H Transportation Facility Planning, MD 214 from MD 468 to Eastern Terminus Public Meeting Existing Conditions 7/17/18 Q&A

Transcription

1 Q1: What are the currently planned developments and anticipated impacts? A1: Projections were presented at the meeting and are discussed in the report (available on project website). Model provided by Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) was discussed. Q2: When will the planning study be completed? What is the scheduled for completion of interim improvements? A2: The study is expected to be completed within the next couple of months. Interim improvement implementation efforts have an unknown schedule at this time. Q3: What was incorporated into traffic projections? Does this account for 1,200 new parking spaces for parks? A3: This incorporated all projected development (based on current zoning), including residential and parks parking. Q4: What s driving the increase in traffic? A4: Future projections. More detailed information can be provided either in the future conditions report or as separate information (at the time of the future conditions report or as an interim update). Q5: Can the assumptions of the model be shared? We (the communities) may want to run our own. A5: Understood. This can be provided either in the future conditions report or as separate information (at the time of the future conditions report or as an interim update). Q6: When was the data collected? What % growth was used? Please present growth rate information split by land use - residential, commercial, parks, other. A6: The parks data is provided in the Rec & Parks TIS study. Residential (OPZ estimate) and other developments apply trip generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Information on traffic data collection is below. Percent growth information and split by land use can be provided either in the future conditions report or as separate information (at the time of the future conditions report or as an interim update. 13-hour turning movement counts (6AM 7PM) collected at 7 study intersections between 11/2/17 and 11/14/17 o Weekday collection dates MD 214 at MD /2/17 1

2 MD 214 at Loch Haven Road 11/2/17 MD 214 at Selby Blvd / River Rd 11/14/17 MD 214 at Turkey Point Rd 11/2/17 MD 214 at Shoreham Beach Rd 11/2/17 MD 214 at Mayo Ave 11/8/17 Triton Beach Rd at Shoreham Beach Rd 11/8/17 o Weekend counts conducted from noon 5pm on 11/11/17 at same 7 intersections Corridor data collection using tubes at 9 locations volumes, speeds, and vehicle classification (to obtain percentages of heavy vehicles) continuous 48-hour counts between 11/14/17 and 11/15/17 o MD 214 between MD 468 and Loch Haven Rd o MD 214 between Loch Haven Rd and River Club Dr o MD 214 between River Club Dr and Selby Blvd o MD 214 between Selby Blvd and Turkey Point Rd o MD 214 between Turkey Point Rd and Shoreham Beach Rd o MD 214 between Shoreham Beach Rd and Mayo Ave o MD 214 between Mayo Ave and eastern terminus o MD 214 between Shoreham Beach Rd and Triton Beach Rd o Triton Beach Rd east of Shoreham Beach Rd Field observations (including additional info collection and measurements) conducted on 12/6/17 and 12/11/17 Police-reported crash data provided by SHA for dates between 1/1/14 and 6/30/17 Q7: When reviewing trip generation for residences, does the procedure consider parents and children all driving? A7: ITE uses 10 trips/day for single-family residential development. This is a weighted average, as ITE s procedure accounts for several different studies of sites around the United States. Q8: SHA s website indicates the following daily volumes at the MD 214 / MD 468 intersection approx. 30,000/day on weekends, approx. 27,000/day on weekdays. How do these compare with the counts from the study? A8: See below. Daily traffic volumes (Average Annual Daily Traffic AADT ) are shown below from several different MD SHA sources. AADT is estimated using actual counts, seasonal/monthly/weekday/daily variation, and weekend-vs.- weekday differences. o 2017 SHA Traffic Volume Maps MD 214 to the west of MD ,421 MD 214 to the east of MD ,491 2

3 o 2016 SHA Highway Location Reference ( MD 214 to the west of MD ,750 MD 214 to the east of MD ,010 o SHA Internet Traffic Monitoring System (itms Data MD 214 to the west of MD 468 AADT 28,421 (see info from traffic volume maps above) Weekday AADT (AAWDT) 30,411 Actual 48-hour count data from 8/2/16-8/3/16 daily average of 29,678 MD 214 to the east of MD 468 AADT 20,491 (see info from traffic volume maps above) AAWDT 21,931 Actual 48-hour count data from 7/26/16-7/27/16 daily average of 21,515 Data from our study o 24-hour mechanical count on MD 214 between MD 468 and Loch Haven Road 20,966 o MD 214 at MD hour turning movement count (6AM 7PM) 11/2/17 Total number of vehicles approaching intersection on MD 214 during count period 18,511 Q9: Mayo residents are proactive and want transparency. What can they expect going forward? A9: We ll use the best process we can. Please reach out to us if you have any questions, comments, and / or concerns. We will inform communities when additional information is posted on the project website and when more public input is requested on updates to the study. Q10: Communities have concerns about the timing of the development of the parks relative to future needs for bicyclists, shoulders, and other infrastructure improvements. A10: Three of the parks currently active. Only 1 park development is in the County s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at this time. The County has a planned CIP project for the intersection of MD 214 and Loch Haven Road, of which the final plan for the intersection will incorporate the findings of this study. Q11: How much funding is in the County CIP for improvements now? A11: Project #H575700(MD 214 at Loch Haven Road) is approved. The total project cost is $3.9M. 3

4 Q12: How will the County improve access for emergency services and response? A12: This is discussed in the existing conditions report but was not mentioned during the presentation for the sake of time. This will be further evaluated for the future conditions report. Alternative routes and connection of neighborhoods are some potential ideas that have been discussed. If a future project includes providing paved shoulders, this will provide one method of improving access and potentially response times for emergency services. Q13: Communities are passionate with concern about future development. A13: DPW does not administer development but works with other County offices who are involved in the process. Members of this project team are from those offices. Q14: How do we address industry averages for traffic demand and trip generation, and can we modify the typical industry rates applied? What would the impacts of those changes be? How does this account for GDP? A14: Industry averages are based on ITE procedures, as discussed above. However, if site-specific information is available that justifies using different rates, we can apply them, as there is no strict requirement that we must apply ITE procedures to the letter. We can apply engineering judgment and context-based information to consider local conditions. Q15: Issues have occurred in the past with trees falling across the road and gas main breaks that result in the entire road being shut down for extended periods of time. How can the County address these issues? A15: Per Q12 above, the remainder of this study will incorporate more evaluation of incident management strategies. Q16: How do the County and State work together? What is the basis of County project cost? How would this project account for stormwater management (SWM) issues? A16: For a County project on a state roadway, the County will proceed via SHA s Access Permit process, gaining the right to access the state s road for the work. The County project cost includes design, land acquisition, the construction contract, utility relocations, inspection, etc. The design and construction will have to adhere to existing laws regarding SWM, etc. Q17: Can traffic signals be installed for ultimate development? 4

5 A17: A more detailed analysis of the corridor from a traffic operations standpoint will be completed during the future conditions analysis and development of the final report. The key intersections being studied can be evaluated for feasibility of installing a traffic signal or other changes to intersection control. Q18: Roadway design is substandard will this be addressed? Does SHA have any input to provide since this is their roadway? When sewer came in, residents were told road improvements would be implemented to keep up with development will this still occur? What is the width of the right-of-way (ROW) along the road) A18: Roadway design deficiencies have been assessed through efforts so far in this study and will be evaluated in more detail with potential improvement recommendations in the future conditions report. The County has established this roadway as a priority through a priority letter to SHA. ROW width varies throughout the corridor. Q19: Are the SHA / County addressing climate change issues through this project, including those related to flooding? A19: SHA and County DPW do not have dedicated programs related to climate change, but they incorporate climate change concerns into project development and designs. Q20: Are studies being done to evaluate flooding? How can the road be improved to minimize the occurrence of icy road surfaces? A20: The study includes an evaluation of drainage and flooding issues but does not include a numerical analysis. We are recording locations of recurring standing water, flooding, drainage issues, overtopping of the road during storms, and previous studies that have evaluated sufficiency of existing facilities related to SWM. The final study will include recommendations on managing drainage-related issues, which will by default indirectly consider occurrence of icy conditions. Q21: Why develop parks if the infrastructure isn t in place? A21: Three parks are already open and operating. 5