prineville hwy 126 tom mccall public meeting 12-17-15
TRANSCRIPT
OR126/Tom McCall
OR126/Tom McCall
(Prineville) Intersection
Improvements
December 17, 2015
Follow a public and transparent process
Corridor Plan and TSPs provide direction
Alternative Analysis by Kittelson & Assoc., Inc.
Highway/Civil Engineering using Best Practices
Can’t just pick a solution, must consider safety, engineering, and available funding
Process
Problem OR126/Tom McCall
Growth in traffic
Extremely long queues and congestion
Increased crashes
Intersection becoming significant barrier to economic development
Need Safety - Intersection use is increasing as surrounding land use grows
PurposeServe existing use and support future use from development of nearby industrial land
Need and Purpose
Design and construction of a roundabout
Roundabout approach treatments to slow traffic
Re-route George Millican Road and Airport Way
What is the OR126/Tom McCall Project?
Key goals include:
Provide a high level of safety in high-speed rural area
Support economic development within the City’s industrial lands
Accommodate oversized freight movements
Key Goals OR126/Tom McCall
Project Background and Schedule
OR126 Corridor Plan (2012)
Prineville TSP (2012/13)
City/County Requests STIP Funding (2012)
Project Design/Stakeholder Outreach (2015/16)
City and Freight Concurrence (2016)
Construction 2017/18
DesignConcepts
Design Refinement
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. – Traffic Analysis
Study Area
Existing Intersection Operations
Existing Safety Performance
OR 126 Intersection Number of
Crashes
Million Entering Vehicles (MEV)
Crash Rate (crash
per MEV)
Statewide 90th Percentile Rate
Tom McCall Road 10 21.4 0.47 0.41Airport Way-SW Millican Road 5 18.6 0.27 0.41
5 years of historical crash data (2009-2013)
Future Intersection Operations – No-Build
Evaluation YearStop-Controlled
Approaches LOS V/C Delay (sec)95th Percentile
Queue (ft)OR 126 and Tom McCall Road
2035Northbound F >1.0 >80 >500
Southbound F >1.0 >80 >500
OR 126 and Airport Way/SW Millican Road
2035Northbound E 0.65 46.5 100
Southbound F 0.22 59.9 25
What is a roundabout?
What is not a modern roundabout?
Pho
to: C
ity o
f For
t Wor
th, T
XRotary Traffic Circle
Pho
to: G
oogl
e M
aps
Pho
to: L
ee R
odeg
erdt
s
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Conversion of Rotary to Roundabout:Kingston, NY
Pho
to: N
ew Y
ork
Sta
te D
OT
225 feet600+ feet
Why a roundabout?
Roundabouts reduce crashes
Over 90% reduction in fatalities 76% reduction in injuries 35% reduction in total crashes
* NCHRP Report 572
Pho
to: L
ee R
odeg
erdt
s
Safety Performance (NCHRP Report 572)
78% reduction in injuries 48% reduction in total crashes
CONVERTED TO
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
How does a roundabout compare to a signal?Year 2035 Operations – Average Delay per Vehicle
> 80s
~ 26s
~ 22s
OR126/Tom McCall
Vehicle stackingQueues are approximately half as long with roundabout vs. signal
How does a roundabout compare to a signal?Future Safety Performance over 5 Years
6.5 Crashes3.5 Fatal/Injury
3.5 Crashes
1.5 Crashes0.5 Fatal/Injury
74% reduction89% reduction
OR126/Tom McCall
44% reduction
Roundabout Concept
Signal Concept
Freight Accommodation
Freight Accommodation
1,552 single-use permits on OR126 (2007-2012) 764 single-use permits on Millican Road (2013-2014)
Longest combination truck-trailer = 267 feet Widest load = 23.5 feet Over 12 loads = Height > 18 feet
Designing for Freight – US20/Barclay Example
Full-scale test in two locations
Tested 18 truck/trailer combinations– Up to 130’ in length
All test vehicles made it through the roundabout
Questions?
What is a modern roundabout?
YIELD control on entry– Priority to circulating
vehicles
Slow, consistent speeds Landscaping Pedestrian access &
crossing No Parking Direction of circulation
– Channelization
32 conflict pointsHigh-speedAngle CrashesHigh Impact
8 conflict pointsLow-speedNon-angle CrashesLow Impact
Vehicle Conflict Points: REDUCED
Pedestrian Conflict Points: REDUCED
16 conflict points 8 conflict points
Lower speed is safer for pedestrians
Chance of pedestrian death increases with vehicle speed
Roundabouts and Bicyclists
Roundabouts slow vehicles to speeds compatible with bicycles
Bicyclists have wide range of skills and comfort levels in mixed traffic– Experienced cyclists (e.g., commuter or utility
cyclists)– Inexperienced cyclists (e.g., children or
occasional recreation cyclists)
Give bicyclists option of either being vehicle or pedestrian
Pedestrian Safety
Netherlands (181 Intersections converted to roundabouts)– 73% reduction in pedestrian crashes– 89% reduction in pedestrian injury crashes
Norway (4 years of data)– 59 roundabouts = 1 pedestrian injury crash out of 33 injury crashes (3%)– 124 signals = 57 pedestrian injury crashes out of 287 injury crashes (20%)
NCHRP Report 572– 769 observed pedestrian events
• No crashes• Four conflicts (0.5%)
Cyclist Safety
NCHRP Report 572– 690 observed bicyclist events
• No crashes• Four conflicts (0.6%)
Public perception of roundabouts
Signalized Intersection Crashes in Oregon 2003 - 2007 (5 yrs)
At 1,240 Signalized Intersections on State Highways– 32 Fatal crashes– 308 Serious Injury crashes– 5,171 Moderate & minor injury crashes
Future (Year 235) Intersection Operations – Signal
Scenario #1 - No Airport Way/Millican Road Reroute
Scenario #2 – With Airport Way/Millican Road Reroute
Future Intersection Operations – Roundabout
2035 Design Year
(Volume Scenario #1 - no Airport Way/ Millican Road Reroute)
2035 Design Year (Volume Scenario #2 - with Airport Way/
Millican Road Reroute)
Approach Lane ConfigurationsVolume to
Capacity Ratio1 Delay (sec) 1 Lane ConfigurationsVolume to
Capacity Ratio1 Delay (sec) 1
HCM 2010
Eastbound LT, TR 0.50 10.5 LTR 0.90 33.7
Westbound LTR 0.70 15.5 LTR 0.84 26.8
Northbound LTR 0.55 20.0 LT,R 0.68 31.3
Southbound LTR 0.41 13.8 LTR 0.52 18.7
HCM 2010 (with City of Bend Calibration)
Eastbound LTR 0.77 16.9 LTR 0.72 15.2
Westbound LTR 0.57 10.0 LTR 0.68 14.0
Northbound LTR 0.50 16.6 LTR 0.71 24.7
Southbound LTR 0.29 8.4 LTR 0.36 10.3
1 Reported for the critical lane for multilane approaches
LTR = Single lane approach; LT,TR = Left/through and Through/right lanes; LT,R = Left/through and right lanes
Summary Intersection Operations2035 P.M. Peak Hour
No-Build SignalRoundabout
(HCM 2010)
Roundabout
(City of Bend
Calibration)
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Eastbound OR 126 25 650 325 175
Westbound OR 126 25 500 275 150
Northbound Tom McCall Rd >500 100 125 150
Southbound Tom McCall Rd >500 125 75 50
Approach Capacity (v/c)
Eastbound OR 126 0.02 0.78 0.90 0.72
Westbound OR 126 0.04 0.69 0.84 0.68
Northbound Tom McCall Rd >1.0 0.58 0.68 0.71
Southbound Tom McCall Rd >1.0 0.65 0.52 0.36
Approach Delay (s)
Overall Intersection >80 25.9 28.316.0
Eastbound OR 126 0.5 22.7 33.7 15.2
Westbound OR 126 1.1 16.8 26.8 14.0
Northbound Tom McCall Rd >80 40.4 31.3 24.7
Southbound Tom McCall Rd >80 36.6 18.7 10.3
Level of Service (LOS)
Overall Intersection F C D C
Eastbound OR 126 A C D C
Westbound OR 126 A B D B
Northbound Tom McCall Rd F D D C
Southbound Tom McCall Rd F D C B
Scenario Total Entering Volume
OR126/Tom McCall
Existing 1,210
2018 1,355
2035 1,915
Brookswood/Bond/Reed Market May 2014 Counts 2,476
US 50/US 77 – Florence, KS
Steve King - KDOT
20% Trucks
40% Trucks
40% Trucks
Bypass for Overdimensional Loads