s 1st st & pittsburgh ave intersection analysis
DESCRIPTION
Intersection Improvements Needed at S 1st St & Pittsburgh AveTRANSCRIPT
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