AGENDA #5e

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:      Follow-Up Report on 2005 University of North Carolina Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation

 

DATE:            June 12, 2006

 

 

PURPOSE

 

This report responds to questions raised by Council Members regarding the 2005 “Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation” prepared by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  We also provided a summary of staff review comments on the biennial University Transportation Impact Analysis Report for the Development Plan.  We will provide another report to the Council later this year responding to modifications of the University’s Development Plan.

 

No Council action is required at this time.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its June 27, 2005 meeting, the Council approved a resolution requiring that the University submit an Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation associated with development in the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District on the University campus. The Council also approved guidelines for development of the Report. 

 

At its April 10, 2006 meeting, the Council received a staff report along with a copy of the 2005 Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation.  Please see Attachment 1.

 

At its April 10 meeting, the Council also received and referred the following petitions related to traffic calming measures on several streets adjacent to the University campus. 

 

1)      Request for installation of No Through Trucks signs on several streets in the Westside neighborhood.

2)      Request for installation of traffic calming devices in the Westside neighborhood.

3)      Request for involvement of citizens in initial stage of planning in the University’s development process for traffic calming.

4)      Request to add Mallette Street to the list of streets to be considered for possible traffic calming measures as part of the University’s Development Plan. This petition was received and referred at the April 24 Council meeting.

The Council raised several questions regarding the University’s Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation, and requested that the Manager prepare responses to those questions and also include information on the Town staff analysis of the biennial University Transportation Impact Analysis Report.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Petition Responses

 

At its May 8 meeting, the Town Council approved installation of No Through Trucks signs on several streets in Westside and Westwood neighborhoods.  Those signs have been installed.

 

Our responses to the remaining petition requests listed above are provided in a separate report on tonight’s agenda.

 

Analysis and Comments on the Biennial University Transportation Impact Analysis Report

 

Town Engineering staff reviewed the University’s report and found it to be generally in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Town Council for the University’s Development Plan. We did identify certain discrepancies in traffic volumes that we believe warrant re-counting and re-analysis of certain intersections.

 

Town staff met with University staff and discussed the discrepancies.  The University agreed to re-count and re-analyze the following locations in fall of this year, when school is back in session.

 

Average Daily Traffic counts will be collected at the following locations:   

 

A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement counts will be collected at the following intersections:

 

Because of the possible changes in the counts and subsequent analyses, we are unable at this time to accept the University findings and mitigation recommendations presented in the 2005 biennial University Transportation Impact Analysis Report for the Development Plan. We will review the new information to be provided by the University this fall, along with recommended mitigation measures, and we will report back to the Council with our findings and recommendations.

 

Response to Council Questions about the Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation

 

The following information summarizes the University’s response to the Council’s questions about the Annual Development Plan Report on Transportation. A copy of the letter from the University is provided in Attachment 2.

 

1.         Why are some traffic volumes shown to be decreasing?

 

       University Response:  Traffic volumes are decreasing for several reasons: (a) The University has intensified its Transportation Demand Management Program resulting in more employees and students opting to use free park-and-ride and transit rather than driving vehicles and parking on or near the campus. (b) Displacement of available on-campus parking is at a maximum due to on-going construction and the fact replacement parking decks have not yet opened. This has resulted in substantially less permit parking available on campus now than was available at the commencement of the Development Plan. (c) Travel patterns continue to be disrupted by construction, resulting in motorists taking alternative routes or avoiding the campus area altogether.

 

Staff Comment: The University agreed to recount several locations and we expect to receive the new data and associated analyses in fall of this year.  Town staff will review that information and provide comments for the Council’s consideration.

 

2.         Why are intersection operations improving at some locations according to the report, whereas observations in the field suggest differently?

 

            University Response:  At some locations construction activity within the street is temporarily disrupting traffic. The University and Town staff agreed that the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) should analyze typical conditions rather than temporary impacts. For this reason, at locations where it was known that construction would be occurring during the normal traffic counting period, the counts were performed in advance of the construction and the traffic analysis reflects those conditions. Traffic counts do not reflect temporary disruptions that are observed in the field during some construction operations.

 

Staff Comment:  The University will re-evaluate all locations noted above based on new data to be collected in the fall. Construction activity affecting intersections will be accounted for as a temporary, not permanent, condition affecting intersection operations.

 

3.         A Council Member commented that the report lacks credibility.

 

University Response:  The response to Question 1 explains why traffic volumes have decreased at some intersections. The response to Question 2 explains why observed conditions at some intersections may be different to what the analysis in the TIA shows. The data collection protocol, analysis methodology and tools, and all other aspects of the latest report are consistent with previous reports, the TIA Guidelines established in 2001, and accepted professional practices. The University’s consultant responsible for preparing the report can be available to address any specific credibility concerns the Council may have.

 

Staff Comment:  We believe that the University’s report is prepared in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Council.  However, due to the construction activity and other reasons discussed above, we think that new traffic counts are necessary at several locations.

 

4.         A Council Member requested that the Level of Service (LOS) table be revised to include inbound (A.M.) and outbound (P.M.) service levels to reflect the relative proportion of traffic in each direction.

 

University Response:  The intersection Level of Service is reported in terms of both the average for the entire intersections and for the worst intersection approach. The worst approach is not necessarily the one with the most traffic, since LOS is also a function of the number of lanes, signal timing, etc. The University will try to present more information to respond fully to the Council’s request.

 

Staff Comment: We agree with the University’s response.

 

5.         A Council Member asked for clarification of the statement “recommended for further consideration of traffic calming devices on adjacent streets” noted in the report.

 

            University Response:  The University is presently working with Town staff and residents of streets in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus to prepare traffic calming plans. Plans have been developed for several streets listed in Table 4-15 in the TIA (Neighborhood Streets Considered for Traffic Calming Devices) and University and Town staff members met with area residents to develop acceptable traffic calming plans.

 

            Staff Comment: Traffic calming plans are provided in a separate item on tonight’s agenda for the Council’s consideration.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Town staff will review the traffic counts and analyses that will be provided by the University in fall of this year.  We will then report back to the Council with our findings and recommendations.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.                  April 10, 2005 Council Report (p. 6).

2.                  Response from the University to Council Questions (p. 32).