighting provide better visibility. From a pedestrian level, the vehicular lighting level
may not serve as well to provide the security that lower height
lighting could achieve. Pedestrian scale lighting is spaced closer
together and adds a higher lighting level for the user. The use of
distinct poles provides an opportunity to identify a neighborhood
or district. Other locations where pedestrian scaled lighting
area is important are transit stops, intersections, and all marked
midblock crosswalks.
Page 25
Shared Lane avzt arrow
er_:41
sl
SUSTAINA131J DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES
Some of the strategies advocated by the Complete Streets philosophy, such as separation of walks and adding
planting strips also provide the opportunity for additional
sustainable design functions. A planting strip can also be utilized as
a rain garden since it is adjacent to the curb. Runoff can be directed
into these areas to be filtrated before being released which results
in improved water quality and reduced velocities. Trees planted in
this strip provide shade for pedestrians, bicyclists and parked cars,
which results in reducing the heat island effect. Sidewalks can be
constructed of porous pavements, which also reduce runoff and
helps with groundwater recharge.
SHARROfS
Sharrows are shared lane pavement markings. This relatively new
Complete Streets measure is a low- -cost bicycle improvement used in
lanes that are too narrow to be shared by bicycles and motor vehicles
and when the roadway is too narrow to stripe an exclusive bicycle
lane. They alert motorists to expect bicyclists, encourage safe passing,
and provide lateral positioning guidance for bicyclists. Sharrows may
be implemented on roadways with on-- street parking.
Sharrows have been implemented in other communities around the
country and in Iowa, although still technically considered experimental according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD). According to a draft version of the new MUTCD, some benefits to sharrow pavement
markings are:
■ Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-- street parallel parking in order to reduce the
chance of a bicyclist's impacting the open door of
a parked vehicle,
• Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes
that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a
bicycle to travel side by side within the same
traffic lane,
• Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists
are likely to occupy within the traveled way,
• Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists,
and
■ Reduce the incidence of wrong -way bicycling.
There are limits to the use of sharrows:
• They should not be on roads where the speed
limits above 35 MPH.
• They should not be on shoulders or in bike lanes
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions.
are. .ne wit 1 n- Street Parking
In Association with
WI/
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
i�
The draft MUTCD suggests the placement of sharrows after intersections and not more than every 250 feet
thereafter. In areas without on- street parking, the spacing interval between sharrows may be greater.
With on- street parking, the recommended distance from curb to center of marking is 11 feet. However, larger
vehicles including many trucks and SUVs are wider, have longer doors, and not all vehicles will park right up
against the curb. For these reasons and to give bicyclists a more comfortable clearance from opening vehicle doors,
it is recommended to place the center of sharrow markings 13 feet from the curb face when used with on- street
parking. In areas without on- street parking, the draft MUTCD recommends the centers of sharrows be placed a
minimum of four feet from the curb face.
Centerline
of Approximate Approximate Parked Passenger
Marking Door Open Vehicle Width kom Curb
to 1 Width
Door
r
Placement of Shared Use Anow
From Curb for Study Purposes
11.-CC •
NIUT'CD Guidance for Sharrow Placement
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
1
In Association with
117/
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
',Man OP (
DUB
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
fsbitry . C . I . A
and Cnalr allnlarroraramenlalAsseciatlen
COMPLETE STREETS PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS
Several locations along the study corridors were identified where enhanced pedestrian accommodations should
be considered. Six pedestrian accommodation enhancements have been identified for potential implementation at
these locations.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND HIGH VISIBILITY SIGNAGE
At a minimum, high visibility pavement markings in a ladder pattern
as shown in the photo below should be used on all study area
intersection approaches, roadways with higher volumes and major
side streets. The two transverse line crosswalk can be used for minor
streets and driveways.
In addition to pavement markings, high visibility LED signage can be
utilized to identify pedestrian crossing areas. It should be noted that
the high visibility signage could be used with any of the pedestrian
accommodation options.
RAISED MEDIAJVS
S1 -1/2
g sss,s sty sgnage
Raised medians provide a pedestrian refuge area as shown in the photograph to the right. Providing raised
medians between opposing vehicular traffic flows allows pedestrians
to cross each traffic stream independently, ultimately improving
pedestrian safety. Isolated raised medians also provide a visual queue
for drivers to be aware of potential pedestrian activity. The medians
can be constructed entirely of concrete or they can include vegetation
or landscaping behind the curb. It is recommended that during design
of a raised median for enhanced pedestrian accommodations special
consideration is given to proposing vegetation or landscaping that
will not impair the visibility of a pedestrian. The benefit of angling
the median refuge cut for pedestrians (as shown in the photo to the
right) is that it forces them to face towards traffic when crossing the
street from either direction.
COLORED CONCRE1 E CROSSI.YALKS
51 -1/5
Pedesttan Crossing with Raised Median for Two-Stage
Gap Acceptance
Another crosswalk enhancement is utilizing colored concrete to
ark the crosswalk as shown in the photograph below. Colored
oncrete provides a visual cue to motorists to be aware of
otential pedestrian activity. When used consistently throughout a
ommunity at either high pedestrian traffic areas or at areas with
edestrian safety concerns, they are quite effective in providing
added emphasis on pedestrian safety. If colored pavers are desired
for crosswalks, care must be taken to ensure that the crosswalk
urfaces are flat and even; uneven surfaces are very challenging to
e for those with visual or physical disabilities.
0 ores oncrete rosswa
Pae26
RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
A third option for enhanced pedestrian accommodations is a raised
pedestrian crosswalk as shown in the photograph to the right. Raised
pedestrian crosswalks can be used as traffic calming devices causing
drivers to reduce their speeds to cross the crosswalk. Designs of the raised
pedestrian crosswalks vary from a gradual rise to a noticeable grade
difference depending on the proposed Location of the crosswalk. Depending
on the design of the raised pedestrian crosswalk, traffic capacity will not be
negatively impacted by the installation of a raised crosswalk.
Raised Crosswalk
INTERNATJYITJ,UMINA 1ED T.FD CROSSINGS WITH PHOTOET.F.GTRIC BOLLARDS
Internally illuminated LED crossings with photoelectric bollards are another option to enhance pedestrian
accommodations. The photo below shows an activated internally illuminated crossing. The in-- roadway lights
are directly in the driver's line of sight and
are only illuminated when activated so the
drivers know when pedestrians are present.
Guidance for the installation of in-roadway
lights is provided in Chapter 4 of the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
There are multiple options for activating the
lights. One option, photoelectric bollards
(shown below), detect pedestrians when
the pedestrians pass through the bollards so
no action is necessary by the pedestrian to
illuminate the crosswalk lights. Other options
include pedestrian push- -button as described
in the next section.
nterna I uminate
Page 27
P otoe ectric Boar
REGIANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS
An option for a flashing beacon is the LED Rectangular Rapid Flashing amber Beacons (RRFB). These devices are
solar-powered, radio controlled, pedestrian activated and mounted under pedestrian crosswalk warning signs.
Experimentation with these signs in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida at numerous midblock crossing Locations on
four- -lane roadways determined their benefit with regard to motorist yielding to pedestrians. The results have been
impressive, with motorists yielding to crossing pedestrians over 82 percent of the time at locations with the RRFB,
compared to an average of only 11 percent with side mounted round flashing beacons. With the success of the
implementation in St. Petersburg and other locations around the country, the RRFB has earned interim approval
from FHWA for inclusion in the MUTCD.
Installed on roadside poles, the RRFB remains dark until a pedestrian activates the system by pressing a push --
button. Once the system is activated, rapidly flashing amber beacon lights provide a bright warning to motorists.
The system also provides an additional flashing amber light indicating to the pedestrian that the beacon lights are
flashing.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Crosswalk with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
ONE COMPANY
Df Many Solutions.
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
The following locations have been identified as potential locations for enhanced pedestrian accommodations. It
should be noted that raised medians are the preferred mid -block pedestrian crossing improvement since medians
provide improved crossing capacity with two -stage gap acceptance. Although, some locations conflict with streets
and driveways necessitating the need for prohibiting certain left -turn movements. These locations should be
evaluated to determine the appropriate enhancement to be utilized. The evaluation may determine that a mid -
block location identified below does not need enhanced pedestrian accommodations and/or it may identify an
alternative location.
ASBURY ROAD
• The addition of a mid -block pedestrian crossing between St. John Drive and Bonson Road
This location was chosen to connect the residential development north and south of Asbury Road. The
proposed location is mid -way between NW Arterial and JFK Road. Additionally, pedestrians destined to points
south can use St. John Drive to Hillcrest Road, travel east two blocks to Key Way Drive and reach Pennsylvania
Avenue.
• Asbury Road /JFK Road
• Asbury Road /Carter Road
• The addition of a mid -block pedestrian crossing between Gilby Road and Mullen Road
This location was chosen to connect the residential development south of Asbury Road to Emmaus Bible
College and Emmaus baseball field located east of the college.
• Asbury Road /Relocated Clarke Drive
Note: Clarke Drive has been identified as an alternative downtown bicycle route by Tri -State Trail Vision
• Asbury Road /St. Ambrose Street
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
• Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Bus Exit
• Pennsylvania Avenue /Hempstead High School Entrance
• Pennsylvania Avenue /JFK Road
• The addition of a raised median pedestrian crossing at Pennsylvania Avenue /Marmora Avenue
This location was chosen to connect the residential development south of Pennsylvania Avenue to
Flora Park. It is recommended the crossing be constructed to prohibit the left -turn movement to /from
Marmora Avenue. Additionally, the eastbound left -turn movement into the drive east of Marmora Avenue
should be prohibited with the installation of a raised median.
• Existing Irving Elementary School signalized pedestrian crossing
UNIVERSITY AVENUE OVERLAP SECTION
• Pennsylvania Avenue /University Avenue Roundabout
• Asbury Road /University Avenue Roundabout
• Loras Boulevard /University Avenue Roundabout
1iIR
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
• University Avenue /Delhi Street
Note: Delhi Street has been identified as an alternative downtown bicycle route by Tri -State Trail Vision
• University Avenue /Grandview Avenue
It is recommended that the pedestrian treatments applied to this intersection be consistent with the pedes-
trian treatments selected at Loras Avenue /Grandview Avenue given the short intersection spacing and
potential for linked movements between the intersections
• University Avenue /Booth Street location of trail vision alternate bike route to downtown
Note: Booth Street has been identified as an alternative downtown bicycle route by Tri -State Trail Vision
LORAS BOULEVARD
• Loras Boulevard /Grandview Avenue
• Loras Boulevard /Adair Street
Note: Adair Street has been identified as an alternative downtown bicycle route by Tri -State Trail Vision
• Loras Boulevard /Alta Vista Street
Note: Alta Vista Street has been identified as an alternative downtown bicycle route by Tri -State Trail
Vision
• The addition of a mid -block pedestrian crossing between Walnut Street and Prairie Street
This location was chosen to connect the residential development south of Loras Boulevard to Loras
College. Consideration should be given to the installation of a raised median pedestrian crossing near
Prairie Street constructed such that the left -turn movement to /from Prairie Street is prohibited.
ASBURY ROAD WEST OF NORTHWEST ARTERIAL
• Asbury Road /Seippel Road
• Asbury Road Springreen Drive
• Asbury Road /Heacock Road
• Existing signalized pedestrian crossing east of Heacock Road
• Asbury Road /Radford Road
Pae28
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT
Based on the input provided by the Dubuque City Council an overall 2031 design concept was developed for each
of the four study corridors. The goals of the concept were to provide operational and safety improvements and
enhance pedestrian and bicycle accommodations while minimizing right of way acquisitions. Due to the minimal
right of way available in the University Avenue overlap area and the traffic operational issues, major right of
way impacts were considered. Selected right of way impacts were also considered at spot locations for localized
improvements. Additionally, Complete Streets design elements were considered and bicycle accommodations were
incorporated into the concept for each corridor. This concept sought to maintain an adequate level of operating
efficiency with the following improvements:
• Asbury Road: 3 -lane cross section from NW Arterial to University Avenue
• Pennsylvania Avenue: 5 -lane cross section from NW Arterial to Hempstead High School
• Pennsylvania Avenue: 3 -lane cross section east of Hempstead High School to University Avenue
• University Avenue Overlap Section: 5 -lane cross section from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard
• Asbury Road west of Northwest Arterial: 3 -lane cross section
The recommended concepts are shown in FIGURES 5 -8 through 5 -23. Additionally, the recommended geometries
including proposed storage bay lengths are shown in FIGURES 4-3 and 4 -4. The recommended storage bay lengths
were verified through the simulation analysis described in Chapter 4. An overview of the preferred concept
improvements are shown in FIGURE 5 -1.
Page 29
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
fl
Li" let:40
FIGU.RE 5-1. P.REFE.R.RED CONCEPT OVE.RVIEW
FiIR
IHECITY OA
E.C.I.A
AshurY EareCentrallnletao.ernment41Association
Masterpiar me the Mississippi '•••••`,A•t7,7'
LEGEND
SHARED LANES
DEDICATED BICYCLE LANES
ROUNDABOUT
DUBUQUE CITY WAITS
Asaurn car Limns
I
0
Alirar'- N -
NOT TO SCALE
1•
I 'milli"-
m Anal_ __111/ elem. '
ADDITIONAL RIGHT
TURN LANE &
SIGNALIZATION
a
• ill •
•.—,
. vrpims-
.1. •
-
REALIGNMENT &
SIGNALIZATION
V-
;
HILLCREST _OAR;
ADDITIONAL RIGHT
TURN LANES
• • •
GEOMETRIC
MODIFICATIONS
•
a 1.17r:
• • a It'
REALIGNMENT
_
.. ,.
. ..' " i
. D„ f4-1. ' ' •
- .0- -^ •-• ...0- •
...,77,-). . •• 7
.• \ OL-1........ik;\4,..., .
• 41.:?"0.1 .,i. ' - •. ..,
..' 1 ...,''' \.,X• • .•
• ...". • ' ..,;,■ Fir•-•;47e. . K-_ '
.., .. 0.,,,, ,. . ;
..* 11" • . 7-, . ..7..-,
... , . ...,... 1 . A-
. • *kt+... • • - ..,-,.
• ' %.-1--..-7" '.- - '45
. •-c ,,-,..I '-'-', .% • ';-.4, ' •
..-•_•;■e),- ,
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
. .
, a• •
9
4 LANE DIVIDED
SECTION
400 4-Mt!
ADDITIONAL LEFT fn
TURN LANES &
SIGNALIZATION
-
• •!..„
/05 fit.;1006:*-111.011■\
•
• !!9_41111P,ini-- _
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions-
In Association with
11//
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 30
ast Central Intergovernmental Psroelation
ASBURY ROAD
Asbury Road serves primarily residential property with some commercial development including Emmaus Bible
College. The current cross section of Asbury Road varies between a two -lane undivided and three -lane (one lane
in each direction and a center two -way left -turn lane) cross section. Some on- street parking exists along the
corridor, primarily near University Avenue.
The primary recommended cross sections for Asbury Road are shown in FIGURES 5 -2A, 5 -2B and 5 -2C. Elements
of the typical cross section do vary at some locations. The recommended cross sections for the entire length of the
corridor are shown in FIGURES S -8 through 5 -12. Dedicated bicycle lanes are proposed for the entire length of the
corridor except at three locations:
• Approximately 250 feet east and west of the JFK Road intersection (both directions)
• Between realigned Hillcrest Road and realigned Clarke Drive (eastbound direction only)
• Between Green Street and University Avenue (both directions)
Shared lanes with sharrows (described in the Complete Streets Considerations section of this chapter) are
proposed at these three locations. All existing parking west of Green Street along Asbury Road would need to be
removed to accommodate the bicycle lanes or shared lanes and the center two -way left -turn lane where it does not
exist today. On- street parking east of Green Street would remain. All businesses and residences were reviewed to
determine if off - street or side street parking was available in locations where on- street parking removal is being
proposed. It was determined that all properties have access to off - street or side street parking in locations where
on- street parking removal is being proposed.
FIGURE 5-2A. ASBURY ROAD PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
0.5'
NEW
SIDEWALK
L---E 5' - ;4'
BIKE
6'
NEW
11'
1+4-1
12'
UAC EXISTING
BIKE
SIDEWALK
6'-4 4'=
+1- 65' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
NEW
5■
0.5'
Page 31
FIGURE 5-2B. ASBURY ROAD PROPOSED CROSS SECTION FROMHILLCREST ROAD TO CL iRKE DRIVE
0.5'
NEW
SIDEWALK
5' == 4'
BIKE
6'
NEW
a
1
✓ —
L — J
SHARED LANE
NEW
SIDEWALK
11'
12'
UAC EXISTING
+1- 60' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
5'
0.5'
FIGURE 5-2C. ASBURY ROAD PROPOSED CROSS SECTION FROM GREEN STREET TO UNIVERSITYAVENUE
0.5'`-
UAC PARKING
SIDEWALK
8'
SHARED
LANE
12'
SHARED
LANE
T
PARKING UAC
SIDEWALK
12'
UAC EXISTING
8'
J
+1- 55' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
0.5'
For cost estimation purposes it was assumed that pavement would be removed and reconstructed from the curb
to the point where the bicycle lanes would begin in areas of pavement widening unless otherwise noted. The
remaining pavement would be milled and the corridor would be overlaid with asphalt providing a template
correction to reset the crownline.
The proposed typical section for Asbury Road includes widening the existing roadway pavement and installing
5 -foot sidewalks on each side setback 4 feet from the back of curb. Pavement widening was assumed to occur on
both sides. During the preliminary design phase, consideration should be given to holding the existing curb line
and widening only to one side if existing features warrant. Specifically, it might be preferable to hold the south
curb line of Asbury Road from about 1,000 feet west of JFK Road to JFK Road to minimize reconstruction of
multiple curb returns. This would result in the need to acquire right of way on the north side.
There are two options for bicycle accommodations in the vicinity of the JFK Road intersection. The dedicated
bicycle lanes could extend through the intersection; however this would require an additional 8 feet of right
of way for approximately 200 feet east and west of JFK Road. This would impact parking stalls for the business
in the southwest corner of the intersection. The right of way needs could be reduced if the sidewalk setback
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
between the sidewalk and curb was eliminated. The second option for accommodating bicycles through the JFK
Road intersection would be to end the dedicated bicycle lanes approximately 200 feet from JFK Road and provide
sharrows in the through lane through the intersection. The latter option was selected and is shown in FIGURE 5 -9.
The proposed Asbury Road concept would impact the parking lot of the business property located in the southeast
quadrant of Asbury Road /Carter Road. Consideration should be given to closing the two business driveways onto
Asbury Road between Carter Road and Avalon Road. Parking for this business is located west of the business and
driveways exist on the east side of the business. Additionally, on- street parking is available on Avalon Road as
shown in FIGURE 5 -10.
The recommended Asbury Road concept shown in FIGURES 5 -8 through 5 -12 would result in 7 full property
acquisitions.
HILLCREST ROAD, CLARKE DRIVEIWILBRICHT LANE REALIGNMENT
Another recommended improvement to Asbury Road is the realignment of:
• Hillcrest Road
• Clarke Drive
• Wilbricht Lane
Hillcrest Road and Clarke Drive serve as collector roads. A linked movement exists between the two roadways.
Vehicles were observed to turn right from Hillcrest Road and Clarke Drive onto Asbury Road and immediately turn
left onto Clarke Drive and Hillcrest Road, respectively. Hillcrest Road and Clarke Drive are less than 200 feet apart.
The proposed realignment of these two collectors would result in an approximately 600 -foot spacing, creating
room for left -turn storage lanes as shown in FIGURE 5 -11.
Hillcrest Road would intersect Asbury Road creating a four - legged two -way stop controlled intersection with
an existing driveway north of Asbury Road. Left -turn lanes would be provided along Asbury Road. Clarke Drive
and Wilbricht Lane would be realigned to create a four - legged signalized intersection. Left -turn lanes would
be provided on all four intersection approaches. The proposed realignment of Hillcrest Road, Clarke Drive and
Wilbricht Lane would result in 4 full property acquisitions. These acquisitions are included in the total Asbury
Road acquisitions noted previously.
ST. AMBROSE STREET REALIGNMENT, ASBURY ROAD CURVE MODIFLCATLON
In addition to the realignment of Hillcrest Road, Clarke Drive and Wilbricht Lane, the realignment of St. Ambrose
Street at Asbury Road is recommended. The St. Ambrose Street intersection is signalized today and currently
serves residential property and St. Anthony's Church and School. St. Ambrose Street intersects Asbury Road at
approximately 50 degrees on a sharp curve. It is recommended that St. Ambrose Street be realigned to intersect
Asbury Road at 90- degree angle. Additionally, it is recommended that Asbury Road be reconstructed through
this area to improve the geometry of the roadway. The current design speed for the curve is 20 mph. It is
recommended that Asbury Road be redesigned with a 510 -foot radius curve to accommodate a 35 mph design
speed. Both of these modifications would improve driver expectancy and ultimately safety at the intersection.
Modifying the Asbury Road curve at this location may improve safety for cyclists since motorists have the potential
to drift into the dedicated bicycle lane in this area without the recommended improvement.
1iIR
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
The improved intersection of St. Ambrose Street with Asbury Road would reduce the intersection spacing of Poplar
Street to approximately 80 feet. Given this undesirable intersection spacing and the other access options for the
two homes that front Poplar Street, it is recommended that Poplar Street be closed from Asbury Road and a cul-
de-sac be constructed at the north end of Poplar Street. The recommended geometric improvements are shown in
FIGURE 5 -12.
In addition to geometric improvements in this area, this location has been identified as a location where enhanced
pedestrian accommodations should be considered as noted in the Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations
section of this chapter. Options to consider include high visibility pavement markings, colored concrete or a
median island on the east approach. The recommended realignment of St. Ambrose Street and curve modification
on Asbury Road would result in 3 full property acquisitions. These acquisitions are included in the total Asbury
Road acquisitions noted previously.
Page 32
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
Pennsylvania Avenue serves primarily residential development with some commercial development and a
recreational area, Flora Park. Additionally, two schools are located on Pennsylvania Avenue including Hempstead
High School and Irving Elementary School. High pedestrian activity occurs near the schools and Flora Park. These
locations were identified as locations where enhanced pedestrian accommodations should be considered as noted
in the Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations section of this chapter.
Prior to this study the cross section of Pennsylvania Avenue in the vicinity of Hempstead High School consisted
of a four -lane undivided facility. In 2007, a pedestrian fatality occurred in this area. As a result, the cross section
of Pennsylvania Avenue was converted into a three -lane cross section with one through lane in each direction
and a center two -way left -turn lane. Pennsylvania Avenue elsewhere in the study area varies between a two -lane
undivided and three -lane cross section. On- street parking exists at some locations along the south side of the
corridor.
The primary recommended cross sections for Pennsylvania Avenue are shown in FIGURES 5 -3A and 5 -3B. Elements
of the typical cross section do vary at some locations. The recommended cross sections for the entire length of the
corridor are shown in FIGURES 5 -13 through 5 -16. Dedicated bicycle lanes are proposed for the entire length of the
corridor except at two locations:
• Between Northwest Arterial and just west of Vizaleea Drive
• Near the University Avenue roundabout
Shared lanes with sharrows (described in the Complete Streets Considerations section of this chapter) are
proposed at these locations. All existing parking along Pennsylvania Avenue would need to be removed to
accommodate the bicycle lanes or shared lanes and the center two -way left -turn lane where it doesn't exist today.
All businesses and residences were reviewed to determine if off - street or side street parking was available in
locations where on- street parking removal is being proposed. It was determined that all properties have access to
off - street or side street parking in locations where on- street parking removal is being proposed.
FIGURE 5-3A. PENNSYLVANL1 AVENUE PROPOSED CROSS SECTION EAST OF HEMPSTEAD HIGH SCHOOL
NEW
SIDEWALK
6'
5' = +!- _-I 6'
NEW
11'
11'
UAC EXISTING
11'
BIKE
+1- 65' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
NEW
SIDEWALK
4'
NEW
•
0.5'
Page 33
FIGURE 5-3B. PENNSYLVANL1 AVENUE PROPOSED CROSS SECTION FROMNWARTERT.4L TO HEMPSTEAD HIGH SCHOOL
0.5'
SIDEWALK
3'
3' = = +!
SHARED LANE
❑� IT
14.5'
11'
12' =F= 11'
NEW
SHARED LANE
NEW
SIDEWALK
(I�
14.W =F= 6' =
+1- 80' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
z 0.5'
Partial right of way impacts would occur on the south side of Pennsylvania west of Hempstead High School to
convert the corridor to a five -lane cross section. Construction of a five -lane cross section would improve the
existing bottleneck that occurs in this area as documented in the existing conditions analysis (Chapter 3). No
sidewalk setback between the sidewalk and curb are proposed in this area to minimize right of way impacts.
Further east of this location, a retaining wall is proposed south of the Hempstead High School baseball field due to
grade differences.
The sidewalk along the corridor varies from having a sidewalk setback to being directly behind the curb depending
on the available right of way. Near the JFK Road intersection the sidewalks are proposed to be directly behind the
curb. Additional proposed modifications to the JFK Road intersection include dedicated right -turn lanes on the
northbound, southbound, and eastbound intersection approaches.
Near Van Buren a point of inflection without a curve exists on Pennsylvania Avenue. It is recommended that this
lane shift is lengthened utilizing a 20:1 taper rate to meet criteria. The recommended geometric improvements are
shown in FIGURE 5 -15.
Near Marmora Avenue a curve exists that does not meet criteria. It is recommended that the Pennsylvania Avenue
alignment be shifted north and the curve be redesigned with a 350 -foot radius to accommodate a 30 mph design
speed. Shifting Pennsylvania Avenue to the north would not impact parking to the business in the southwest corner
of the intersection. The recommended geometric improvements are shown in FIGURE 5 -16.
For cost estimation purposes, it was assumed that full reconstruction would be necessary on Pennsylvania Avenue
due to potential elevation differences for implementation of the proposed five -lane section from Hempstead High
School to NW Arterial. Elsewhere, it was assumed that pavement would be removed and reconstructed from the
curb to the point where the bicycle lanes would begin unless otherwise noted. The remaining pavement would
be milled and the corridor would be overlaid with asphalt providing a template correction to reset the crownline
depending on construction date given the good existing pavement condition of Pennsylvania Avenue.
The recommended Pennsylvania Avenue concept shown in FIGURES 5 -13 through 5- 16would not result in any full
property acquisitions.
a
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
UNIVERSITY AVENUE OVERLAP SECTION
Each of the study corridors meet at the University Avenue Overlap section. Pennsylvania Avenue and Asbury Road
begin at University Avenue and extend west. Loras Boulevard begins at University Avenue and extends east to
downtown Dubuque. Given each of these corridors share this section of roadway, the University Avenue Overlap
section is heavily used and is a major bottleneck today and will be in the future without major improvements.
The University Avenue Overlap section currently serves primarily commercial development with some residential
properties located west of Asbury Road. The University of Dubuque is located in the southeast corner of the
intersection of University Avenue with Loras Boulevard.
Two concepts were initially considered for the University Avenue Overlap section including a series of signalized
intersections and roundabouts. Since the City of Dubuque does not currently have any roundabouts special
consideration was given to the benefits and disadvantages of roundabouts. The following section provides
background information on modern roundabouts compared to signalized intersections.
ROUNDABOUTS VERSUS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A modern roundabout is a roadway junction where vehicles circulate counterclockwise around a center island.
There are several benefits to the installation of a roundabout compared to a signalized intersection including:
• Safety
• Sustainability
• Reduction in off -peak delay
• Long -term maintenance cost savings
A typical four - legged intersection has 32 conflict points
whereas a modern single -lane roundabout has only
8 conflict points. In addition to fewer potential crash
locations, circulating traffic in a roundabout operate at
slower speeds than vehicles passing through a signalized
intersection. The slower speeds and directional
circulation offer safety benefits including less severe
crashes. Right -angle crashes are eliminated and the
typical roundabout crashes that occur are sideswipes
which result in fewer fatalities and injury crashes than
other crash types. Additionally, the slower speeds and
single direction circulation make it easier for younger
and elderly drivers to enter the traffic stream and
appropriately judge adequate gaps in the circulating
traffic. Although the number of conflict points increases
from a single -lane to a multi -lane roundabout, the
relative number of conflict points remains substantially
lower compared to a signalized intersection.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
Single - approach Intersection and Roundabout Conflict Points
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Not only are roundabouts safer for drivers, but roundabouts offer safety benefits for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Roundabouts are designed to have splitter islands dividing vehicles entering and exiting the roundabout at each
approach. The divider islands offer pedestrians a refuge when crossing the street allowing pedestrians to cross
each direction of traffic independently. Cyclists can either dismount and cross as pedestrians or they can enter the
roundabout as non - motorized vehicles. The slow circulating speeds of roundabouts are more cyclist friendly than
signalized intersections.
One of the benefits of roundabouts is sustainability. Since roundabouts allow continuous vehicular flow, vehicle
emissions are lower for roundabouts compared to signalized intersections. Additionally, as noted previously,
roundabouts are typically safer for all modes of traffic including pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as vehicular
traffic.
Roundabouts are yield controlled which results in minimal vehicular delay during uncongested time periods.
Initial costs for the installation of roundabouts are typically higher than signalized intersections due to the need
for additional right of way, but roundabouts offer improved long -term maintenance costs compared to signalized
intersections and typically cost less over time.
A few disadvantages of roundabouts include:
• Heavy vehicles may need to utilize both lanes of traffic when traversing multilane roundabouts
• Emergency vehicles are required to reduce their speed when passing through roundabouts regardless of time
of day ; however, the slowing required to negotiate a roundabout typically represents a negligible impact
on total emergency vehicle travel time (and it's noted that emergency vehicles typically have to slow on
approaches with red signal indications before proceeding through the intersection).
• Vehicles are continuously flowing through roundabouts prohibiting the opportunity to stop vehicular traffic
for pedestrians unlike signalized intersections; however, vehicles are moving slow enough that yielding for
pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross becomes very easy.
Modern roundabouts that are designed properly with sufficient horizontal deflection and have adequate pavement
markings offer several advantages over signalized intersections given the vehicular volumes can be adequately
served by a roundabout and the roundabout is geometricly feasible. The traffic operations of a roundabout need
to be analyzed with future traffic projections to ensure a roundabout is the best solution. Additionally, other
considerations may prohibit the installation of a roundabout including approach grades, right of way constraints
or at a location within a network of signalized intersections.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS CONCEPT
The signalized intersection concept for the University Avenue Overlap section would consist of three signals
located at the intersections of University Avenue with:
• Pennsylvania Avenue
• Asbury Road
• Loras Boulevard
Pa a 34
East Centsallntetsovelnmcatul Asocial ton
University Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard would consist of a five -lane section including two
through lanes and a left -turn lane. Additional improvements would include:
• An additional left -turn lane on Asbury Road (southbound)
• A westbound right -turn lane at the intersection with Asbury Road
• Realignment of Loras Boulevard and McCormick Street to create a four - legged intersection
• An exclusive northbound left -turn lane on McCormick Street
Based on a preliminary review of the parcel data provided by the City in GIS, an estimated 11 properties would
need to be acquired with the signalized intersections concept. Additionally, the existing pedestrian signal located
west of Loras Boulevard would be removed. This location has been identified as a location where enhanced
pedestrian accommodations should be considered as noted in the Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations
section of this chapter. Operational analysis was utilized as a screening tool and it was determined that the
signalized intersections concept would operate comparably with the roundabouts concept. The signalized
intersections concept for the University Avenue Overlap section is shown in the appendix. Complete Streets
amenities were not incorporated into the preliminary intersections concept.
PREFERRED CONCEPT — ROUNDABOUTS
The roundabouts concept was selected as the preferred concept for several reasons including:
• Improved safety compared to the signalized intersections concept
• Consistent with Dubuque's sustainability goals
• Compatibility with Complete Streets design elements, specifically bicycle accommodations
• Long -term maintenance cost savings
The roundabouts concept for the University Avenue Overlap section would consist of three 150 -foot inscribed
diameter roundabouts located at the intersections of University Avenue with:
• Pennsylvania Avenue
• Asbury Road
• Loras Boulevard
The roundabouts were designed for 15 to 25 miles per hour circulating speed and 15 miles per hour approach
speed.
University Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard would consist of a four -lane divided section
with two through lanes and a center raised median. This cross section would result in right -in /right -out access
for streets and driveways on University Avenue within this section. Additionally, dedicated bicycle lanes would
be included along this corridor outside of the roundabouts. Cyclists would be treated as a vehicle within the
roundabouts given the low circulating speeds. The recommended cross section is shown in FIGURE 5 -4. Only
one additional improvement would be necessary with the roundabouts concept: an additional approach lane on
Asbury Road (southbound) .
Page 35
FIGURE 1 -4. UNIVERSITYAYEANUE OVERLAP SECTION PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
BIKE
NEW
SIDEWALK
0.5' -
11'
1r =f- 9' 7r
NEW
BIKE
NEW
SIDEWALK
11' =1 6' >1-= 6'�
+1- 80' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
0.51
Based on a preliminary review of the parcel data provided by the City in GIS, an estimated 15 properties would
need to be acquired with the roundabouts concept. Additionally, the existing pedestrian signal located west of
Loras Boulevard would be removed. Pedestrians would be accommodated at the Loras Boulevard roundabout. This
location has been identified as a location where enhanced pedestrian accommodations should be considered as
noted in the Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations section of this chapter. Consideration should be given to
closing the driveway north of Loras Boulevard near the proposed roundabout to improve safety.
Enhanced pedestrian accommodations are also recommended at the Pennsylvania Avenue roundabout given the
intersection is frequently utilized by students of Irving Elementary School. A school crossing guard at this location
is recommended to ensure the elementary -age children can safely cross the roadway. Information on how to safely
cross a roundabout should be provided to parents and students of the school during orientation and properly
crossing the roundabout should be a part of the safe walk to school prior to school commencing in the fall.
Detailed simulation operational analysis was conducted for the roundabouts concept. Details of the analysis are
discussed in Chapter 4.
It should be noted that supplemental lighting should be installed at the proposed roundabouts. Cameras can also be
installed if desired. The recommended University Avenue Overlap section concept is shown in FIGURE 5 -17.
F
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Final Report
UNIVERSITY AVENUE EAST OF LORAS BOUT 1F VARD
University Avenue east of Loras Boulevard serves primarily residential property with some commercial
development including the University of Dubuque and a recreational area, Henderson Memorial Park. University
Avenue east of Loras Boulevard and west of Hill Street consists of a two -lane undivided cross section with on-
street parking.
The primary recommended cross section for University Avenue east of Loras Boulevard and west of Booth Street is
shown in FIGURE 5 -5. The on- street parking component of the typical cross section varies. The recommended cross
sections for the entire length of the corridor are shown in FIGURES 5 -18 and 5 -19. Shared lanes with sharrows
(described in the Complete Streets Considerations section of this chapter) are proposed west of Booth Street. Based
on input from Tri -State Trail Vision Booth Street was identified as a potential future bicycle route to downtown
given the grades that exist along University Avenue east of Booth Street. No modifications or recommendations east
of Booth Street are being proposed.
FIGURE 5-5. UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROPOSED CROSS SECTION EAST OF Lois BOULEVARD
0.5'
UAC PARKING
SIDEWALK
J
1 1- ------- - -1 - --
SHARED SHARED
LANE LANE
PARKING UAC
SIDEWALK
-
. J
8'
8'
12'
12'
UAC EXISTING
+1- 55' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
= 0.5'
All existing on- street parking would remain except near the Grandview Avenue intersection. It is recommended
that on- street parking be removed within 200 feet of the intersection, left -turn lanes be added on all four
intersection approaches and the intersection be signalized in the future. All businesses and residences were
reviewed to determine if off - street or side street parking was available where on- street parking removal is being
proposed. It was determined that all properties have access to off - street or side street parking in locations where
on- street parking removal is being proposed.
The recommended University Avenue concept east of Loras Boulevard shown in FIGURES 5 -18 and 5 -19 would
require 1 property acquisition.
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
EQ,VOA
Du
Masfcryirr ml the Mississippi
Asbury
lArellut
C . I . A
DELHI STREET REALIGNMENT
In addition to signalizing the intersection Grandview Avenue with University Avenue, the realignment of Delhi
Street at University Avenue is recommended. The existing intersection of Delhi Street with University Avenue
meets at a skew causing eastbound University Avenue through vehicles to veer to the left to stay on University
Avenue. It is recommended that Delhi Street be realigned to intersect University Avenue at 90- degree angle to
improve driver expectancy and safety. Based on a preliminary review of contours near the study intersection it
was determined that the proposed improvement would result in a 7 to 9 percent grade on Delhi Street. While this
grade is not ideal, it is preferred to the skewed intersection that exists today. The recommended realignment of
Delhi Street would result in 1 full property acquisition. This acquisition is the only acquisition on the University
Avenue corridor east of Loras Boulevard .
Paste 36
ast Central Intergovernmental Psroelation
LORAS BOUT LR VARD
Loras Boulevard serves primarily residential property including multi - family units with some commercial
development including Loras College and a recreational area, Henderson Memorial Park. High pedestrian activity
occurs near Loras College. This location was identified as a location where enhanced pedestrian accommodations
should be considered as noted in the Complete Streets Pedestrian Accommodations section of this chapter. The
current cross section of Loras Boulevard varies between a two -lane undivided and three -lane (one lane in each
direction and a center two -way left -turn lane) cross section. On- street parking exists at several locations along the
corridor.
The primary recommended cross section for Loras Boulevard west of Alta Vista Street is shown in FIGURE 5 -6. The
on- street parking component of the typical cross section varies. The recommended cross sections for the entire
length of the corridor are shown in FIGURES 5 -18 and 5 -19. Shared lanes with sharrows (described in the Complete
Streets Considerations section of this chapter) are proposed west of Alta Vista Street. Based on input from Tri -State
Trail Vision Alta Vista Street was identified as a potential future bicycle route to downtown given the steep grades
that exist along Loras Boulevard east of Alta Vista Street. No modifications or recommendations east of Alta Vista
Street are being proposed.
FIGURE 5-6. LORAS BOULEVARD PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
UAC PARKING
SIDEWALK
I 1
0.5' ' 4 3■ 8'
SHARED SHARED
LANE LANE
PARKING SIDEWALK
12' 12' = 8' >l<3'
UAC EXISTING
+1- 55' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
0.5'
All existing on- street parking would remain except near the Grandview Avenue intersection. It is recommended
that on- street parking be removed within 200 feet of the intersection and left -turn lanes be added on the
northbound, southbound and eastbound intersection approaches. All businesses and residences were reviewed
to determine if off - street or side street parking was available where on- street parking removal is being proposed.
It was determined that all properties have access to off - street or side street parking in locations where on- street
parking removal is being proposed.
The proposed Loras Boulevard concept shown in FIGURES 5 -18 and 5 -19 would not require any property
acquisitions.
Page 37
ASBURY ROAD VEST OF NORTHV ESTARI EkI4L
Asbury Road west of Northwest Arterial is the primary east -west roadway through the City of Asbury. Residential
and commercial development extends to approximately Briarwood Drive. West of Briarwood Drive agricultural
land lines Asbury Road with occasional residential development that may have originally been farmsteads. Lower
density residential development and a golf course exist within one half mile of Lore Mound Road. Asbury Road is
a two -lane undivided roadway within the study area. Limited on- street parking exists east of Hales Mill Road.
Based on available GIS data, there is approximately 66 feet of right of way along the Asbury Road corridor. The
primary recommended cross sections for Asbury Road west of Northwest Arterial are shown in FIGURE 5 -7. The
recommended cross sections for the entire length of the corridor are shown in FIGURES 5 -20 through 5 -23.
FIGURE 5-7A. ASBURYROAD WEST OF NORTHWEST ARTERIAL PROPOSED CROSS SECTION BETWEEN SEIPPEL ROAD
AND HALES MILL ROAD
0.5'-
SIDE ALK
BIKE
4
I�
5' 121-51< 6'
NEW
14-1
Ir
12' 12'
UAC EXISTING
1
BIKE
f
SIDEW LK
I �
12' ��, 6' �� 3.5' =5'
+1- 66' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
NEW
0.5'
FIGURE 5-7B. ASBURYROAD WEST OF NORTHWEST ARTERIAL PROPOSED CROSS SECTION EAST OF HALES MILL ROAD
0.5'
UAC
SIDEWALK
SHARED LANE
1+4
- --
5' - - 6' 13.5'
SHARED LANE
UAC EXISTING
11.0'
NEW
SIDEWALK
u I
13.5'
NEW
4'
+1. 58' OF APPROXIMATE ROW NEEDED
0.5'
Complete Streets elements including bicycle accommodations were incorporated into the recommended cross
sections for Asbury Road. Between Seippel Road and Hales Mill Road dedicated bicycle lanes are recommended.
Additionally, it is recommended that two curves within this section of Asbury Road be reconstructed to remove
superelevation. Removing superelevation is preferable since the section would be transitioned from a rural section
with shoulders to an urban section with curb and gutter. Eliminating superelevation would improve bicycle
accommodations along the corridor as well.
West of Seippel Road the proposed three -lane section with dedicated bicycle lanes could be continued depending
on future development along this section of the corridor. It is recommended that right of way be reserved along
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutionst
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Final Report
the corridor to construct a three -lane section with dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks. Given the existing rural
nature of Asbury Road west of Seippel Road, the roadway shoulders could be paved or a 10 -foot shared use path
could be constructed west of Seippel Road to accommodate bicyclists until development occurs along the corridor.
Designating Asbury Road west of Seippel Road as a shared use facility with sharrows is not recommended given
the rural design and higher speeds along this segment of the corridor.
It is recommended that access consolidation and internal circulation roads are incorporated into any future
development proposed along Asbury Road in conformance with the Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specifications
(SUDAS) Manual. It is recommended that a minimum of 660 -foot spacing be used between access points west
of Briarwood Drive. Since it is recommended that an access control policy be adopted, it is recommended
that improvements to Asbury Road west of Seippel Road be constructed as needed based on development and
future traffic needs. Consideration should be given to realigning Hales Mill Road with Radford Road when new
development occurs north of Asbury Road in this area.
A three -lane cross section (two through lanes with a center two -way left -turn lane) with sharrows (described in
the Complete Streets Considerations section of this chapter) is proposed east of Hales Mill Road. Dedicated bicycle
lanes currently exist on Radford Road; however they do not connect to other bicycling facilities. Additionally,
providing continuous sidewalks along Asbury Road east of Hales Mill Road is recommended with the three -lane
cross section and sharrows. Some sidewalk exists along this segment of Asbury Road, but continuous sidewalks are
not provided. Based on discussions with City of Asbury staff, sidewalks will be installed in these locations by fall
2010. The recommended Asbury Road concept west of Northwest Arterial shown in FIGURES 5 -20 through 5 -23
would not require any full property acquisitions.
COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
The opinions of probable construction cost were prepared based on the determination of selected quantities
for the developed design concept for each corridor. Quantities for the proposed roadway improvements were
measured directly for pavement removal, new pavement, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay, sidewalk, retaining walls,
traffic and pedestrian signals, mid -block pedestrian crossings and bicycle lane pavement markings and signage.
Additionally, right of way costs were quantified based on partial and full acquisitions. Costs for other items not
specifically quantified, such as traffic control, storm sewer, lighting and signing, were estimated based on a review
of recent similar construction and accounted for by applying a suitable multiplier to items that were quantified.
Cost summaries for the roadway improvements for Pennsylvania Avenue, University Avenue (including the
proposed roundabouts along the overlap section), Loras Boulevard and Asbury Road are shown in TABLE 5 -1.
In addition to the items that were quantified, consideration was given to the cost of enhancing crosswalks utilizing
internally illuminated LEDs or speed tables. A vendor for the enhancement was contacted and it was found
that based on a 40 -foot segment of roadway internally illuminating the crosswalk (1 approach/leg) would cost
$14,000 installed. Options that could be included with the illuminated crosswalk and estimated costs include:
• Battery backup ($1,800)
• LED enhanced signs ($900 - $1,300 each)
• Solar power ($4,000 - $5,000)
• Push button activation ($800 - $2,100)
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
EQ,VOA
Du
Masfcryirr of the Mississippi
Asbury
lArellut
C . I . A
• Photoelectric Bollards ($ 6,000)
• Pedestrian footpad activation ($5,200)
• Beacons ($200 - $500 each)
• On -site technical support during construction (1 week: $3,600)
The cost of speed tables range from $4,000 to $10,000 each depending on the construction of the table. The range
of options for the installation of a speed table includes placing asphalt on the existing roadway to using concrete,
colored concrete or pavers.
In addition to the order of magnitude cost of improvements shown in TABLE 5 -1, each project was evaluated based
on traffic operations, safety, complete streets accommodations and priority.
Pa e 38
TABLE 5-1. IMPROVEMENT PR IORITY SUMJIIAIRY INCLUDING APPROXIMATE O.RDE. R OFIVLIGMITUDE COSTS
Priority
1! affix
Operations Slaty
Complete
greets Al 2009 Approximate
_a Omer of Magnitude
,,..„ ,,-.,t-;':',-T:7,1 Cwt
;;
;a•:
As Road
rib
MOverlap Section Reconstruction - Roundabouts MEMO
Three -bane Pavement Markings
Q
Grandview Avenue Intersection Improvements EIMIMEAMIW—MWM
Q
$190,000
•
$160,000
JFK Road Intersection Turn Lanes
•
G)
$510,000
$74,000
•
�(�]�
$12,000
Hillcrest Road / Clarke Drive /Wilbricht Lane Realignment
Asbury Road of N host Atieri - l
$1,540,000
St. Ambrose Street Realignment
Q
KM
C
0
$1,050,000
Bicycle Lanes - NW Arterial to East of Mathew John Drive
DIKAME9
�/
$240,000
Bicycle Lanes - East of Mathew John Drive to JFK Road
/
( )
•
•
0
0
$1070,000
Bicycle Lanes -JFK Road to Carter Road
•
•
•
0
0
$1,170,000
Bicycle Lanes - Carter Road to Hillcrest Road
•
•
•
0
0
$1,140,000
Bicycle Lanes - Wilbricht Lane to St. Ambrose Street
•
•
•
M
O
$460,000
City of Dubuque
•
KiM
Three -Lane Pavement Markings
$1,970,000
West of Sippel Road
riwis
$130,000
JFK Road Intersection Turn Lanes
wom
$200,000
$640,000
NW Arterial to Vizaleea Drive Reconstruction
•
0
�•••/
0
�0/
0
$2,720,000
Bicycle Lanes - Vizaleea Drive to JFK Road
••/
0
�•/
$600,000
Bicycle Lanes - JFK Road to Van Buren Avenue
•
•
•
( }
`•0/
$390,000
Van Buren Intersection Reconstruction
•
•
• /
J
$450,000
Bicycle Lanes - Van Buren Avenue to Wisconsin Avenue
•
•
•
$1,250,000
Marmora Avenue Intersection Reconstruction
•
•
$250,000
Bicycle Lanes - Marmora Avenue to University Avenue
•
•
,-�
[ }
,^�
{ I
$450,000
Page 39
TABLE 5-1. IlIPR OYE11LE11rTPR IOR ITY SUMMARY IMCLUDIMGAPPROXIMATE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS
(CONTINUED)
Priori
UniversityAvoenue
Sharrows - Loras Avenue to Booth Street [J[]
Traffic ti Safety
tons
Complete
1 yele
A000mmociations
Streets
redestfian
Aoosammodations
2009 Approximate
Order of Magnitude
t
$32,000
MOverlap Section Reconstruction - Roundabouts MEMO
$5,410,000
Grandview Avenue Intersection Improvements EIMIMEAMIW—MWM
$190,000
Delhi Street Realignment
Rasa Boulevard
Sharrows - University Avenue to Alta Vista Street
G)
Q
G) •
•
$510,000
$74,000
Grandview Avenue Intersection Improvements
�(�]�
$190,000
Asbury Road of N host Atieri - l
Radford Road Right -Turn Lane
Mk
KM
$300,000
NW Arterial to Resurrection Cemetery
DIKAME9
•
$11,000
Radford Road to Resurrection Cemetery
/
( )
/WM
Eil
0
0
$10,000
Reconstruction of Curve West of Hales Mill Road
ririMr1M110MWOM
$1,250,000
Antler Ridge to Curve Reconstruction
riBO
$1,100,000
Asbury City Limits to Antler Ridge
ri
W
FIO
M
O
$1,090,000
City of Dubuque
•
KiM
$1,970,000
West of Sippel Road
riwis
•
wom
$200,000
lUtility relocations and aesthetic treatments not included
Symbol ray:
OImmediate or High Priority /Short -Term; Significant Traffic Operations Improvements; Significant Safety Improvements; Dedicated Bike Lanes; Enhanced Pedestrian Accommodatioi
QModerate Priority; Traffic Operations Improvements; Safety Improvements; Shared Bike Lanes
• Low Priority /Long -Term; No Traffic Operations Improvements; No Safety Improvements; No Bicycle Accommodations Improvements; No Pedestrian Accommodation Improvement:
j
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
ir,... ,
L
.e�t;r,t
PROJECT SEQUENCING
Each of the recommended improvements associated with the Phase 2 corridor concepts were reviewed to establish
a recommended implementation plan. Factors including safety, cost, operational benefit, and perceived public
priority were considered in the development of the project implementation plan. Additionally, consideration was
given to completing continuous sections of the proposed bicycle accommodations. If the bicycle accommodation
improvements are not implemented along an entire corridor, it is recommended that the construction projects
be divided at logical terminating points such as a location where the cross section changes including where the
bicycle accommodations change from dedicated lanes to sharrows. A summary of the evaluation criteria utilized to
establish project sequencing is shown in TABLE 5 -1.
EAST V EST CORRJDOR RECOMMENDATIONS EAST OF NORTHWESTARI ' RJAL
TMMRDIATR RRC:OMMENDATIONS
During this project it was found that some potentially impacted properties were planning improvements, were
undeveloped or were available for purchase. It is recommended that every effort be made to coordinate with the
owners and/or acquire these properties to reserve the right of way for the proposed improvements even though
immediate construction may not be occurring at these locations in the near term. Three locations in particular
were identified including:
• Hillcrest Family Services located south of Hillcrest Road is proposing to construct a new chapel m the
northwest corner of the existing Wilbricht Lane /Asbury Road intersection.
• Potential improvements to the undeveloped parcel in the northeast corner of the Asbury Road /University
Avenue intersection are being planned including an ice cream store with additional tenants.
• A residence is available for purchase near the proposed Delhi Street realignment with University Avenue.
In addition to reserving right of way for future improvements it is recommended that parking be removed where
proposed on Asbury Road and Pennsylvania Avenue and the pavement markings be modified to provide a two -way
left -turn lane where it doesn't exist today. This recommendation is consistent with long -term plans for 3- Ianing
the corridors and would improve safety as well as add capacity along the corridors. It is recommended that
sharrows be applied along Asbury Road and Pennsylvania Avenue until dedicated bicycle lanes can be constructed
given the corridors are designated as walk /bike /hike routes in the Tri -State Area: Integrated Walking, Bicycling,
Hiking Network Plan — Final Copy. According to Tri -State Trail Vision Asbury Road is one of the highest priority
corridors and the addition of sharrows along the corridor would provide warning for drivers that cyclists may be
in the roadway. The installation of supplemental bicycle route designation signage is also recommended.
In addition to adding sharrows on Asbury Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, it is recommended that sharrows
be added to University Avenue, east of Loras Boulevard to Booth Street, and Loras Boulevard, west of Alta Vista
Street, in the near term. These two corridors are also designated as walk/bike /hike routes in the Tri -State Area:
Integrated Walking, Bicycling, Hiking Network Plan — Final Copy and identified as high priority corridors by Tri -
State Trail Vision. The addition of sharrows to these corridors would improve safety for cyclists.
HIGHEST PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT
As noted previously, all of the study corridors overlap along a section of University Avenue. This area has been
identified as an existing and future bottleneck of the east -west corridor network as shown in the simulation
1iIR
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
analysis. For these reasons, improving the University Avenue Overlap section was identified as the highest priority
project. It is recommended that all three proposed roundabouts be constructed concurrently. Additionally, a
major public education plan will need to be executed given that the proposed roundabouts will be the first to be
constructed in Dubuque.
MODERATE PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS
The following improvements were identified as moderate priority improvements which will improve safety and
have operational benefits.
• Left -turn lane additions on northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches at Grandview Avenue (Loras
Boulevard)
• Hillcrest Road, Clarke Drive and Wilbricht Lane realignment (Asbury Road)
• St. Ambrose Street Realignment, Asbury Road curve modification
• Delhi Street realignment (University Avenue)
LOW PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS
• Dedicated bicycle lanes on Asbury Road
• Signalization and left -turn lane additions on at Grandview Avenue (University Avenue)
• Right -turn lane additions or extension at JFK Road (Pennsylvania Avenue)
• Dedicated bicycle lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue
• Five -lane cross section from Hempstead High School west to NW Arterial (Pennsylvania Avenue)
Page 40
ASBURY ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS WEST OF NORTHWESTARI ' RJAL
Recommended improvements along Asbury Road west of the Northwest Arterial were reviewed to determine a
recommended implementation plan. The proposed improvements to Asbury Road could be implemented in 3
phases. The recommended sequencing is discussed below.
IMMEDIATE RECOMMENDATIONS
The highest priority for the Asbury Road corridor west of Northwest Arterial is to adopt an access control policy
based on recommendations presented earlier in this chapter and reserve proposed corridor right of way needs
west of Seippel Road. In addition, it is recommended that pavement markings be modified to provide a two -way
left -turn lane and shared lanes east of Radford Road. Sidewalks should be completed along this segment of Asbury
Road as well.
SHORT -TERM IMPROVEMENTS
• Signalize (when traffic volumes warrant the installation of a signal) the intersection of Asbury Road /Radford
Road
• Add eastbound right -turn lane at Asbury Road /Radford Road
LONG -TERM IMPROVEMENTS
• Construct a three -lane urban section with dedicated bicycle lanes between Seippel Road and Hales Mill Road
• Construct the proposed cross section west of Seippel Road as needed based on development and future traffic
need
Page 41
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
Owe'
OCWA LK
F�-Q �I -4'x- 11 17 41 —=-k-d'
EWE NIKE
Loi
AilMIL11•'
SIDEWALK
vJ
110711
18
UAC MOOTING
+I-es.
J
l
s
QUE ;;
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
WALL
PROPERTY UNE
O PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
0
fi
100
200
SCALE IN FEET
Potential Pedestrian
Crossing
um in
T'ASBURY RD,
r,.,
rr
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IN, October 2009
S. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
1171
THE CTTY OF
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
Ezttel
AB-America qty
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom than 1'nu Can hnogine!
E.C.I .A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT - ASBURY ROAD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 -8
omE
LEGEND
1
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
0
X
PAVEMENT
RAISED MEDIAN
SIDEWALK
TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
WALL
PROPERTY UNE
PROPOSED RO_W. ACQUISF ION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
• tow
\ •�
■
EIEVLAUC
er
SINE
mo
-> NSW I4
SHADED LANE
I I
77'72'
WC EICIOTWG
..7G'
0
100
200
SCALE IN FEET
KEYMAP
e'
19F ---
UAC EXISTING
•L 72
SGUrc.S:
. ,. Aerial pt— Photography — City at Dubuque, Boob a RELIIMINBAR YPL.ANE
. 2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 20(14 4
`, \ S. Property Parcel- City of Dubuque1 2008 ( �— \ ' �
•
ha 1
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
Eittel
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than Yom Can imagine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT - ASBURY ROAD
East - West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 -9
timmaio
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
— PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
Q PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
OSTUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
KEYMAP
1
Einhonced
Crosswalks I-
Enhanced
Crosswalks
`i 1
1
r- ROW Nq NIKE
5I - y y 1 i t T VIOL-WALK ALK � NEW
rs�kr�
Ni
ROW -Y r4s• -r .- 11 �< 12 -�E 11'
0.s•
NEW
IOC EIOSTUNU
+1 70•
NEW -5-
•
F
.0ts
\N
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel - City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
All-America rc City
i
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mow Than 1'nu Can hnogine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 —10
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
® PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
– – PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
Q PROPOSED LO_W_ ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
nSTUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
. STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
0 100 200
BUNKER HILL
GOLF COURSE
NINE MANED LANE ISLW
SID K ' 1 1 NI
—
II—TI — — — C _ – – - -- �I
row • � Fps 4"x C as
--I-e— ar . L lr ^ � ..1Kd
a NNW UACNIDSTIIG
or
SCALE IN FEET
Potential Pedestrian
Crossing
ny-
NEW
WWW
a.r y
SIDEWALK ry �! Lo 1 L 1 INLIRALIC
IWW
tY —.k— 1r I 11' t C
NEW
UAL: Mamma
•} sr
N!R
w ow
S
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography – City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept – HDR /IIW, October 2009
S. Property Parcel – City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
ha 1
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
AI-merles OW
111 I'
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than 1'ou Can hnagine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 —11
0
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
a PROPOSED L0_W_ ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
ASTUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
. STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
▪ -1 MIKE
a1YSIV▪ A K
NEW
ROW
.I1a
/ L1 + + II
—C
t• 1< �r �t• — r- a�kr�I
0 100 200
SCALE IN FM
uie NiDerine
44- er
New
!IN! SHARES LAN!
garLK
Row y r r 17' I c 1r I c 1r `�K-S• +I
1.r Nf - I- UAC WDeTING s-
e
SIDE▪ WALK
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 2004
S. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
117/
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
Eztrd
111 IF
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Atom Than 1'ou Can hnogine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
East - West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 -12
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
O PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
11 STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
OSTUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
/
ac
0
Z
I�
M W
NEW
W OINALK
SNARED LAti
ROW
„•
MIRED LANK
510Irmixi
11•
rt�
0 100 200
SCALE IN FM
1
7.
1
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel— City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
ha 1
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
Eztexl
AR-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom than 1'ou Can hnogine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
East - West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 -13
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
/v5,Ii'
at ,' 4�` a��. 44 w
4.
P. 7. .i .4 4.' w ,�;;
'► � � w ,T ,, ,r
w� te 3
fi` 1c
Sources.
1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
ha 1
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
1 1 1.!
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Afore Than You Con hnogfne!
E.C.I .A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT - PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
East - West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 —14
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARFONGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
o PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
OSTUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
0 100 200
SCALE IN FM
KEYMAP
rr
•
• S
— p
uJ
1
- R
1
,--r
,r1 a
-A ! r 1
li P q - 1
1
Sources:
, 1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Porrel- City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
THE CTP? OF
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
barbel
AR-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mow Than l'ou Can hnogine!
E.C.I.A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 — 15
I I
I I
I I
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
- PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
0 PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
nSTUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
Raw ->-
ORNwALK I
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEU
I -- - r - = -_Y c z
rirks -�1 �6' a 8 -(- 11' 11' 11' I -4-14.
BUB
LAM
— NEW UAC MOOTING
OW
NEW
now
11
NEW
NOW
OA' —
DEMME
I - L - — - a - - t 4 p-.K -L-.K -w I 1T I < 11' 11' Q-'t�r. tK'44-
NEW
VAC MCI OTWIO
44- Or
NI Iow
0.7
Potential Pedestrian
Crossing
OEM NOCE
OIORwALIC It '1 a, NDIWN.X
— r — 7 - - ir--14law
L� -4wy e 11' 11. 11' oa'
Ik NNW t UAC MINTING taw
+1. 11 r
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 2009
S. Property Parcel - City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
asmencsarr
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Afore Than You Con hnogfne!
E.C.I .A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 — 16
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
O PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
0
rMa <- w
t f f I wI
MEW
it ,-I, 77' Y->•K -ray -- ROW
0.5'
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
KEYMAP
Enhanced
Crosswalks
vif
ONO
W NDtWAALJT
.ri
RAW
vif
1100114. 011
ROW OEM
I + t �I
it >1, 7 >Ir it >1z 11 —1 — ROW
■4'
44- ea
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parlcel- City of Dubuque, 2008
IMINIltot 1641
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
bald
All-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Afar Mon You Con hnoainc!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Assoclatlon
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT - UNIVERSITY AVENUE
OVERLAP SECTION
East - West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 -17
0 100 200
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
SCALE IN FUT
MARIO
LANE
MARIO
LANE
lAw10N6 � 1 ML I NI IMMIX SIDEWALK
—I- -Q= =7=========C=1-11--r' I
'-i S, I� af' 7Y ,I� 7Y af'— 3L4"r
ROW
rt
ILfL. EOi7116
rt ROW
T
SIR -.W . I I 1 TI
AMR
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hDa
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
All-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than 1'ou Can hnogine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT – UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AND LORAS BOULEVARD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 —18
Ell R MiSIME7.6=n; Brig
!* ROW
MAILS sucw!urK
Ar13 —a — —17 ,I 17 — . -4&a4,xY
7�
UAC M IKNO
SIDEWALK
SNAASD SNAASD
LANE LANE
IMO LUSTING
•1-W
ROW
sase▪ reus
MARIO WE SHADED LANE
♦ *1 t
—s —L_
rt4` 1-, — 1t 1C—Ik -1t—
IIDEW K
ueo MOSTINO
LORAS BLVD.
ear
�r�
18)
O 100
200
SCALE IN FU'T
Enhanced
Crosswalks
Potential Pedestrian
Crossing
EMI
41
tsiv�
IL A
IHAPAD SHIM
LuW LAM
SWIEWALK PRIMING
MAKING SID UUK
-Q - - a - - - =I - - Imo _ _ O
ir I- it --.k—r
umC LObTINO
dr-
H KK
Ad&
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /KW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel - City of Dubuque, 2008
111
POTENTIAL EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
(ALTERNATE
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSE PAVEMENT MARIONGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
Q PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
X
A
cs
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
tl
3
ROUTE IDENTIFIED
TRI -STATE TRAIL VISION)
_ ,
PRELIMINARY PLAN 11,
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1171
THE CITY or
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
bartid
All-America CITY
1IIIIr
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Alm Than 1'nu Cnn hnngine!
E.C.I .A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AND LORAS BOULEVARD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 —19
I 1
0
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
ASBURY CRY LIMBS
PROPOSED LOW. ACQUISRION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
ells �O•
INS
aNOaw-
t 1 ee l
}Gr -�r� �r ��r re4-a�I
Ik NEW WIC aEylf �II
Or
��
KEYMAP
fi
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
I.' e`
t it =r
. T k
w
aEnhonced
Crosswalks
�fz
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel- City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
THE CITY OF
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
otimerIcsitt
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
!Wren= You Con Imagine!
E.C.I.A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT - ASBURY ROAD
WEST OF NW ARTERIAL
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 - 20
I I
I I
I I
0
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT WARKJNGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
ASBURY CITY UMITS
PROPOSE, FLOW. ACQUISFTION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
0 100 200
SCALE IN FM
KEYMAP
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel— City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
hterl
AB-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than l'ou Can hnogine!
E.C.I.A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
WEST OF NW ARTERIAL
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 — 21
I I
0
A
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
ASSURY CITY LIMITS
PROPOSED R_O.W. ACQUISITION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /F1ITURE
WALK /BIKE /HIKE ROUTE
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
KEYMAP
Enhanced
Crosswalks
SHARED LANE SHARED LAZE
UAC COSTING
tae —4.1 s
•rt
w ` Sources:
• �I 1. Aerial Photography — City of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /11W, October 2009
� 3. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
hterl
AB-America qty
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than 1'ou Can hnogine!
E D C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
WEST OF NW ARTERIAL
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 — 22
a
0
A
LEGEND
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
RAISED MEDIAN
SIDEWALK
TEMPLATE CORRECTION
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
WALL
PROPERTY UNE
ASBURY CITY OMITS
PROPOSED R_O.W. ACQUISFTION
PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
EXISTING /FUTURE
WALK TOLD /MIKE ROUTE
fi
0 100 200
SCALE IN FAT
f
BIKE
UAC
LACK
1O•
4J
— —
1
• I —1W *-1.- r -H--1r
SHARED LAM
4
1
1r ,I, 1r 14'
f
•
T ■
Enhanced
Crosswa I ICs
✓ as
1
O▪ I
1
•
A
er,c E:RFr' ..T
tr „RT;r
a
2
2
—. •
1
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography — City aF Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept — HDR /UW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel — City of Dubuque, 2008
1'_
c —
i! .T
1 e
=R —
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL — SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
1171
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
httrl
AR-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than 1'ou Can hnogine!
E o C. I. A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT — ASBURY ROAD
WEST OF NW ARTERIAL
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
5 — 23
it
-
CHAPTER 6: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An important part of the study was to gather input from the public. The consultant updated the Dubuque City
Council throughout the study with three work sessions. Two public meetings were held in the City of Dubuque
and one public meeting was held in the City of Asbury. In addition to public meetings, two days of individual
stakeholder meetings were conducted in Dubuque. Not only was information gathered from the public, but the
study progress and findings were presented at these meetings. The following sections summarize these public
involvement meetings.
DUBUQUE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 2008
The first Dubuque City Council work session was held on Monday, November 3, 2008. At this meeting, a review
of the study process and schedule was presented. The corridor screening process (Chapter 2) was also discussed
at the work session, including a review of the operations, public acceptance and estimated costs for each of the
future corridor screening alternatives (Scenarios 1 through 18). The corridor screening process showed that
providing adequate capacity to the future east -west roadway system would be challenging due to latent demand
on the transportation network that would utilize the improved corridors. It was determined that regardless of
roadway improvements, future capacity needs would not be met.
In this work session, Phase 2 corridors were identified as Asbury Road, Loras Boulevard, University Avenue and
Pennsylvania Avenue. The City Council directed that future improvements may include localized right of way
acquisition, but in general recommended improvements should not extend beyond available right of way. The
University Avenue Overlap section (University Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard) was noted
as a location where major right of way impacts could be considered. Additionally, the City Council requested
Complete Streets accommodations be incorporated into the recommended improvements, specifically bicycle
accommodations.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NOVEMBER 2008
A public information meeting was held on Wednesday, November 19, 2008. The meeting consisted of an open
house format with four exhibits displaying project information including:
• Study Process Flow Chart
• Aerial based figure of the Phase 2 corridors with traffic control
• Existing (2005) Volume to Capacity Ratios for Study and High Capacity Corridors
• Future (2031) Volume to Capacity Ratios for Study and High Capacity Corridors
Additionally, a PowerPoint presentation was prepared to provide project information including City Council
direction and corridor improvements being considered.
The purpose of the meeting was to present the study process and Phase 2 corridors as well as to gather feedback
from the attendees. Comment forms were available to be filled out at the meeting or mailed in after the meeting.
Five comment forms were returned. The meeting was attended by 14 citizens.
Several attendees expressed concern regarding bicycle lanes. In their opinions Asbury Road is a critical corridor for
1L�
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
OA j rya
DUS E Asbury E. C. I. A
Masterpiece me the Mississippi
commuting cyclists. Based on the comments that were heard regarding bicycle lanes it was felt that separate bike/
hike trails were preferred over bicycle lanes incorporated into the street (although, after the conference call on
December 22, 2008 with the Tri -State Trails Vision group it was decided that given the City Council direction to
minimize right of way impacts, a bicycle lane adjacent to the roadway would be more feasible).
Other comments that were gathered at the meeting included the recommendation to consider roundabouts within
the University Avenue Overlap section. A summary of all the comments gathered at the meeting is provided in the
appendix.
DUBUQUE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 2009
The Dubuque City Council work session on Monday, July 20, 2009 included a presentation of the additional
corridor screening alternatives (Scenarios 19 -22), Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies, typical roadway
cross sections that incorporated bicycle accommodations and a summary of potential Complete Streets elements
that could be incorporated into the proposed corridor improvements. Preliminary Phase 2 corridor concepts were
also discussed with the City Council including the use of sharrows.
AGENCY COORDINATION AND STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 2009
Agency coordination and individual stakeholder meetings were held on Wednesday, September 16 and Thursday,
September 17, 2009. A summary of the preliminary concepts was presented including:
• Incorporating dedicated bicycle lanes or sharrows on all of the Phase 2 corridors
• Hillcrest Road, Clarke Drive and Wilbricht Lane realignment (Asbury Road)
• Delhi Road realignment (University Avenue)
• Five -lane cross section from Hempstead High School west to NW Arterial (Pennsylvania Avenue)
• Right -turn lane additions at JFK Road (Pennsylvania Avenue)
• Left -turn lane additions at Grandview Avenue (Loras Boulevard)
• Signalization and left -turn lane additions at Grandview Avenue (University Avenue)
• Two concepts for University Avenue Overlap section
Signals at: Pennsylvania Avenue, Asbury Road, Loras Boulevard
Roundabouts at: Pennsylvania Avenue, Asbury Road, Loras Boulevard
The goal of the meetings was to gather input on the preliminary concepts, determine a preferred concept within
the University Avenue Overlap section, identify improvement priorities as well as to identify any areas along that
study corridors that had not been addressed with the preliminary concepts. Most of the stakeholders preferred
the roundabout concept for the University Avenue Overlap section. Two priorities were identified including
improving the University Avenue Overlap section and improving skewed intersections. Most stakeholders approved
of incorporating Complete Streets accommodations. A summary of each individual meeting is provided in the
appendix.
Pa a 58
Esst Cent sallnteetovetnmcntal♦ssuclation
DUBUQUE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 2009
The purpose of the Dubuque City Council work session held on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 was to present the
study findings and recommendations. The study process and previous input, including a summary of the previous
City Council workshops, the stakeholder meetings and the Long Range Planning Advisory Commission presentation
was discussed. The process for identifying the recommended concept was presented noting that several factors
were taken into consideration when developing the recommended concept including:
• Safety
• Traffic Operations
• Complete Streets
• Property Impacts
• Sustainability
• Technical Staff Input
• Stakeholder Input
Both the University Avenue Overlap section roundabouts and signalized intersections concepts were presented to
the City Council with comparisons of property acquisitions, construction and right of way costs, traffic operations,
safety and Complete Streets.
The City Council endorsed the full plan including the recommended roundabouts for the University Avenue
Overlap section.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS NOVEMBER 2009
Public information meetings were held on Monday, November 16 and Wednesday, November 18, 2009. The
meetings consisted of an open house format with five exhibits displaying project information including:
• The Study Process Flow Chart
• An aerial based figure summarizing the proposed improvements along the study corridors
• A Complete Streets board with photos
• Roundabout displays identifying benefits and proper navigation
Additionally, seven aerial based scrolls were displayed showing the recommended concept along each of the study
corridors and a simulation animation was shown for the proposed roundabouts.
The purpose of the meetings was to present the study findings and recommendations as well as to gather feedback
from the attendees. Comment forms were available to be filled out at the meeting or mailed in after the meeting.
Twenty -seven comment forms were returned. Eleven people signed -in at the Monday meeting and 74 citizens
signed -in at the Wednesday meeting.
Comments were generally positive including support for the roundabouts on University Avenue. Many expressed
support for the bicycle accommodations including acquiring right of way to provide dedicated bicycle lanes on
Page 59
Asbury Road and University Avenue where shared lanes are proposed and Delhi Street west of Grandview Avenue
outside of the study area. Impacted property owners were concerned with schedule, property values and other
details specific to their property. A summary of all the comments gathered at the meetings is provided in the
appendix.
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The corridors that were studied in detail in this study include Asbury Road, Loras Boulevard, University Avenue
and Pennsylvania Avenue. The City Council directed that future improvements may include localized right of way
acquisition, but in general recommended improvements should not extend beyond available right of way. The
University Avenue Overlap section (University Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to Loras Boulevard) was noted
as a location where major right of way impacts could be considered. Additionally, the City Council requested
Complete Streets accommodations were incorporated into the recommended improvements, specifically bicycle
accommodations.
A recommended concept was identified for the Phase 2 east -west corridors as discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
This concept includes a series of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, converting three intersections along
University Avenue to roundabouts, and a series of roadway realignments, turn lane additions and cross section
modifications.
EAST -WEST CORRIDOR RECOMMENDED CONCEVF EAST OF NORTHWEST
ARTERIAL
IMMEDIA1 E RECOMMENDATIONS
• Reserve right -of -way for proposed improvements, specifically:
The northwest corner of the existing Wilbricht Lane /Asbury Road
The northeast corner of Asbury Road /University Avenue
The intersection of Delhi Street /University Avenue
• Remove parking along Asbury Road and convert to a three -lane cross section
• Remove parking along Pennsylvania Avenue and convert to a three -lane cross section
• Add sharrows along Asbury Road
• Add sharrows along Pennsylvania Avenue
• Add sharrows along University Avenue east of Loras Boulevard and west of Booth Street
• Add sharrows along Loras Boulevard to Alta Vista Street
HIGH PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT
• Convert the University Avenue Overlap section to three proposed roundabouts
MODERA1 E PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS
• Add left -turn lanes at Grandview Avenue /Loras Boulevard northbound, southbound and eastbound inter-
section approaches
• Realign Hillcrest Road, Clarke Drive and Wilbricht Lane with Asbury Road
• Realign St. Ambrose Street with Asbury Road including Asbury Road curve modification
• Realign Delhi Street with University Avenue
1iIR
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
LOW PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS
• Dedicated bicycle lanes on Asbury Road
• Signalize and add left -turn lanes at Grandview Avenue /University Avenue
• Add right -turn lanes at JFK Road /Pennsylvania Avenue northbound, southbound and eastbound intersection
approaches and extend westbound right -turn lane
• Dedicated bicycle lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue east of Hempstead High School
• Modify cross section along Pennsylvania Avenue to 5 lanes from Hempstead High School west to NW Arterial
INCORPORATING TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Given the City Council direction for no major roadway capacity improvements, alternative plans for mitigating
congestion on east -west corridors should be considered, including Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies.
A public /private partnership such as a Transportation Management Association (TMA) can establish incentive-
based policies, programs and services to address local transportation problems.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Two intersections outside of the study area were identified as intersections that should be studied in the future to
identify improvement alternatives:
• Grandview Avenue /Delhi Street /Grace Street 5 -leg intersection
• University Avenue /Hill Street/W 9th Street/W 8th Street
Additionally, Tri -State Trail Vision has requested that consideration be given to acquire right of way along
University Avenue and Delhi Street from Loras Boulevard to the Grandview Avenue /Grace Street 5 -leg intersection
for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. It was noted that there were safety concerns for bicyclists and
pedestrians along this route.
Pae60
ASBURY ROAD WEST OF NORTHWEST ARTERIAL RECOMMENDED CONCEIT
IMMEDIA1.H RECOMMENDATIONS
• Adopt an access control policy
• Reserve right -of -way for future improvements
• Remove parking and convert to a three -lane cross section east of Radford Road
• Add sharrows east of Radford Road
• Complete sidewalks along east of Hales Mill Road
SHORT-1 :HR_Al IMPROVEMENTS
• Signalize (when traffic volumes warrant the installation of a signal) the intersection of Asbury Road /Radford
Road
• Add eastbound right -turn lane at Asbury Road /Radford Road
LONG -1 ERM IMPROVEMENTS
• Construct a three -lane urban section with dedicated bicycle lanes between Seippel Road and Hales Mill Road
• Construct the proposed cross section west of Seippel Road as needed based on development and future traffic
need
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Consideration should be given to realigning Hales Mill Road with Radford Road when new development occurs
north of Asbury Road in this area.
Page 61
FDa
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
l Ll.T1
I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
APPENDIX
Items included on the CD Appendix
• Dubuque City Council Work Session Presentation: Monday, November 3, 2008
• Dubuque Public Meeting Summary: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
• ECIA Model Review and Screening Analysis Memorandum dated April 14, 2009
• 2031 No -Build and Build Volume Development Memorandum dated May 6, 2009
• Dubuque City Council Work Session Presentation: Monday, July 20, 2009
• Dubuque Stakeholder Coordination Meetings Summary: Wednesday, September 16 and Thursday, September 17, 2009
• Asbury and Dubuque Public Meetings Summary: Monday, November 16 and Wednesday, November 18, 2009
• Dubuque City Council Work Session Presentation: Tuesday, November 17, 2009
• Analysis summaries for traffic analysis conducted
• Simulation animation of proposed roundabouts along University Avenue
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Inrrawmrlo.nm;w•
-C.I .A
East Ccnlrallntorgovere montata.,00 lotion
IDUB E Asbury E C -1 -A
Masterpicu an the Missi.Rdppi
TABLE A -1. ASBURY ROAD APPR OXIiir 1TE ORDER OF /I GNIT UDE COST OF IMPR 0 YE11LENTS
gmagMela
Rem
Asbury Rd. Asbury Rd. Asbury Rd. Asbury W. Asbury Rd. Asbury Rd. Asbury Rd. Asbury Rd.
Ati 3.Lare Pwlment M JW. Rdlnteaaecticn Mcrae Rel /Clarice Dr. / St. .%mh=St. Bi"<e Lanes - NWArierialIn East af HiieLam - FSetatMatttewjoim Brtelanes - HilceLan - Rite Lan - 9Vflhrichtln
Turn LULU Whir icbtIsl. Realignment Realignment Aistttaew3,hn Dr. Dr. to JFKR.4. }FR Rd In Carter Rd. CautarRd. to Hills restRrl to St.Ambrvse st.
Unit Unit Prioe Qstentity Rem Coot Quantity Item Cost Quantity Item Cost Quaint:0 Item Cost Quantity Item Cut Quantity Item Cost Qusentity Item Cost Quta City Item Cost Quantity Item Cut
Asbury Rd.
Road Censtruetion
Pavement Removal
PCC Pavement /Drives
HMA Overlay al
Sidewalk
Retaining Walls
Other Items (t)
SY 515
SY $50
TON $70
SY $25
SF $50
% of paving cost
Stabbok+1
Signals EACH $150,000
Pedestrian Signal EACH 575,000
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing
3 -Lane with Sharrow Pavement Markings
Bike Lane Pavement Markings /Signs
Spot Intersection Pavement Markings
Contingencies
EACH $30,000
PsrMile $50,000
Fer Mile $45,000
EACH $10,000
Rod Canahtwtion and C.CTitingenOieS Total
ROW Coat
Residential Partial 55.00
Commercial Partial SF $8.50
Full Impacts su Each Varies
ROW TrAel
Ccoshtsotion and ROW Costs per Segment Total
Note: Uhlify relocations and aesthetic treatments are not included with this cost estimate
7i For tenSala(e correction
W Ifemr .not goaan afia
au 1. 5XAsmrrnrwgoerryva lner,Aoproxinmte J6fxatron Cole
Page 63
30
2.6 $130,000
20% $26,000
3160,000
30
3160,000
30
1 $10,000
20%
$2,000
312,000
SO
312,000
4,171
4,368
263
1,198
150%
I
0.28
$62,565 2 ,239
$218,400 2,666
$18,410 84
529,950 587
$
327,600 150%
8660,0011
$150,000 1
$12,600 0.12
$33,585 800
$133,300 576
$5,880
$14,675 1,428 $35,700
$199,950 150% $43,200
$12,000
$28,800
$599,000 3120,000
$150,000
Mx-
$5,400
20% $164,520 20% $109,083
4
$990,000 5690,000
1,130 $3,390
$553 ,200 3 $398,550
8555 ,200 5401,940
SI,540,000 $1,090,009
0.51
20%
1 0,522
$30,000
$22,950
$34,590
3210,000
$31,566
831,566
$240,000
2,476 $37,140
3,888 $194,400
1,157 $80,990
2,734 $68,350
150% $291,600
3670,000
1 $150,000
1 $30,000
0.57 $25,650
20% $175,130
31,090,000
2,514 $21,369
82I,569
SI,070,000
2,878 $43,170 2 ,217 533,255
4,382 $219,100 3,997 $199,850
923 $64,610 1,158 $81,060
2,631 $65,775 2,896 $72,400
1,139 $56,950 1,068 $53,400
150% $328,650 150% $299,775
I
3780,000 8740,000
$150,000 1 $150,000
0.48 $21,600
20% $190,320
31,I40,000
1,900 $5,700
2,299 $19,542
325 ,242
8I,170,000
1 $30,000
0.52 $23,400
20% $188,680
51,130,000
42 $126
1 ,243 $10,566
810,692
31,I40,000
617
1,748
321
888
2,015
150%
0.16
20%
2,602
$9,255
$87,400
$22,470
$22,200
$100,750
$131,100
8570,000
$7 ,200
$75,440
$490,000
$ 7,806
87,806
5460,000
I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions
In Association with
'WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
4-"s ,Of "
ovontat
TABLE A-2. PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE APPROXI11If1TE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
Item Unit Unit Rice
PenneylcaniaAve.
A d d 3-Lane P a v e m e n t M u r h r p p
Qtraatity Rem Cast
Pennsylvania Ave.
.RR Ilia Int t o t
Turn lams
Quantity Item Cast
Pennsylvania Ave.
N W Arterial to Vizalnea Lee.
Riorotructim
Quantity Item Cast
Pennsylvania Ave.
Iti1m Lam -
VaalNx Pr. to Lid.
Quantity It Cad
Pennsylvania Ave.
)tile Lanes -
yx Bd. to Wnrosin An.
Opantity It Coat
Pennsylvania Ave.
VYn Buren Ave httnesectit�t
It�ru�vctien
Quantity Item Cast
Pennsylvania Ave.
Bt'hs Lim - Vat Buren Ave to
Wino: rixt An
Quantity Rem Cast
Pennsylvania Ave.
Marmara Ave Intersection
Rswrotructicst
Quantity Rem Ccet
RxmaylvaniaAv .
Mee Ism - Mamara Aae to
srcnnity 3n
'Quantity Rem Cast
Road Conslruction
Pavement Removal SY $15
- --
1,059
$15,885
11,567
$173,505
1,690
$25,350
932
$13,980
2 ,241
$33,615
2,990
$44,850
1,341
$20,115
780
$11,700
PCCPavement /Drives SY $50
- --
2,191
$109,550
14,801
$740,050
2,724
$136 ,200
1,752
$87,600
2,600
$130,000
4,307
$215,350
1,438
$71,900
1,334
$66,700
HIM Overlay ° TON $70
- --
- --
253
$17,710
- --
- --
899
$62,930
559
$39,130
- --
--
914
$63,980
- --
- --
533
$37,310
Sidewalk SY $25
- --
- --
1,017
$25,425
2,290
$57,250
2,027
$50,E75
1,404
$35,100
424
$10,600
2,369
$59,225
275
$6,875
687
$17,175
Retaining Walls SF $50
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
5,970
298,500
- --
- --
- --
- --
Other Items (r) %of paving cost
- --
- --
150%
$164,325
120%
$888,060
150%
$204,300
150%
$131,400
150%
$195,000
150%
$323,025
I50%
$107,850
150%
$100,050
Subtotal
30
3390,000
$1,330,000
$480,000
$510000
=570,000
$1,000,000
3210,000
3250,000
Signals EACH $150,000
- --
- --
1
$150,000
2
$300,000
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Pedestrian Signal EACH $75,000
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
1
75 000
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing EACH $30,000
- --
___
___
__-
___
___
- -_
- --
1
$30,000
3 -Lane with Sharrow Pavement Markings Per Mile $50,000
2.1
$105,000
- --
-_ _
___
___
___
- --
___
„.V.
„__
_ _.
- --
- --
- --
- --
Bike Lane Pavement Markings /Signs Per Mile $45,000
__
___
0.24
$10,800
0 41
$18,450
0 39
$17,550
0.25
$11 ,250
0.03
$3,E00
044
$19,800
0.05
$2,250
0.23
$10,350
%of roadway costs
20%
$21,000
20%
$98,160
20%
$435,F90
20X.
$99,510
20%
$64,250
2Cl /.
$74,72C
2CY /.
$203,960
20%
$42,450
20%
$69,070
lantingennies
Road Ouristruetien and Contingencies Total
3126,000
3990,000
32,610,000
8609,000
3590,000
3450,900
31,220,000
SZ50,000
$410,000
ROW Coe!
Residential Partial SF $5 00
- --
- --
- --
- --
7,577
$22,731
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Commercial Partial SF $8 50
- --
- --
6,450
$54,825
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
312
2,652
- --
- --
City of Dbq -Flora Park SF $5 00
- --
- --
- --
- --
5,752
23,7e0
- --
7960
39,800
Dbq Comm. Schools SF $5 00
- --
- --
- --
17 ,222
86,110
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Full Impacts illy Each Vanes
___
___
- --
_._
- --
_ _ _
___
___
___
___
- --
ROW Total
30
$94,8329
3T 08,841
$0
$0
$0
326,7G0
$2,692
359,300
Construction and ROW Coots per Segment Total
$150,000
$640,000
$2,72 0,000
$600,000
$590,000
$450,000
$1,50,000
3290,000
$490,000
Note: Utility relocations and aesthetic treahnenls are not included with this cost estimate
N1 For amalare con ecuan
Items notgaan aired
d1 1.5XAsmrsnrpmperry valae , Co A,gomxitnarer J6focauan sa
1 L�
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 64
East Central lnt, overnmentalasseelation
TABLE A-3. UNIVE1 SITYAVENt EAPPROXI1L4TE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST OFIlIP1W EMENTS
Item Unit Unit Frioe
University /We.
Skarn:me - ragas Ave to Beath 2.
Quantity Item Cost
University
Ov
Ye
Quantity
Ave.
1ai Section
rm
Item Cast
University
Grandview
Irr
Quantity
Ave.
Ave Intersection
veme,t
Item Cost
University Ave.
Delhi 4.
Peat{�nmrt
Quantity Item Cost
Road Construction
Pavement Removal Sf $15
- --
15,723
$235,845
- --
2,069
$31,035
PC Pavement /Drives Sf $50
- --
18,710
$935,500
- --
- --
1,957
$97,850
HMA Overlay e" TON $70
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
Sidewalk SY $25
- --
3,495
$87,375
- --
460
$11,500
Retaining Walls SF $50
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
___
Other Items 6D % of paving cost
- --
120%
$1,122,600
- --
- --
150%
$146,775
Subtotal
$0
$2,s50,000
$o
$290,000
Signals EACH $150,000
- --
- --
- --
1
$150,000
I'destrian Signal EACH $75,000
- --
- --
- --
- --
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing EACH $30,000
__-
__-
- --
-_-
- --
Bike Lane Pavement Markings /Signs Per Mile $45,000
0.6
$27,000
0.4
$18,000
- --
- --
Spot Intersection Pavement Markings EACH $10,000
___
___
- --
1
$10,000
Contingencies
20%
$5,400
20%
$479,600
20%
$32,000
20%
158,000
Road Construction and Contingencies Total
$92,000
$2,880,060
*190,000
$350,000
ROW Cost
Residential Partial SF $300
3,985
$11,955
Commercial Partial SF $8.50
37,441 441
$318,249
- --
___
Full Impacts ar Each Varies
15
2,198,325
2
$160,800
ROWTotal
$0
$2,928,529
$0
$193,800
Construction and ROW Costs per >nent Total
$32,000
$9,410,000
*190,000
$5101000
Note: Utility relocations and aesthetic treatments are not included with this cost estimate
CV For template correctrnn
Ben. not guan tified
619 1.5 XAsserrorprepery valaera A,oproximater JPzlocatron Corr
Page 65
LT1�I ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
'WI
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
TABLE A-4. Lo is BoULEVARDAPPRClXI:1Lf1TE ORDER OFIVIAGNITUDE COST OFII:IPROVEMENTS
Item
Unit Unit Price
Road Construction
Pavement Removal
PCC Pavement /Drives
HMA Overlay W
Sidewalk
Retaining Walls
Other Items W
SV
SV
TON
SV
SF
% of paving cost
Subtotal
$15
$50
$70
$25
$50
Signals EACH $150,000
Pedestrian Signal EACH $75,000
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing EACH $30,000
Bike Lane Pavement Markings /Signs Per Mile $45,000
Spot Intersection Pavement Markings EACH $10,000
Contingencies
Road Construction and Contingencies Toted
ROW Cost
Residential Partial $3.00
Commercial Partial SF $8.50
Full Impacts Each Varies
ROW Total
Construction and ROW Costs per Segment Total
Lamas Ave. Lomas Ave.
Sparrows - University Ave to Alta Granrlaiew Ave
Vista St. Intersection Improvements
Quantity Item Cost Quantity Item Cost
*0
1 $30,000
0.7 $31,500
20%
$12,300
$74,000
*0
$74,000
$o
$150,000
1 10,000
20%
$32,000
$180,000
0
$180,000
Note: Leath)/ relocations and aesthetic treatments are not Included wan tins cost estimate
tU Far template correction
Items notguantified
1 5XAssessarproperty values, Approxim ate: Relocation Cosh
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions,
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
Page 66
TABLE A-5. ASBURY ROAD WEST OF NORTH) ESTAi TERIAL APPROXIMATE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST OF IIIPRo VEMENTS
Item
Unit Unit Price
Asbury Road West
Redford Rd. Turn Lane
Quantity Item Cost
Asbury Road West
NW Arterial to Resurrection
Cemetery
Quantity Item Cost
Asbury Road West
Redford Rd to Resurrection
Cemetery
Quantify Item Cost
Asbury Road West
Rearucion of Curve west of
Hales Mill Rd
Quantity Item Cost
Asbury Road West
Antler Ridge to Curve Recanetructirm
Quantity Item Ggst
Asbury Road West
Asbury City limits to
And 's. Ridge
Quantity Item Cost
)tsbury Road West
City of Dubuque,
Quantity Item Cost
Asbury Road West
watt of Seippel Bd.
Quantity Item Cost
Road Construction
Pavement Removal
PCC Pavement /Drives
HMA Overlay (I)
Sidewalk
Retaining Walls
Other Items W
Signals
Pedestrian Signal
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing
3 -Lane with Sparrow Pavement Markings
Bike Lane Pavement Markings /Signs
Spot Intersection Pavement Markings
Contingencies
ROW Cost
Residential Partial
Commercial Partial
Full Impacts a'
SY
SY
TON
SY
SF
$15
$50
$70
$25
$50
% of paving cost
9lsbtotal
EACH $150,000
EACH $75,000
EACH
Per Mile
Per Mile
EACH
$ 30,000
$ 50,000
$45,000
$10,000
Road Construction and Contingencies Total
3F
Each
$3.00
$8.50
Varies
ROW Total
Construction and ROW Costs per Segment Total
81
529
163
150%
1
0.13
20%
708
3,352
$1,215
$26,450
$4,075
39,675
$71,000
150,000
15,850
$45,370
$272 ,C00
$2,124
$28,492
$30,616
$600,000
0.21
20%
$ 9,450
$1,390
$ 1 1,000
$11,040
0.19
2097
3,402
7,518
1,475
150%
$8,550 0 32
$1,710 20'4
$16,000
$10,040
$51,030 559
$375,900 5,748
- -- 565
$36,875 1,635
$563,850 150%
$1,050,000
$14,400
$203,0-0
$1 ,250,000
$0
$1,2 50,040
1
0.37
20%
4,255
929
$8,385 406
$287,400 6,086
$39,550 573
$40,875 1,718
$431,100 150%
1810,000
72,000
$16,650
$180,330
11,080,000
$12,765
$7,897
120,662
$1,100,000
0.39
20%
15,107
$6,090 173 $2,595 163
$304,300 12,264 $613,200 1,071
$40,110 257 $17,990 57
$42,950 2,453 $61,325 304
$456,450 150% $919,800 150%
1880,000 $1,610,000
$17,550
$173,510
$1,040,060
$45,321
$45,321
$1,090,040
0.52
20%
2,098
$23,400
$326,680
$1,960,000
$6,294
$6,294
$1,970,C00
0.1
20%
2,300
$2,445
$53,550
$3,990
$7,600
$80,325
$150,040
$4,800
$30,800
$190,00]
$8,000
$6,990
$204,040
Note: Utility relocations and aesthetic treatments are not included with this cost estimate
0) Far tamplse correction
Items not quantified
1.5XAmeoorproperty values, ApproximateeReloartian Costs
Page 67
1 La
ONE COMPANY
Many Solutions'
In Association with
IIW Engineers & Surveyors, P.C.
LEGEND
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED TEMPLATE CORRECf1ON
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS
PROPOSED WALL
PROPERTY UNE
O PROPOSED R.O.W. ACQUISITION
X PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE
STUDY INTERSECTION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATION
STUDY INTERSECTION
STOP SIGN LOCATION
I
El
0
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
Sources:
1. Aerial Photography - Crty of Dubuque, 2006
2. Concept - HDR /IIW, October 2009
3. Property Parcel- City of Dubuque, 2008
I fl 1L4': —
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FINAL - SUBJECT TO CHANGE
hD3
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
hterl
AB-America City
11111
2007
CITY OF
Asbury
Mom Than 1'nu Can hnogine!
E.C.I .A
East Central Intergovernmental Association
SIGNALIZATION CONCEPT — UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AND LORAS BOULEVARD
East — West Corridor Connectivity Study, Dubuque County, Iowa
Date
September 2010
Figure
Appendix