Avinash Shrivastava Matt Sandidge Lisa Larsen
Site Design Site on the GRID
Site Design Nodes and Connectors
Site Design Nodes and Connectors
Site Design Preliminary Layout
Land Uses Campus Pointe ‐ Land Use Plan
Layout y Campus Pointe ‐ Master Plan
Land Uses (Reconfigured) ( g ) Campus Pointe ‐ Land Use Plan
Parking Plan Used adjustment factors for April and hour of day for
each use Adjustment factors for captive and non‐captive Fast‐food Restaurant R Shopping
Adjustment factors for mode Fast‐food Conference Center Peak Demand 3,782 parking stalls 1pm on weekday 4,045 available parking stalls
Weekday Demand 4000
3500
3000
2500
Office Residential Convention Space
2000
Hotel‐Business Cineplex
1500
Fast Food Family Restaurant Shopping Center
1000
500
0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM
Weekend Demand 3500
3000
2500
Office 2000
Residential Convention Space Hotel
1500
Cineplex Fast Food Family Resaurant
1000
500
0 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM
Shopping Center
Entertainment Parking Peak Demand – 680 parking stalls 1:00 pm weekend Available – 600 stalls in garage, 133 on street, and 26 surface Weekdays (624 needed at peak 12:00 pm) allocate one deck of parking
to students 100 spaces reserved. 200 parking spaces reserved for office.
Non‐Residential Parking Peak Demand – 1006 parking stalls at 8:00 pm on weekday 900 parking stalls in garage and 119 on‐street 900 reserved for residential
North Office/Café Area Peak Demand – 520 parking stalls 12:00 pm on weekday 500 in garage and 48 on‐street
West Residential Parking Peak Demand – 766 parking stalls 1:00 pm on weekday 600 stalls in garage, 101 on‐street, and 70 surface parking 400 stalls in garage reserved for office and residential
Hotel/Conference Center Parking Peak Demand – 1032 parking stalls 11:00 am on a weekday
g g 750 in garage, 222 on‐street, and 85 surface 300 reserved for hotel and 200 reserved for office
Pedestrian Mobility 10‐20 foot sidewalks throughout site Bicycles allowed on sidewalks Low speeds on all streets Connectivity throughout site C ti it th h t it
Pedestrian Mobility
Cross‐Section 1
Cross‐Section 1
Cross‐Section 2
Cross‐Section 2
Cross‐Section 3
Cross‐Section 3
Transit
Transit Route Transit
Traffic Impact Determine Land Uses Generate Trips Internal Capture Pass Pass‐By By Trip Distribution Analysis of Approach LOS and Delay Recommendations for Improvements
Intersections In Study Area 1: S. College/Hensel 2: S. College/University 2: S College/University 3: University/Moore 4: University/Polo 5: Texas/University 6: Texas/Hensel 7: Texas/Rosemary
Intersections In Study Area 7
6
5
4
1 3 2
Internal Capture Reduction Entering From Internal Capture Portion Not From Internal Capture Portion Total # of Trips Generated
Exiting 1410 661 2071
Total 1227 470 1697
•Internal Capture: 7% Reduction l d •Considered retail, residential, office within roughly 1200 feet of each other (plus some residential just outside of this range).
2637 1131 3768
Pass‐By Trips Trip Generation Handbook Added to access points Already considered in background traffic Total Pass‐By: 206 Entering Total Pass By: 206 Entering
114 Exiting Supermarket Quality Restaurant
Pass‐By Trips Pass‐By Percentages Calculated # of Generated Trips # of Pass‐by Trips % Entering 36% 151 54 51 50% 533 266 67
% Exiting # of Pass‐by Entering # of Pass‐by Exiting 49 28 26 33 178 88
Trip Distribution Used engineering judgment to select percentage of
traffic coming from various directions. Redistribution may help with Level of Service (LOS) and delay. Distributed trips summed and input into Synchro.
Preliminary Results 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 B 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) S th d (O ti i d) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized)
SB 46.9 D 53 7 53.7 D 50.1 D
S. College/University NB 51.4 D 60 2 60.2 E 60.1 E
SB 79.7 E 98.1 F 117.3 F
NB 71.3 E 94.1 F 146.3 F
SB 7.2 A 7.8 A 9 A
NB 14.3 B 15.8 B 23.8 C
SB 46.7 D 52.1 D 2243.5 F
NB 19.6 B 33.7 C 60.4 E
EB 83.8 F 85 8 85.8 F 271.2 F
WB 40.8 D 45 2 45.2 D 63.5 E
Total Intersection 62.8 E 66 8 66.8 E 159.8 F
Max v/c Ratio 1.08
EB 110.4 F 124.1 F 201.8 F
WB 125.1 F 112.3 F 177.9 F
Total Intersection 97.6 F 109.8 F 169.0 F
Max v/c Ratio 1.21
EB NA NA NA NA NA NA
WB 20.5 C 20.7 C 20.7 C
Total Intersection 11.5 B 12.5 B 17 B
Max v/c Ratio 0.65
EB 72.6 E 76.3 E 203.7 F
WB 51.0 D 31.5 C 97.6 F
Total Intersection 59.9 E 56.1 E 399.8 F
Max v/c Ratio 1.06
1 09 1.09 2.27
Texas/University 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized)
1.32 1.54
Texas/Rosemary 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized)
0.72 0.90
University/Polo 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) ( p ) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized)
1.07 5.93
Recommendations Shift trips from Polo/University to Texas/Hensel. Texas/Rosemary at LOS B Add lanes to Texas/Hensel to help accommodate trips Try to reduce number of trips encountering y p g
intersections along University. Texas/University needs operation and/or geometric h l help to improve from LOS F. f