s 1st st & pittsburgh ave intersection analysis

Pittsburgh Avenue and South 1st StreetLydia Statz, Jesus Ochoa, Steven Husby, and Ben Rohr

Intersection

Googlemaps.com Googlemaps.com

Intersection

Googlemaps.com

Pittsburgh Ave.

1st St.

46’ 6”

63’

70’

62’1021’

Observations

17,000Daily Traffic Count on

1st Street

Observations

Total: 174

Observations

Total: 124

Intersection Improvements Needed

● Utilized by many ○ Maximizes vehicle traffic

■ Right turn lane○ Existing bike route

■ Lacking connectivity○ Several bus stops

■ High transit use○ Many pedestrians

■ Long wait to cross

● Developing neighborhood○ Destinations near by

Sources:http://sharing.tmj4.com/sharescnn/photo/2016/02/24/1456333739_32486895_ver1.0_640_480.jpg, http://redbricktown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/pedestrian.jpg, http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3543481/081914bublrlee-02*750xx1805-1015-0-93.jpg, http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wuwm/files/201604/MCTS_bus.jpg

Street Segment - Pittsburgh Ave from S 1st St. to S 2nd St.

Googlemaps.com

Existing

Pittsburgh Ave.

Street Segment Improvements Needed

● Existing bike route ○ Commuters○ Bublr users○ Hank Aaron State Trail

● No room for on-street parking ○ Conflicts points

● Train bridge = narrow

Googlemaps.com

Level of Service Before - Pittsburgh Ave.From 1st St. to 2nd St.

Pedestrian

A 1.87

Bicycle

C 2.77

Proposed Design

Proposed Street Segment

Pittsburgh Ave.

Level of Service After - Pittsburgh Ave.From 1st St. to 2nd St.

Pedestrian

A 0.85

Bicycle

A -0.51

Improvements

Consolidating Bus Stops

15

http://urbanmilwaukee.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/052.JPGGooglemaps.com

Improvements

Ladder Crossings

Automated Crossings/Push Buttons

Googlemaps.com

Source: spacing.ca

Improvements

Bicyclists

● Green Bike Lanes● Bike Boxes● Buffered Bike Lanes

http://303cycling.com/files/bikebox.jpg

Improvements

Googlemaps.com

Bicycle Flashing Beacon

“Share the Road”

Education and Enforcement

Source: www.ustrafficsystems.comGooglemaps.com

Education and Enforcement

Replace current 3 hour parking signage

● No Parking Signage● Increase Bike Signage

Source: www.bikexprt.com

Googlemaps.com

Education and Enforcement

Information Pamphlet to Area Businesses

● Connects with Popular Route (2nd St.)○ More bicyclist traffic

● Complements Bublr Station (2nd St.)

Source:bublrbikes.com

http://www.renewthevalley.org/media/image_attachments/05/265-hastlogo.jpg

Challenges

Removing 18 on-street parking spaces (3-hour)

BUT within 2 blocks:

● 153 on street spaces● 320 off-street private spaces● Vacant lots could be used for

parking for the time beingGooglemaps.com

94

29 4342

101

40

25

39

29

2011

18

Googlemaps.com

Challenges

State Highway 32

● Under WisDOT control● Designed for large vehicle travel● Requires long-term coordination

Googlemaps.com

Challenges

Coordination with MCTS

Googlemaps.com

Googlemaps.com Googlemaps.com

Challenges

Setting a precedent in Milwaukee

● First bike boxes ● First fully green bike lanes

Googlemaps.com

Costs - Intersection

● Bike Boxes (2) - $700 each● New thermoplastic ladder crossings (4) - $1,400 x 3 = $4,200 each● Extended bumpout (no drainage)- $3,000 - $5,000● Moving bus stops (3) - labor● Eliminating right turn lane - $50,000 - $60,000 (used bulb out with drainage

number)● Automated walk signs - labor

Total resources needed: $70,000 - $85,000

Costs - Street Segment

Buffered Bike Lanes

● $1,241 per side to mark it (white lines)● $12,000 - $14,000 a side green paint (thermoplastic)● $7,000 per side for regular green street paint

Bike crossing flashing beacon (2) - $1,320 –$2,755 each

Total resources needed: $43,000 - $50,000

Phasing

Phase 1 (Short-term):

● Bike Lanes on E Pittsburgh● Consolidate Bus stops● Automate crosswalks

Phase 2 (Medium-term):

● Bumpouts● Changes to W Pittsburgh

Phase 3 (Long-term):

● Remove right turn lane● Possible road diet for S 1st Street

Thank you!

Highway Capacity Manual 2010Roadway Link Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Automobile Level of Service (LOS)Spreadsheet tool developed by Robert J. SchneiderApril 2016

Roadway Link InformationRoadway Name From Intersection 1 To Intersection 2

W Pittsburgh Ave. 1st Street 2nd Street

Level of Service Summary

LOS Measure LOS Grade LOS Score/R Value1Pedestrian LOS A 0.85

Bicycle LOS A -0.51Automobile LOS D 43.44

Notes:

1) The spreadsheet calculates Pedestrian LOS, Bicycle LOS, and Automobile LOS for a single direction of

travel.

2) The Pedestrian LOS and Bicycle LOS formulas used in this spreadsheet are for a link-based evaluation

based on Chapter 17 of the HCM 2010. This option is discussed on p. 17-45 (pedestrian) and p. 17-56

(bicycle). They do not consider crossing difficulty or intersection LOS. In order to evaluate Pedestrian LOS or

Bicycle LOS for a roadway corridor, it is necessary to follow all steps in the HCM.

3) The Pedestrian LOS assumes that the pedestrian space is not too crowded and does not affect the flow of

pedestrians (>60 square feet per pedestrian) (i.e., pedestrians can walk freely).

4) The Automobile LOS is based on the Quick Estimation Method presented in Chapter 30 of the HCM 2010.

1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Grades are based on the following scale: "A"

is LOS Score <=2.00; "B" is LOS Score 2.01-2.75; "C" is LOS Score 2.76-3.50; "D" is LOS

Score 3.51-4.25; "E" is LOS Score 4.26-5.00; "F" is LOS Score >5.00. Automobile LOS is

based on an R value, which is automobile speed as a percentage of base free-flow

speed. It uses the following scale: "A" is R Score >=85.0; "B" is R Score 67.0-84.5; "C" is

R Score 50.0-66.9; "D" is R Score 40.0-49.9; "E" is R Score 30.0-39.9; "F" is R Score

<30.0.

Link-Based Pedestrian Level of Service Evaluation

(Measure to the

closest 0.5 feet)

Input Variable Description Variable Measurement (Typical range)

Number of through lanes in the study direction of travel Nth 1.0 (1-4)Character of cross-section (1 = divided by median; 0 = undivided) D 0.0 (0-1)

Motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sr 30.0 (5-55)

Midsegment automobile flow rate (vehicles/hour) vm 135.0 (100-3000)

Width of the outside through lane (feet) Wol 11.0 (9-16)

Width of the bicycle lane (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wbl 7.0 (0-7)

Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos 0.0 (0-10)Curb is present (1 = yes; 0 = no) C 1.0 (0-1)

Adjusted Width of the paved outside shoulder (feet) Wos* -1.5

Proportion of on-street parking occupied (decimal) ppk 0.00 (0-0.9)

Effective width of combined bicycle lane and shoulder or parking area (feet) W1 5.5

Total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, & paved shoulder (feet) Wt 16.5

Effective width of outside through lane, BL & shoulder as function of traffic volume (feet) Wv 21.9

Buffer width between roadway and sidewalk (ft) (use 0 if no SW) Wbuf 12.0 (0-12)Continuous barrier (1 = Y; 0 = N) B 1.0 (0-1) (To qualify as a barrier, the objects must be >= 3' high spaced < 20' apart between SW and roadway)

Buffer area coefficient fb 5.4

Sidewalk width (not including buffer) (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wsw 14.0 (0-16) (The definition of this factor has been simplified from the HCM 2010)

Adjusted available sidewalk width Was 10.0

Sidewalk width coefficient fsw 3.0

Pedestrian LOS score for the roadway link Ip,link 0.85Pedestrian LOS grade for the roadway link Grade A

(To qualify as a barrier, the objects must be >= 3' high spaced < 20' apart between SW and roadway)

(The definition of this factor has been simplified from the HCM 2010)

Link-Based Bicycle Level of Service Evaluation

(Measure to the

closest 0.5 feet)

Input Variable Description Variable Measurement (Typical range)

Number of through lanes in the study direction of travel Nth 1.0 (1-4)Character of cross-section (1 = divided by median; 0 = undivided) D 0.0 (0-1)

Pavement condition rating (5 = excellent to 1 = poor) Pc 4.0 (1-5)

Motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sr 30.0 (5-55)

Adjusted motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sra 30.0

Midsegment automobile flow rate (vehicles/hour) vm 135.0 (100-3000)

Adjusted midsegment demand flow rate (vehicles/hour) vma 135.0

Percent heavy vehicle volume (percentage) PHV 0.0 (0-100)

Adjusted percent heavy vehicle volume (percentage) PHVa 0.0

Width of the outside through lane (feet) Wol 11.0 (9-16)

Width of the bicycle lane (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wbl 7.0 (0-7)

Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos 0.0 (0-10)Curb is present (1 = yes; 0 = no) C 1.0 (0-1)

Adjusted Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos* -1.5

Proportion of on-street parking occupied (decimal) ppk 0.00 (0-0.9)

Total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, & paved shoulder (feet) Wt 16.5

Effective width of outside through lane, BL & shoulder as function of traffic volume (feet) Wv 21.9

Effective width of outside through lane (feet) We 28.9

Bicycle LOS score for the roadway link Ib,link -0.51Bicycle LOS grade for the roadway link Grade A

Highway Capacity Manual 2010Roadway Link Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Automobile Level of Service (LOS)Spreadsheet tool developed by Robert J. SchneiderApril 2016

Roadway Link InformationRoadway Name From Intersection 1 To Intersection 2

W Pittsburgh Ave. 1st Street 2nd Street

Level of Service Summary

LOS Measure LOS Grade LOS Score/R Value1Pedestrian LOS A 1.11

Bicycle LOS C 2.77Automobile LOS D 46.68

Notes:

1) The spreadsheet calculates Pedestrian LOS, Bicycle LOS, and Automobile LOS for a single direction of

travel.

2) The Pedestrian LOS and Bicycle LOS formulas used in this spreadsheet are for a link-based evaluation

based on Chapter 17 of the HCM 2010. This option is discussed on p. 17-45 (pedestrian) and p. 17-56

(bicycle). They do not consider crossing difficulty or intersection LOS. In order to evaluate Pedestrian LOS or

Bicycle LOS for a roadway corridor, it is necessary to follow all steps in the HCM.

3) The Pedestrian LOS assumes that the pedestrian space is not too crowded and does not affect the flow of

pedestrians (>60 square feet per pedestrian) (i.e., pedestrians can walk freely).

4) The Automobile LOS is based on the Quick Estimation Method presented in Chapter 30 of the HCM 2010.

1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Grades are based on the following scale: "A"

is LOS Score <=2.00; "B" is LOS Score 2.01-2.75; "C" is LOS Score 2.76-3.50; "D" is LOS

Score 3.51-4.25; "E" is LOS Score 4.26-5.00; "F" is LOS Score >5.00. Automobile LOS is

based on an R value, which is automobile speed as a percentage of base free-flow

speed. It uses the following scale: "A" is R Score >=85.0; "B" is R Score 67.0-84.5; "C" is

R Score 50.0-66.9; "D" is R Score 40.0-49.9; "E" is R Score 30.0-39.9; "F" is R Score

<30.0.

Link-Based Pedestrian Level of Service Evaluation

(Measure to the

closest 0.5 feet)

Input Variable Description Variable Measurement (Typical range)

Number of through lanes in the study direction of travel Nth 1.0 (1-4)Character of cross-section (1 = divided by median; 0 = undivided) D 0.0 (0-1)

Motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sr 30.0 (5-55)

Midsegment automobile flow rate (vehicles/hour) vm 135.0 (100-3000)

Width of the outside through lane (feet) Wol 18.0 (9-16)

Width of the bicycle lane (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wbl 0.0 (0-7)

Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos 7.0 (0-10)Curb is present (1 = yes; 0 = no) C 1.0 (0-1)

Adjusted Width of the paved outside shoulder (feet) Wos* 5.5

Proportion of on-street parking occupied (decimal) ppk 0.75 (0-0.9)

Effective width of combined bicycle lane and shoulder or parking area (feet) W1 10.0

Total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, & paved shoulder (feet) Wt 18.0

Effective width of outside through lane, BL & shoulder as function of traffic volume (feet) Wv 23.9

Buffer width between roadway and sidewalk (ft) (use 0 if no SW) Wbuf 0.0 (0-12)Continuous barrier (1 = Y; 0 = N) B 1.0 (0-1)

Buffer area coefficient fb 5.4

Sidewalk width (not including buffer) (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wsw 14.0 (0-16)

Adjusted available sidewalk width Was 10.0

Sidewalk width coefficient fsw 3.0

Pedestrian LOS score for the roadway link Ip,link 1.11Pedestrian LOS grade for the roadway link Grade A

(To qualify as a barrier, the objects must be >= 3' high spaced < 20' apart between SW and roadway)

(The definition of this factor has been simplified from the HCM 2010)

Link-Based Bicycle Level of Service Evaluation

(Measure to the

closest 0.5 feet)

Input Variable Description Variable Measurement (Typical range)

Number of through lanes in the study direction of travel Nth 1.0 (1-4)Character of cross-section (1 = divided by median; 0 = undivided) D 0.0 (0-1)

Pavement condition rating (5 = excellent to 1 = poor) Pc 3.0 (1-5)

Motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sr 30.0 (5-55)

Adjusted motorized vehicle running speed (miles/hour) Sra 30.0

Midsegment automobile flow rate (vehicles/hour) vm 135.0 (100-3000)

Adjusted midsegment demand flow rate (vehicles/hour) vma 135.0

Percent heavy vehicle volume (percentage) PHV 0.0 (0-100)

Adjusted percent heavy vehicle volume (percentage) PHVa 0.0

Width of the outside through lane (feet) Wol 10.5 (9-16)

Width of the bicycle lane (feet) (use 0 if doesn't exist) Wbl 5.5 (0-7)

Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos 7.0 (0-10)Curb is present (1 = yes; 0 = no) C 1.0 (0-1)

Adjusted Width of the paved outside shoulder or parking area (feet) Wos* 5.5

Proportion of on-street parking occupied (decimal) ppk 0.90 (0-0.9)

Total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, & paved shoulder (feet) Wt 16.0

Effective width of outside through lane, BL & shoulder as function of traffic volume (feet) Wv 21.2

Effective width of outside through lane (feet) We 15.7

Bicycle LOS score for the roadway link Ib,link 2.77Bicycle LOS grade for the roadway link Grade C