Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-18; City Council; 6386-1; Analysis of Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access. 0 e c CITY OF CARLSBAD LE:mmt Initial : AGENDA BILL NO. L3#4 - &-a +/ Dept. Head t DATE : November 18, 1980 C. Atty w Engineering C. Mgr. 'L7/0' DEPARTMENT: SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE CENTER CIRCULATION PLAN AND PARKING ACCE! STATEMENT OF THE MATTER At the request of the City Council, the Engineering Department arranged for ar independent analysis of the circulation plan for the Village Area Redevelopmer Plan. The consultant suggested that for the Village Area, the City accept a design standard for traffic congestion that would give an average overall spec of between 10 and 15 mph and would permit "tolerable" delays. Based on this congestion standard, the consultant felt that ultimately two full lanes in eac direction would be required for Village Area streets. He suggested that ini- tially, parking could be permitted on-street, but at such time as delays and of additional travel lanes. Finally, the consultant recommended that the Lit) not yield control of existing right-of-way by street vacation, but allow onl) narrowing of curb-to-curb dimensions and utilize excess right'of-way for land- scaping and other improvements which would not preclude eventual widening. Exhibit 1 is a summary of the consultant's recommendations. Exhibit 2 is the consultant's detailed report. congest ion become "intolerable" the on-street parking should be removed in fa\ F I SCAL I MPACT The recommendations of the consultant would allow less on-street parking and prohibit relinquishment of rights-of-way for building area. Therefore, less area would be available for building and more would have to be set aside for parking and right-of-way. EXHIBITS 1. Summary of Consultant's Recommendations 3. Memo from Housing and Redevelopment Director 2. An Analysis of Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access RECOMMENDATION That the Council proceed with plans for Streetscape in the Village Area Redeve opment Plan, utilizing the recommendations contained in the Analysis of the Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access Study by Arnold To of August 1980. Council Action: 11-18-80 Council directed staff to proceed with the plans, as recommended by stal m 0 &COMHENDATIONS Either of the two concepts evaluated within this report can function tc serve the expected demnds in the future (Refer to Figure 111). The streetscape plan that assumes a solid divider on State Sr. and an architectuz treatment dividing the two roadway directions of Grand Ave. where it meets State St. has consequenceso the width while at the same time keeping a symmetry to the arrangement of lanes approaching and leaving the intersection parking would have to be sacraficed under the ultimate demand. Those consequences are that in order to minimie An alternative that emphasizes minimizing curb to curb width employs The use of a opposing left turn lanes at the intersection of State/Grand, center fane in midblock to ease any eongestion with one fane in each direction, permits parking and the posibility of a landscaped treatment in tl street to separate the left turn lane from the midblock center lane. d SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - STEETSCAPE PLAN Grand Avenue - Create a facility that is 48' curb to curb, at midblock, consisting of a 14' lane each way and nother 10' for parking on each side. Later, when traffic volumes warrant, remove tl parking to obtain twa 12' lanes each way. At the intersectit with State St., create a median of 6' to IO* and two 12' traffic lanes each way without parking for appraximately 150 back from the intersection on the WB side. Total curb to cu width at the intersection would be 54' to 58'. Continue use $ stop sign control at intersections with Roosevelt St. and Madison St. until demand warrants signals. State Street - At midblock a 54' to 58' wide (curb to curb) facility would b designed with a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' in each direction with anther 10' for parking that, just like on Gran Ave., can be removed to provide two 12' lanes each way. At t intersections a 50' to 54' wide street (curb to curb) can be accommodated to try and match the present 49' of width at Gra Ave. and have a 6' to 10' median. Two lanes each way of 11' would exist. Parking would be set back approximately 120' fro the intersection for approaching lanes.. South of Elm one lane each way is sufficient. -16- e e ' ' Elm Avenue - Eventual removal of parking, the addition of another lane eac way and a median with center left turn fanes at intersections would comprise its cross section. The two lanes each way wou be 12' with a 12' median for a curb to curb distance of 60'. No left turns at midblock would be possible due eo the median Roosevelt/ Madison - The present 60' width would be visually broken by a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' each way with another 1O8 for parkin would bring the total curb to curb width to 54' to 58'. A break in the median for midblock parking would ex3st. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - ALTERNATIVE RECOMMF%DATION Grand Ave/ State St. - With a curb to curb dimension of 60' create a cenfer lane (fc passing stopped vehicles or for turning into midblock parking areas) of 12', one through lane in each direction of 14p and another 10' for parking for the midbf.ock cross sectfon. At t intersections terminate the center lane with an architectualjlandscape treatment to establish a center left turn lane of 12'- Parking is set back approximagely 100 ft. from the intersection to allow a free right eurn lane of 11 f t.and a through lane of 12'. Only one lane edsts in the opposite direct ion - E 1m/ - Roosevelt/ Madison - (as above) Parking Access - Predominant access to midblock parking can be emphasized fron RoosevaLt with additional access from Grand. Only the WB traffic should access the midblock areas of the Vfllage Cente from Elm Ave. when the median is constructed. Continued emphasis will be required for off-street parking due to the eventual removal of on-street spaces as demand necessitates assuming the streetscape plan.. Traffic Control - Existing signals will be adequate for future projected Devices demand with the possible need for their re-timing. Stop control should continue to be adequate for Madison and Roosevelt until a short term of volumes indicates signal control is warranted. Preliminary estimates indicate minimum warrants for volume will be met wfth the projected demand. left turn phases at Elm/State and Grand/State, especially if exclusive turn lanes are provided as in the alternate An improvement would be made by adding protected recomenda tion e -17- <” 0 0 Undulation of Traffic Lanes - Only when on-street parking is not to be provided should consideration be made of non-linear alignments. parking wold be hindered by a radiused curb and inefficient use of the parking lane would result. Under either the streetscape plan or the alternative recommendation do not yield control of the ROW. The individual streets can have their curb to curb dimensions lowered, as shown in Figure 111, to enhance landscaping opportunities, but loss of ROW should be avoided. Parallel Narrowing ROW - -18- e 0 . s- 3. < MEMORANDUM DATE : November 7, 1980 TO: Les Evans, City Engineer FROM : Jack Henthorn, Housing and Redevelopment Director SUBJECT: Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee action Pf- on traffic study by Arnold Torma At its meeting of October 20, 1980, the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee took action recommending that the Council accept the Torma study and proceed to design and construction of the Village Area Streetscape improvements JH:ph 0 e AN ANALYSIS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE CENTER CIRCULATION PLAN AND PARKING ACCESS FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AUGUST 1980 ARNOLD TOW - TRAFFIC ENGINEER. 8170 Hudson Drive San Diego, California 92119 (714) 697-4070 0 a CONTENTS Page Background .................................................. 1 Traffic Forecasts........................................... 3 Traffic Conditions.......................................... 7 Parking ..................................................... 14 Summary of Recommendations.................................. 16 Appendices .................................................. 19 TABLES I. Existing Street Conditions............................ 2 11. Present and Future AWDT............................... 6 111. Traffic Data.......................................... 7 IV. Levels of Service..................................... 11 FIGURES I. Carlsbad Village Area Boundary Map. .................... la 11. A. Turn movement counts - Grand/State ................. 7a 111. Streetscape Plan and Alternative Recommendation........ 8a B. Turn movement counts - Elm/State ................... 7b m 1) BACKGROUND The City of Carlsbad has undertaken extensive work over the last several 'years to accomplish a change in the older, central part of the city between Through the efforts of the housing the AT&% railroad and the 1-5 freeway. and redevelopment commission, one aspect of this proposed change is the Village Area Redevelopment plan. Within this plan certain streets have been identified for a redesign that would de-emphasize the vehicular use and support human scaled ammenities. It is the purpose of this report to identify these proposed changes affecting traffic, examine whether future vehicular traffic can adequately circulate given a new streetscape, and make appropriate recommendations on the circulation, access and need for controls. The portion of the Village Center of Carlsbad required to be analyzed is bounded by the AT&SF tracks on the west, Elm Ave. on the South, Madison on the East and Grand Ave. on the North as shown in Figure I. Within this area, changes are proposed on Elm Ave., State St., Grand Ave. and on Roosevelt St. To accomplish the streetscape theme, the parking would be changed from diagonal to parallel, or removed entirely, medians would be introduced and the sidewalks would be widened. As a consequence of the proposed changes the two types of examinations to be performed are the intersection adequacy when the demand for traffic on all approaches is compared to the capacity, and the adequacy of the cross section of the street in view of the expected average weekday daily traffic (AWDT). The existing conditions are presented in Table I. 1 CARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA BOUNDARY MAP ; J-LJ c-J t !I * Table I Existing Street Conditions * CURB TO ONE WAY ( 1) STREET ROW CURB EFFECTIVE WIDTH REMARKS Grand Ave-E of State lOOft 70f t 18f t diagonal parking, at midblock E of State lOOft 70f t 35ft at approach W of State lOOft 62f t 36f t parallel parking State St-N of Grand 80f t 49ft 28f t /19f t NB/SB, at approach S of Grand 80f t 49f t 28f t/19f t NB/SB, at approach Grand to Elm 80ft 57f t 12ft at midblock, diag . parking S of Elm 60f t 48f t 24f t parallel parking Elm Ave-Tracks to 80f t 60f t 16f t parallel parking Madison center left turn lane - llft Roosevelt St-Grand to 80ft 60f t 17f t W side diagona: Elm parking, E sidc parallel park Madison St-Grand to 76f t 60f t 21ft parallel Elm parking (1) Not including parking or left turn lane (where applicable), dims. approx -2- d * Despite the narrower ROW that Elm has compared to Grand the differences in parking strategy and connectivity to the freeway interchange at 1-5 make Elm the major street moving east and west. Elm is significant in the circulation plan for the city and, onece before the freeway existed, the portion west of State St. was part of the major coastal route, Highway 1. The building of Carlsbad Boulevard, as well as the freeway, changed matters so that Carlsbad Blvd. could cross the AT&SF tracks on a bridge without a grade crossing as had been the case when Elm and State made the connection. Now, Elm St. serves to move traffic between the coast and the freeway and function as the major access to the local street serving the interior of this area. Present AWDT on Elm is typically 15,000 in the study area. The other east-west street to cross the tracks in this area is Grand Ave. It is a wide street that has far more capacity than currently being used. With an AWDT appoaching 6,000 sufficiently low traffic exists to offer the character of a non-vital commercial area. The presence of diagonal parking on both sides of this street makes use of the excess width in the block between State and Roosevelt . State Street also contains diagonal parking while experiencing an AWDT near 5,000 vehicles. State St. comes the closest to a "downtown-type'' appearance with some two story facades and almost continuous constructaction between Grand and Elm. serving to extend access north from Elm and have estimated AWDT's of approximately 2,000 vehicles. Roosevelt and Madison are both local-type streets TRAFFIC FORECASTS Several sources of information have been examined to assist in identifying the future volumes of traffic expected on the study area's streets. They include the regional CPO/Caltrans assignments of traffic for -3- * e 1985/2000 based upon preliminary Series V socio-economic projections, the Series V employment and population forecasts themselves, concepts for the redevelopment of the immediate Village Center area, a brief "sidewalk survey" of existing land uses in the study area and previous studies relating to coastal access in the City of Carlsbad. with the existing and assumed future land uses in the study area resulted in exceeding the likely case(1) for future traffic. Instead, a combination of sources was used to obtain growth factors that were applied to each link. The growth factors also compensated for differences of more than one year between the measurement of the present AWDT's. Counts available on the study area streets dated back to the mid-1970's and a growth factor of 5% for each year back from 1980 was derived from locations where two counts, separated by at least a year, had been taken. All projections of AWDT on the study area street are meant to represent the future demand. An attempt to associate trip end rate Daily vehicular traffic forecasts available from the CPO/Caltrans - modeling process are limited to the more significant facilities in the region. Near the study area the streets included in that system are 1-5, Carlsbad Blvd., Elm Ave., and portions of Jefferson. Population increases in the preliminary Series V forecasts from the three nearest zones to the study area vary' from no growth to approximately a 20% increase between 1978 and 2000. (1) and I.T.E. traffic generator manuals overestimated the traffic associated with the Village Center. This is probably due to the fact that the rates are derived for establishments functioning individually rather than as a "downtown and the interaction, by foot, is not taken into account. Other factors are th relative vitality of the source versus the applied situation and the opportunity for a business to draw its clientele from the passing traffic already on the street instead of generating a wholly new vehicle adding to the passing AWDT. The final uncertainty is the likely scenario for the ultimte, or future redeveloped case. Given the zoning a four-fold increase in trip attracting/producing floor is possiSle, but not likely. Recreating the present case given the floor areas and using Caltrans/CPO -4- 0 e Employment for the zones and time period varies from a 30% to a 122% increase. redevelopment was not an assumption input to the Series V projections. In vie of these differing possible scenarios the future traffic volumes and their growth factors as applied to the base year counts have been adopted for use i this study as shown in Table 11. Due to the lack of a definative association between a given future year and the trip ends that would occur, this consultant recommends that the future AWDT's be thought of as a "sensitivity level." When the given AWDT is achieved on a street the consequences will be as described in the rest of the report. The method is valid insofar as identifying the incremental impact of the redevelopment projects as they occur against measured street volumes at that time. -5- e TABLE I1 Present and Future Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AFJDT) e Street Base AWDT Growth Factor Future Demand Grand Ave-E of State 5,700 2.21 12,600 W of State 3,900 2.21 8,600 State St-N of Grand 5,700 2.40 13,700 Grand to Elm 4,400 2.48 10,900 S of Elm 2,000 0.50(*) 1 ,OOO( *) Elm Ave-W of State 8,300 1.92 15,900 E of State 12,700 2.13 27,100 Roosevelt St-State to Elm 2,300( **) 2 .-17 5,000 Madison St-State to Elm 1,900 2.21 4,200 (*) Low volume due to assumption in streetscape plan that S. State is close except for parking accessl (**) Volumes approximated. -6- 0 e TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to establish the present conditions within the study area the City of Carlsbad obtained 24-hr. traffic counts at two locations during the 4th of July and several weeks later in mid-week. The 4th of July count helpe confirm a lower recreational demand than a typical weekday through the study area, especially since the weather was perfect for going to the beach. In addition, the consultant obtained turning movement counts at the intersection of State St. with Elm Ave. and with Grand Ave. during the afternoon peak period. Table I11 and the two intersection diagrams, Fig., I1 A & B depict the results. TABLE 111 Traffic Data Peak hour percent (of AWI)T) ......... 8.2% Peak hour........................... 16:OO - 17:OO Directional split, average.......... 55% max. direc. Peak hour factor.................... 0.95 Percent trucks/buses................ less than 5% Holiday percent of AWDT............. 61% Calculations of the present and future expected levels of service have been calculated for the two signalized intersections at State with Grand and Elm assuming that the proportions of turns in the future are similar for the demands expected as now. The assumption has been made, based on observing present conditions, that where the width permits the approaches often behave like two lanes despite striping for only one approach lane. -7- 0 a Four combinations of traffic and design have been calculated for each intersection. The designs can be seen in Figure 111. 1. Present traffic, present geometry & signal 2. Future demand, present geometry & signal 3. Future demand, streetscape geometry & present signal 4. Future demand, "alternative" geometry & present signal The streetscape plan(2) identified for the Village Center contains renderings and comments about the features being considered that could affect traffic circulation. Some of the elements of the streetscape have been interpreted from the renderings and are stated below: STREETSCAPE PLAN Grand Ave - Narrow the ROW from 100' to 50'-60' for traffic, create undulating traffic lanes, remove diagonal parking and possibly replace with parallel parking, and a center divider at the intersection with State. State St - Closed south of Elm except for parking, change diagonal parking to parallel between Elm and State and create a center median in the same block, create a smaller curb-to- curb distance at the intersections. Elm St - Remove parking and create a median. Roosevelt St - Narrow the ROW from 80' to 50'-60' and create a median. An "alternative" to the streetscape plan has been prepared and evaluated. This alternative was developed during the traffic study and does not relate to alternatives previously considered by city staff. Refered to as th "alternative", it eliminates the use of non-traversable medians in order to minimize the curb to curb width required. This can be applied to Grand Ave. o State St. or both facilities. It consists of these elements: ALTERNATIVE PW Roosevelt/Elm - (as in streetscape plan) -8- PEDESTRi ANS TOTAL I PEAK J < + a w v, z a 9 vl= LJ I-' $2 J2 z": &"=' *z V% *a%.:15 5 &,G+At$ PMPEAK TOTAL a /I 36 I 33 I - I--- f / ~>[ /y€ I lcll f (lib0 x(= x 12 -c aw,J IT=-- + 0 164 Y '5- I t-, \ I ' F MI r (260XLy,'X 1 EIM Ave. /5frzfe rN r\r\ w INTERSECTION ~arts bad ___------ -------- 31% 1 $% SZ c/ CITY 1Jed-&+-----JL= ----- +:l53e-_---- s//L I ____--- PEDESTRIANS TOTAL PEAK DAY OAT€ HOUR TO HOUR NO OF LANES &?&. t-#ozL - .OL L t a e Grand Ave./State St. - Narrow the curb to curb cross section as shown in Figure 111, provide a traversable center lane using painted stripes at the midblock to allow the passing of vehicles stopping for parking or foi left turn use. Create a wide lane in each direction with parallel parkinl allowed, At the intersection of GrandIState provide three approach lanes an exclusive left turn lane (protected by a curbed island in the center of the street that terminates the traversable center lane), a through lane and a right turn lane. The opposite direction has one generous lane at the intersection. Parallel parking allowed. At this time all of these streets and their intersections perform very well during the peak period. Their levels-of-service(3) are at "A", based upon calculations of the peak hour traffic and based upon observations during the morning, noon and evening peaks. This is the best level of service associate with free flow, ability to make turning movements and the lack of any vehicle being unable to clear a signal during its phase of the cycle at signalized intersections. At this time, the Village Area of Carlsbad does not have a traffic congestion problem. (2) Master Plan: Carlsbad Streetscape Study, Bissell/August ASSOC., circa 1980. A descriptive system for streets identifying the relative congestion and Capacity Manual. (3) adequacy for circulating the demanded traffic volumes. See NCHRP Hwy -9- 0 With the growth of traffic projected for the Village Center streets, the level of service at the intersectians will degrade and a greater sense of congestion will prevail. Clearly, those streets are underutilized at the present time. Excess capacity exists, and the streets can be better utilized than now. Discussion of what level of service or amount of congestion and delay that can and should be tolerated in the Village Center area has ' occurred with city engineering and redevelopment staff. that it is possible and desirable to create a sense of more activity and vitality through redesign of streets. This sense of vitality has positive aspects such as causing a driver who wishes only to travel through the area without stopping seek an alternate route such as Elm Ave. Thus, vehicular traffic using the more "restrictive" streets(4) in the village Center area ha? chosen to be there because of the adjacent activities or because of unavoidab routing of their trip. The more important aspect of the success of a Village Center is the adequacy and availability of the parking to support the commercial activities. Without sufficient parking the Village Center would be economically limited, whereas with travel congestion on some streets, only travel time is added. It is proposed that the level of service (L. of S.) tc adopt for the maximum limit of congestion is L. of S. "D". This is one level above typical design standards of L. of S. "C" and is in keeping with urband design practices. Present signal system design is also used to test the adequacy of the intersections. This author believes Table IV displays the results of the calculations (5) of the volume to capacity ratios of the signals at the State/Grand and State/Elm intersections. From this table it can be seen that presently both (4) State Street and Grand Ave. -10- 0 e intersections operate entirely adequately whereas with future demand on the existing geometry it changes. Future demand would cause Elm/State and Grand/State to be at L. at S. "D", with either the streetscape plan in effect or with the "alternative" plan the intersections would perform at L. of S. "D." TABLE IV Levels of Service - CASE ELM AVE/STATE ST. GRAND AVE/STATE ST Present Traffic present geometry V/C 0.54 0.37 critical volumes 651 442 service level A a Future Demand present geometry VIC 0.85 0.87 critical volumes 108 1 1234 service level D D streetscape plan v/c 0.82 0.81 critical volumes 1064 1133 service level D D alternative plan V/C 0.82 0.81 critical volumes 1064 1134 service level D D See the appendix for the calculation sheets. -1 1- e a What the calculations of intersection service levels demonstrates is that acceptable congestion will occur with properly designed approaches. Figure 111 clarifies the dimensions that have been assumed for the streetscape plan and the "alternative" plan. Of note, are the suggested minimum widths of the approaches of the Grand Ave/State St- intersection and the approach of S.T State St. to Elm Ave. These locations are recommended as having a minimum width sufficient to function as two lanes in the streetscape plan. In addition, a left turn lane is also indicated in the alternative recommendation. The other verification of adequacy of circulation in the Village Center is the relationship between the anticipated volumes of traffic and the cross section design of the street. In this situation the concept described earlic about a sense of relative congestion is again, just as with intersections, appropriate for planning the adequacy of the cross sectioned characteristics or the number of lanes required. A level of service of "D" can be considerel . as the maximum level of acceptable congestion. A description of the level o service for downtown streets, taken from Table 10.14 of the Highway capacity manual states that at level of service "D" states that the average overall speed is greater than 10 mph, but less than 15 mph, and tolerable delays occur. Despite current street standards, which have their best application to newly developing areas and which would suggest more generous roadways for tl anticipated volumes in the village center, the recommended characteristics both the streetscape and the alternative recommendation are more consistant with a denser urban character. These are recommendations for the future traffic . -12- 0 e The demand volumes should be regarded as a long-term projection. These demands will not be experienced for quite some time, and short term future is unlikely to generate these volumes of traffic. It is also possible to relate to the future demand as a “sensitivity level.” The demand would represent a planned limit to future traffic, whenevr it occurs, and exceeding that limit would require a new design analysis. In view of the uncertainty of the exact nature of redevelopment in the Village Center this view is encouraged. Ordinarily, two lanes in each direction would be necessary for AWDT’s of 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles. The alternative plan for State and Grand is an ‘.I . attempt to create a concept that a) minimizes the curb to curb dimensions, b: provides parking, and c) accomodates the future volumes even though some congestion will be experienced. Unfortunately, the alternative recommendatic would not allow center median areas that cannot be crossed by vehicles since the extra room is added for passing. It was the apparent goal in the streetscape plan to avoid the need for - second lane in each direction. With the ultimate demand in the 10,000 to 15, AWDT range, with the added factors of possible midblock access to parking lo and the need for at least two approach lanes at the intersections plus a sufficiently long approach length to the intersection, the streetscape must have the availability of two full lanes, each way, under the ultimate demand Since the ultimate demand will not be experienced for quite some time it is possible, just as now, to have only one through lane each way on State Stree and Grand Avenue combined with parallel parking. The parking lane can be removed when the traffic demand reaches the level that the extra capacity required. This would probably occur when the AWDT reaches 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. In this manner the street could be narrowed from its pre: width (Grand Avenue) and the streetscape features (Grand Avenue and State Street) could be designed. The disadvantage with the streetscape is that -13- e a when the demand levels build to the level when on-street parking would have to be removed parking in the entire Village Center would be needed most. The "alternative" plan makes use of the fact that there are streets ir the San Diego area that have one lane in each direction, plus a center lane which can be traversed for left turns and passing stopped vehicles that carry in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day. Mission BlVdo and Garnet Aye- are two examples. What would be required is to create a cross-section (as shown in Figure 111) that has no restrictive center median. It is further suggested tt a left turn lane be provided at the signalized intersections, thereby requiri any landscaping treatment to be set back from the intersection for the lengtl of the turn pocket. The cross section would permit parallel parking, one widt lane in each direction and a center painted divided area for left turns or fc passing stopped vehicles at the midblock. At the intersections, a divider woi have terminated the center lane to establish a left turn lane, parking would end and enough width would remain to have a right turn and a through lane at . the approach. The opposite lane entering the block at the intersection would sufficiently wide for one lane plus parking (Refer to Figure 111). Parking An emphasis in the streetscape plan creating midblock parking on tl interior of presently underutilized property central to the block bounded b] Elm, State, Grand and Roosevelt is in the Village Center plan. Major access, for vehicles, would be from the Roosevelt side, and possibly from Grand Ave Another possible parking location is somewhere on the next block East, also with access to Roosevelt. On-street parking under the streetscape plan has just been discussed and the probable future demand would necessitate its removal on Grand and State, especially if the streetscape treatment is performed. Removal of diagonal parking is also desirable. The exact quant -14- e e and location for future parking will greatly depend on the precise redevelopment that will take place. Retail merchants tend to prefer the appearance of easily available parking at their doorstep as provided by on-street parking. However, when the redevelopment acheives a level of vitality sufficient to necessitate its removal for street capacity, this parking won't be enough. It will have been necessary to seek and create just the kind of concept now being promoted by the redevelopment agency. On-stree parking will also be difficult to supervise for the length of stay without tk use of short parking meter durations and parking enforcement parking personnel. be perpetually consumed by longer term parkers. Thus, what would appear to be easily available street space cou2.G It is important to emphasize the access to and availability of midblocl parking through signing and architectural treatment. accessable and pleasant place to leave ones automobile it becomes the preferred place to park. By creating an -15- e e RECOMMENDAT IONS Either of the two concepts evaluated within this report can function to serve the expected demnds in the future (Refer to Figure 111). The streetscape plan that assumes a solid divider on State St. and an architectual treatment dividing the two roadway directions of Grand Ave. where it meets State St. has consequences. Those consequences are that in order to minimie the width while at the same time keeping a symmetry to the arrangement of lanes approaching and leaving the intersection parking would have to be sacraficed under the ultimate demand. An alternative that emphasizes minimizing curb to curb width employs opposing left turn lanes at the intersection of State/Grand. The use of a center lane in midblock to ease any congestion with one lane in each direction, permits parking and the posibility of a landscaped treatment in thi street to separate the left turn lane from the midblock center lane. .3r SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - STREETSCAPE PLAN Grand Avenue - Create a facility that is 48' curb to curb, at midblack, consisting of a 14' lane each way and nother 10' for parking on each side. Later, when traffic volumes warrant, remove th parking to obtain two 12' lanes each way. At the intersectio with State St., create a median of 6' to 10' and two 12' traffic lanes each way without parking for approximately 150' back from the intersection on the WB side. Total curb to cur width at the intersection would be 54' to 58'. Continue use o stop sign control at intersections with Roosevelt St. and Madison St. until demand warrants signals. State Street - At midblock a 54' to 58' wide (curb to curb) facility would be designed with a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' in each direction with anther 10' for parking that, just like on Granc Ave., can be removed to provide two 12' lanes each way. At tk intersections a 50' to 54' wide street (curb to curb) can be accommodated to try and match the present 49' of width at Grar Ave. and have a 6' to 10' median. Two lanes each way of 11' the intersection for approaching lanes. South of Elm one lane each way is sufficient. would exist. Parking would be set back approximately 120' fron -16- e Elm Avenue - Eventual removal of parking, the addition of another lane each way and a median with center left turn lanes at intersections would comprise its cross section. The two lanes each way would be 12' with a 12' median for a curb to curb distance of 60'. No left turns at midblock would be possible due to the median. Roosevelt/ Madison - The present 60' width would be visually broken by a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' each way with another 10' for parking would bring the total curb to curb width to 54' to 58'. A break in the median for midblock parking would exist. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION Grand Ave/ State St. - With a curb to curb dimension of 60' create a center lane (for passing stopped vehicles or for turning into midblock parking areas) of 12', one through lane in each direction of 14' and another 10' for parking for the midblock cross section. At thl intersections terminate the center lane with an architectual/landscape treatment to establish a center left turn lane of 12'. Parking is set back approximately 100 ft. from the intersection to allow a free right turn lane of 11 ft.and a through lane of 12'. Only one lane exists in the opposite direction. Elm/ -. Roosevelt/ Madison - (as above) Parking Access - Predominant access to midblock parking can be emphasized from Roosevelt with additional access from Grand. Only the WB traffic should access the midblock areas of the Village Center from Elm Ave. when the median is constructed. Continued emphasis will be required for off-street parking due to the eventual removal of on-street spaces as demand necessitates assuming the streetscape plan. Traffic Control - Existing signals will be adequate for future projected Devices demand with the possible need for their re-timing. Stop control should continue to be adequate for Madison and Roosevelt until a short term of volumes indicates signal control is warranted. Preliminary estimates indicate minimum warrants for volume will be met with the projected demand. left turn phases at Elm/State and Grand/State, especially if exclusive turn lanes are provided as in the alternate recommendation. An improvement would be made by adding protected -17- 0 m Undulation of Traffic Lanes - Only when on-street parking is not to be provided should consideration be made of non-linear alignments. parking wold be hindered by a radiused curb and inefficient use of the parking lane would result. Parallel Narrowing ROW - Under either the streetscape plan or the alternative recommendation do not yield control of the ROW. The individual streets can have their curb to curb dimensions lowered, as shown in Figure 111, to enhance landscaping opportunities, but: loss bf ROW shauld be avoided. -18-