SR 05:240 - Laserfiche WebLink

Summary Comparison of Alternative Circulation Networks Alternative A has 21% less morning congestion but 29% more evening congestion than the existing baseline conditions. LOS E and F intersections are reduced by four in the mornings, but are increased by one in the afternoons. Compared to Alternatives B and C, Alternative A has more LOS E and F intersections and more average city-wide delay. Regarding average arterial delays, Alternative A routes are projected to have increased delay relative to the existing conditions (with notable exceptions for morning westbound/southbound travel). Average overall delay, both directions, for selected routes is about 10 percent greater than at present, about the same as for Alternative B but about 3 percent worse than Alternative C. Alternative B produces about a 6% less overall city-wide delay at intersections in the morning and 11% less in the afternoon compared to the Alternative A network. Alternative B has more delay and more LOS E or F intersections than Alternative C. There are two fewer LOS E or F intersections than Alternative A, but one remains in the morning and six in the afternoon. Alternative B overall has about 11 percent more delay on these arterial routes (both directions) than existing conditions. Its routes in the aggregate have slightly more delay than the equivalent land use scenario on the Alternative A network. The eastbound afternoon direction is the most congested, with morning and westbound afternoon arterial levels of service typically at LOS C and D. The Alternative C street network produces the fewest LOS E or F intersections and the least total peak hour delay for the three alternatives. Average delay increases by 11 percent compared to existing conditions and has 15 percent and 5 percent less delay than Alternatives A and B, respectively. Alternative C has the least delay of the three alternatives, with route delay increasing by about 6 percent in the aggregate (all routes, both morning and afternoon). General Conclusions · The intersection improvement mitigations assumed for Alternative A and listed in Appendix A are very important for improved future traffic conditions. The key extension included in Alternative B is the E1 Charro Rd. extension to Stanley Blvd.; the other road widenings/extensions would not be critical to levels of service or capacity, but would reduce traffic volumes on certain streets. Alternative C represents a marginal improvement in levels of service and delays citywide compared to the other two alternatives but is not necessarily better when considering selected routes through the city. · When considering levels of service on individual intersections, there is little difference among the three altematives. 4