Report: Applied Transportation Studio - Site Planning and Traffic Impact - Campus Pointe

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Site Plan Design ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Central Spine ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Street Network .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Nodes of Activity ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Green Areas .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Residential................................................................................................................................................. 3 Retail/Restaurants ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Office ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Hotel and Conference Center .................................................................................................................... 4 Pedestrian Accommodations ......................................................................................................................... 6 Plaza .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Entertainment District ............................................................................................................................... 7 North Recreational Area ........................................................................................................................... 7 Cut-Through Locations ............................................................................................................................. 7 Cross-Sections........................................................................................................................................... 7 Transit ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Parking Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Uses to be Accommodated ...................................................................................................................... 12 Methodology for Parking Calculations ................................................................................................... 12 Parking Ratio Selection........................................................................................................................... 12 Time-of-Day Patterns.............................................................................................................................. 13 Monthly Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Mode Split............................................................................................................................................... 14 Noncaptive Adjustment .......................................................................................................................... 15 Total Parking Demand ............................................................................................................................ 16 Parking Scenarios.................................................................................................................................... 18 Parking by Area ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Entertainment District ......................................................................................................................... 18 North Residential District ................................................................................................................... 19 North Office/CafĂŠ District .................................................................................................................. 20 West Residential District .................................................................................................................... 21 Hotel and Conference Center District ................................................................................................. 22

Â

Traffic Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 23 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 24 Horizon Year ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Internal Capture ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Pass-By Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Access Points .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Redistribution .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Improvements ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Larger Issues to Consider........................................................................................................................ 33 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Modifications for Consideration ................................................................................................................. 35 Building/Use Placement.......................................................................................................................... 35 Parking .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Pedestrian Connectivity .......................................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 39 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................. 54 Base 2010 ................................................................................................................................................ 60 Base 2015 ................................................................................................................................................ 65 Base 2015 with Additional Trips ............................................................................................................ 70 Base 2015 with Additional Trips Redistributed ...................................................................................... 76 Base 2015 with Additional Trips Redistributed and Improvements ....................................................... 85

List of Figures Figure 1: Site plan. ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Land uses. ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Pedestrian spaces. ......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Location of cross-section for residential/retail with median. ....................................................... 7 Figure 5: Cross-section for residential/retail with median. .......................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Location of cross-section for plaza/office area. ............................................................................ 8 Figure 7: Cross-section for plaza/office area. .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 8: Location of cross-section for residential area with median. .......................................................... 9 Figure 9: Cross-section for residential area with median. .......................................................................... 10 Figure 10: Bus pull-out near parking garage. ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 11: Bus route through site. .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 12: Weekday parking demand at Campus Pointe. .......................................................................... 17 Figure 13: Weekend parking demand at Campus Pointe. .......................................................................... 17 Figure 14: Entertainment district. .............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 15: North residential district. .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 16: North office/café district. .......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 17: West residential district. ........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 18: Hotel and conference center district. ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 19: Proposed Campus Pointe location. ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 20: A majority of the area considered in the internal capture analysis. .......................................... 26 Figure 21: Access point locations. ............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 22: New lane configuration proposed for the intersection of University/Polo. .............................. 32 Figure 23: Lane configuration change proposed for the intersection of Texas/Hensel.............................. 33 Figure 24: Land use modifications for consideration. ............................................................................... 36

List of Tables

Table 1: Lane Uses to Accommodate Parking ........................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Parking Ratios and Unadjusted Parking Spaces for Weekday and Weekends ............................ 13 Table 3: Adjustment Factor for Month of April with College Station Estimate ......................................... 14 Table 4: Mode Adjustment ........................................................................................................................ 15 Table 5: Noncaptive Adjustment Factors ................................................................................................... 16 Table 6: Parking Scenario – Supply and Demand ..................................................................................... 18 Table 7: Entertainment District Parking Supply and Demand ................................................................... 18 Table 8: North Residential District Parking Supply and Demand .............................................................. 20 Table 9: North Residential District Parking Supply and Demand ............................................................. 20 Table 10: West Residential District Parking Supply and Demand ............................................................ 21 Table 11: Hotel and Conference Center District Parking Supply and Demand ......................................... 22 Table 12: Study Area Intersections ............................................................................................................ 24 Table 13: Land Uses and Trips Generated Prior to Internal Capture and Pass-By .................................... 25 Table 14: Number of Trips Generated After Considering Internal Capture .............................................. 27 Table 15: Pass-By Trips Calculated for Campus Pointe ............................................................................ 27 Table 16: Number of Trips Needing to be Distributed .............................................................................. 27 Table 17: Measures of Effectiveness for Signalized Intersections ............................................................ 30 Table 18: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization ......................................................................... 31 Table 19: Unsignalized Access Point Intersection Capacity Utilization .................................................... 31

Introduction Campus Pointe is located on the northeast corner of the intersection at University Drive and South College Avenue. The site currently contains married student housing, however there are plans for redevelopment. We were tasked with designing a site plan that incorporates a mixture of uses, pedestrian and transit accommodations, a parking plan, and a traffic impact analysis.

This report is broken into the following six sections: Site Plan Design: Provides details on the layout and evolution of how the site was designed.

Land Uses: Presents the details and locations of each type of land use on the site.

Pedestrian: Discusses how pedestrians can access the site and move through it once on location.

Transit: Discusses how each of the modes of transportation are incorporated and encouraged.

Parking Plan: Provides a detailed analysis of the parking demand. This section also discusses the location of parking areas.

Traffic Impact Analysis: Details the impact the site will have on traffic, and provides details on how this could be mitigated.

Site Plan Design This section presents a discussion of the site layout and the theory behind it. Details on the “central spine,” street network, nodes of activity, and green areas are provided. The site is designed so that each area compliments its surroundings. Refer to Appendix A for the flow of ideas contributing to the site design process. Figure 1 provides an image of our final site plan.

Figure 1: Site plan.

Central Spine Campus Pointe was developed around a “central spine.” The central spine of the development begins at the corner of University Drive and S. College and extends to the center of the development. The spine is oriented in such a way that people going to and from the university can have a more direct route. Upon entering the site, the central spine leads pedestrians directly into the Plaza. After determining the spine was of major importance to the site, buildings were placed in such a way to compliment this corridor. The central spine is meant for only pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Street Network The site is designed in such a way as to accommodate multiple modes of transportation. In order to design around the central spine and plaza, we developed a large curvilinear street that takes traffic into the site and distributes them accordingly. The large curvilinear street has four openings for people to access the grid network that exists on the edges of the site. This design encourages people to enter the site and then disperses them throughout. Within the grid network the block sizes are small in order to promote accessibility and pedestrian movement.

Nodes of Activity Campus Pointe was designed to foster multiple nodes of activity. Figure 1 displays black dots located on the site and these are the nodes of activity. It can be seen that three nodes form the central spine of the site. The nodes of activity guided the placement of particular uses within the site.

Green Areas In order to have a healthy population it is important to have areas of recreation. Within the site the northeastern corner has been dedicated to recreation.

2

This area is located along the same central spine line. People can enter the site, traverse the central spine, and access the area of recreation.

Land Uses When developing Campus Pointe we were tasked with accommodating a mixture of uses. The site needed to be laid out in such a way that each use was optimally located. This section discusses each use and provides a map on the location of these items.

Residential There are 792 apartment units on the site. On the west wing on the site there are 40 townhomes.

The residential units are designated by both yellow and orange colors. The yellow indicates that residential is the only use in the building. Orange indicates that the bottom floor is retail. The residential units on the east side of the site have four total floors, with a portion of the first floor being retail. This area contains 600 residential units at approximately 800 square feet a unit.

This residential area contains its own 900 parking stall garage.

There are 192 apartment units on the west side of the site. These are four story buildings with ground level retail. This area has its own surface parking and stalls reserved in the adjacent parking garage to the east. The west wing of the site contains 40 townhomes. These townhomes are approximately 2,000 square feet each and have two stories. These townhomes have ample on-street parking available.

Retail/Restaurants Retail stores and restaurants are located throughout the site. The ground floor of the apartments on the west side of the site plan contains 25,600 square feet of restaurant related business. The idea of having restaurants in this location is to provide people on-campus with nearby restaurants. These restaurants would be upscale fast-food restaurants (similar to a Chipotle).

Intermixed with the restaurants would be 25,600 square feet of retail. This location is strategic for gaining student patrons, because it is very accessible from campus.

The other residential area contains ground level retail on its main frontage road. This is about 22,400 square feet of retail, dedicated mainly clothing and specialty stores. The reason for not having restaurants in this location is because of the adjacent eateries.

The southeast corner of the site contains many of the entertainment uses. This area is called the “Entertainment District.” This district contains a 40,000 square foot movie theater. The movie theater has about 1,250 seats and 6 screens. On the north side of the movie theater is a 40,000 square foot bowling alley. The placement of these uses was chosen because of the visibility this area has from University Drive. We felt that the nearness to the major thoroughfare would be beneficial in attracting patrons. To the west of the movie theater and bowling alley are two large restaurants. These restaurants are 15,000 square feet apiece. These restaurants are located near the bowling alley and movie theater, so people can easily have dinner and a movie or go bowling.

3

Located on the ground level of the office buildings within the “horseshoe” is 123,500 square feet of retail. This retail is divided into 41,167 square feet of family restaurant, 41,167 of upscale fast food, and 41,167 of shopping. These shopping and restaurant uses will provide the office tenants with the opportunity to shop and eat lunch without having to drive.

Northeast of the horseshoe there are two 10,500 square feet buildings meant to serve as cafés, coffee shops, or bars. These buildings are located at an important intersection and will receive much pass-by traffic from people who live to the east and people travelling through for other purposes. These buildings are angled so that much activity is generated at the corner. The area is meant to have patio seating and nice landscaping.

North of the horseshoe and south of the new married student housing there is a 10,000 square foot building with surface parking. This building is to be a small grocery store. This store will have fresh produce and other essentials. It is placed near the center of the development so residents to the north, east, and west can access the grocery store very easily.

Office The horseshoe contains two floors of office above retail. This is approximately 247,000 square feet of office space. The office space is located in such a way that office employees can eat lunch and enjoy break times in the plaza area. The office space is broken into four quadrants and each is assigned to a specific parking garage within the site.

Hotel and Conference Center The hotel is located near the center of the development. Two portions of the building are seven floors and the other portion is six floors. The building is designed to be attractive and a nice center piece to the development. The hotel has 300 rooms. The conference center is located directly to the southwest. Pedestrian paths make these two buildings seem as if they were connected. The conference center is nearer to the University because many of the conferences hosted in the center will be University based. There will be several people walking from campus to the conference center and this location is convenient for these patrons. The conference center is approximately 30,000 square feet and one story tall. Figure 2 shows the land uses for the site.

4

Figure 2: Land uses.

5

Pedestrian Accommodations The site was designed in such a way to accommodate pedestrian mobility and activity. The site is adjacent to Texas A&M University and will likely be the home of University affiliates. Thus, sidewalks are along every street and are at least 10 feet in width. These wide sidewalks can also accommodate bicyclists. In order to provide optimal pedestrian flow through the site from west to east, the central spine begins at the corner of University and S. College Main. The central spine provided a guide for the development of the rest of the site plan. Figure 3 provides the site plan with all of the sidewalks in brown and the purple areas are patio spaces.

Figure 3: Pedestrian spaces.

Plaza The plaza has a minimum of 20-foot sidewalks throughout. The wide sidewalks are meant to accommodate large volumes of pedestrian traffic back and forth between the conference center and hotel, and also between Texas A&M and the site. Adjacent to the conference center there are larger sidewalks to accommodate gatherings of people before and after the conference.

Benches are located on the sidewalks throughout the plaza area. The plaza is part of the development’s central spine and handles crucial movement throughout the site.

6

Entertainment District The entertainment district has 10-foot sidewalks outside of the buildings; however, in between the movie theater and the restaurant nearest University Drive there is a large pedestrian mall.

This has been incorporated to accommodate people standing in front of the movie theater waiting in line for ticket purchase or people walking from the restaurant to the movie theater. The pedestrian mall can accommodate small live music performances or street vendors. Each of the restaurants within the Entertainment District has a large patio area. These patio areas are meant to create a unique dining experience and also provide patrons street life access.

North Recreational Area The northeast corner of the site has been dedicated to a recreation area. This area also has a water feature that is to serve the site as a retention pond. This area is the most peaceful location on the site and people can jog, play Frisbee, or enjoy other recreational activities.

Cut-Through Locations The center of our site is characterized by a large horseshoe design. In order to allow pedestrians to move freely through this horseshoe row of buildings, three cut-through points have been created. These cut-through points are evenly distributed so pedestrians can move through the development with ease.

Cross­Sections In order to display the major street types and pedestrian areas within the site, cross-sections have been developed. The first cross-section shows a main street with a median. The street has parallel parking and 20 feet between the building frontage and the road. This 20 feet is meant to serve as the pedestrian realm and may contain intermittent landscape features, such as planters.

Figure 4 shows the location of the cross-section with median. Figure 5 provides a graphic of how this street could look.

Figure 4: Location of cross-section for residential/retail with median.

7

Figure 5: Cross-section for residential/retail with median.

A second cross-section has been developed to show the street within the horseshoe, adjacent to the plaza. This area is pedestrian focused and the 20-foot sidewalks on each side of the street reflect this. Figure 6 provides the location of the plaza/office area cross-section and Figure 7 shows the detailed widths associated with this street.

Figure 6: Location of cross-section for plaza/office area.

8

Figure 7: Cross-section for plaza/office area.

The final cross-section is located in the northern residential district. This cross-section has a large pedestrian realm and contains a small lawn area in front of the building. Each building has a sidewalk leading into the building, but this cannot be seen in the cross-section. The lawn area can be used for dog walking or landscaping. The cross-section shows the ground level retail in one of the buildings. The pedestrian friendly environment is beneficial for this retail location.

Figure 8 shows the location of the residential cross-section. Figure 9 shows the cross-section of the residential area street.

Figure 8: Location of cross-section for residential area with median.

9

Figure 9: Cross-section for residential area with median.

Transit Transit incorporation into a multi-use development is critical. To add to the appeal of Campus Pointe, a Texas A&M University bus route is anticipated to run through the site. Figure 10 shows a pullout designed for easy bus loading. The pullout is located adjacent to a parking garage that is partially designed for student parking. Thus, students can park their car and conveniently catch the bus to campus.

Figure 10: Bus pull-out near parking garage.

10

Another bus stop within the site is situated in the periphery of the supermarket parking lot.

Because the supermarket parking lot has two access points, the bus can easily pull in and out of the parking lot. Having a transit stop located near the supermarket helps add to the marketability of the site. It allows for pedestrians living in the nearby residential units to go grocery shopping at their own convenience and not have to worry about carrying heavy groceries home without a vehicle. Additionally, the supermarket bus stop helps to connect the townhomes located in the northwest corner of the site. As shown in Figure 1, the bus route continues on from the supermarket to the townhome area. The design of the townhome area makes for easy bus circulation. After servicing the townhomes the bus will continue down S. College towards campus. Figure 11 shows the anticipated bus route through the site.

Figure 11: Bus route through site.

11

Parking Plan Introduction When developing a site plan it is important to consider where and how much parking is necessary within different areas of the site. The Campus Pointe development is to be a mixeduse development with an urban feel. College Station has a very autocentric culture and this must be taken into account when developing parking. At the same time, it is important to not overbuild for parking because this would lead to unnecessary costs. Mixed-use developments have the potential to share much of its available parking. Many of the businesses won’t be in use during specific times of the day. This allows parking to be shared by those businesses that are open during the time of day the other is closed. For example, if a movie theater needs 300 parking stalls during the evening from 6:00pm-12:00am and an office needs 300 parking stalls from 8:00am-5:00pm, these stalls can be shared because they are in use during different times of the day.

This parking plan for Campus Pointe presents the parking needs of the development. The source of information for determining the amount of parking needed for the development was derived from Shared Parking by Mary S. Smith of the Urban Land Institute.

Uses to be Accommodated Campus Pointe is to be a mixed-use development incorporating residential, retail, office, and entertainment. Table 1 provides the breakdown of each type of land use incorporated into the development.

Table 1: Lane Uses to Accommodate Parking Land Use Entertainment – Bowling Alley Entertainment – Cinema Family Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant / Café / Coffee Shop Office Space Shopping Residential

Size 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet – 1,250 seats / 6 screens 71,167 square feet 87,767 square feet 247,000 square feet 76,767 792 units

Different land uses require different amounts of parking. Because of the variety of land uses, opportunities exist for a degree of shared parking.

Methodology for Parking Calculations The amount of parking needed for the Campus Pointe development is based on ratios provided in Shared Parking. This section will discuss the ratios and adjustment factors used in finding the necessary amount of parking for the development.

Parking Ratio Selection As mentioned previously, each land use requires a certain amount of parking. Shared Parking provided ratios for a variety of uses.

12

The uses provided in Shared Parking closely matched the uses planned for Campus Pointe; however, the parking ratios that required discretion were the office space ratio and convention space ratio. Several different types of office buildings and convention spaces require different levels of parking. When developing the site plan, we decided our office buildings would be near 100,000 square feet apiece; therefore, the office parking ratio was 3.15 spaces per thousand square feet of office space. The convention space ratio was chosen because of the description of the planned convention space. The convention space is not to act as a full convention center so the ratio provided on “convention space” was used for the calculations. The convention space calculation provides more parking spaces per thousand square feet; therefore, if more people attend a conference that are not also staying at the hotel, there is plenty of parking available.

Once the ratios are applied to the quantity of land use, the unadjusted parking spaces are calculated. Table 2 provides the parking ratios used in the parking calculations.

Table 2: Parking Ratios and Unadjusted Parking Spaces for Weekday and Weekends

Land Use Community Shopping Center Employee Family Restaurant Employee Fast‐Food Restaurant Employee Cineplex Employee Hotel‐ Business Employee Convention Space Residential, Visitor Tenant Office Employee

Quantity of Land Use

Base Ratio

99167

2.9

99167

0.7

71167

9

71167

1.5

WEEKDAYS Unadjusted Parking Units Spaces /ksf GLA

/ksf GLA /ksf GLA

/seat

/roo m

/ksf GLA

Base Ratio

288

3.2

69

0.3

641

12.75

107

2.25

1,119

12

197 238 13

2 0.26 0.01

300

0.9

75

0.18

600

10

WEEKENDS Unadjusted Parking Units Spaces /ksf GLA

/ksf GLA

/ksf GLA

/seat

/roo m

/ksf GLA

317 30 907 160 1,053

87767

12.75

87767 1250 1250

2.25 0.19 0.01

300

1

300

0.25

30000

20

792

0.15

/unit

119

0.15

/unit

119

792

1.5

1,188

1.5

0.25

62

0.03

247000

3.15

778

0.32

/ksf GLA

1,188

247000

/ksf GLA

176 325 13 270 54 300

7 79

Time-of-Day Patterns Each land use requires a different amount of parking depending on the time of day. This is very apparent in uses such as restaurants or office space.

13

These uses are very cyclical based on time of day. A restaurant will have its peak parking period around meal times, between 11:00am-1:00pm and 6:00pm-8:00pm. Offices will have their peak parking period between 8:00am and 5:00pm on a weekday. Shared Parking provides the necessary time-of-day usage percentages for each of the Campus Pointe land uses. To see the time-of-day percentages used for parking calculations refer to Appendix B.

Monthly Patterns The variation in parking demand is largely determined by the time of year. For example, shopping centers typically have a higher demand for parking during the Christmas shopping season. Our team was tasked with developing a parking plan for the month of April. The Shared Parking book provides the average adjustment factors for all land uses and each month.

The adjustment factors provided by Shared Parking for the month of April do not match what actually occurs in a college town. College Station’s peak parking demand is assumed to occur while school is in session. December is more than likely the peak period for shopping, but for eating and hotel utilization the fall and spring semester see higher demand than summer months due to Texas A&M activities. Thus, the adjustment factors for the month of April were changed to reflect a more realistic estimate for the month of April in College Station. Table 3 provides the Shared Parking adjustments and our estimated adjustment factors for College Station.

Table 3: Adjustment Factor for Month of April with College Station Estimate Shared Parking April Adjustment 63% 80% 92% 100% 92% 93% 90% 100% 100%

Estimated College Station April Adjustment Shopping Center 80% Employee 90% Family Restaurant 92% Employee 100% Fast Food 100% Employee 100% Hotel‐Business 100% Employee 100% Office 100% Source: Shared Parking by Mary S. Smith and estimated numbers Land Use

Mode Split When determining how many parking stalls are needed for a development, an assumption on the number of people walking, biking, or riding transit to the development must be made. Shared Parking provides adjustment factors for these modes; however, we feel that these numbers do not reflect what a development of this type could actually attract in College Station. Campus Pointe is located adjacent to the Texas A&M University and will be a pedestrian friendly environment.

These reasons lead us to believe that a higher number people accessing the site will be utilizing non-motorized transportation and transit modes.

14

Table 4 provides the adjustment factors recommended by Shared Parking and also the estimated adjustment factor College Station may obtain.

Table 4: Mode Adjustment Land Use

Type

Shopping Center

Family Restaurant

Fast Food

Hotel‐Business

Office Office

Customer Employee Customer Employee Customer Employee Guest Employee Visitor Employee

Shared Parking Mode Adjustment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 66% 100% 100% 100%

Estimated College Station Mode Adjustment 90% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 66% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Shared Parking by Mary S. Smith and estimated numbers For a use with an 80% mode adjustment, 20% of the patrons use a mode other than an automobile to reach the destination. The numbers estimated for College Station are fairly conservative. We believe that these uses adjacent to Texas A&M have the potential to have a much higher mode split. In order to prevent underestimating the needed parking, conservative mode adjustment numbers have been chosen.

Noncaptive Adjustment According to Shared Parking, within a mixed-use development there are a certain number of people who travel to the site, park, and visit several different uses. This type of patron would be known as a captive patron. A noncaptive patron is someone who travels to the site, parks, visits one place, then leaves the site. The larger number of captive patrons would decrease the number of parking spaces necessary on the site. Shared Parking provides adjustment factors for noncaptive patrons of a site. Table 5 provides the adjustment factors used to determine the number of noncaptive patrons at Campus Pointe.

15

Table 5: Noncaptive Adjustment Factors Land Use Shopping Center‐Typical

Family Restaurant

Fast Food

Hotel‐Business

Office Office

Type Customer Employee Customer Employee Customer Employee Guest Employee Visitor Employee

Shared Parking Adjustment 90% 100% 85% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Shared Parking by Mary S. Smith and estimated numbers

Total Parking Demand After applying the adjustment factors to the original unadjusted parking demand numbers, the total parking demand for the site was determined. Figures 12 and 13 provide graphics of the weekday and weekend parking usage based on the time of day, April adjustment, noncaptive patron adjustment, and mode adjustment.

16

Weekday Demand 4000 3500 3000

Office

2500

Residential

2000

Convention Space Hotel‐Business

1500

Cineplex

1000

Fast Food

500

Family Restaurant

0 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM

Shopping Center

Figure 12: Weekday parking demand at Campus Pointe.

Weekend Demand 3500 3000 Office

2500

Residential

2000

Convention Space

1500

Hotel

1000

Cineplex Fast Food

500

Family Resaurant

0 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM

Shopping Center

Figure 13: Weekend parking demand at Campus Pointe.

17

Parking Scenarios The above parking calculations discussed in the previous section reflect the results of obtaining a fairly conservative mode split adjustment. Though this scenario is conservative, there is a chance that this mode split will not be obtained. Thus, two scenarios have been figured. One of the scenarios reflects aggressive mode split assumptions (the calculations mentioned above) and the other scenario reflects the needed parking stalls if everyone drives. Table 6 provides the total number of spaces needed for each scenario at the peak period and the total number available.

Table 6: Parking Scenario – Supply and Demand Scenario Aggressive Conservative

Demand 3,857 (1:00pm on Weekday) 4,120 (1:00pm on Weekday)

Available 4,045 4,045

In the site plan we designed for the more aggressive parking scenario. However, parking at Campus Pointe is largely reliant on parking garages and in order to accommodate more total space additional floors could be added to specific garages. We believe the aggressive scenario provides ample parking – and believe that on average there would be about 10% extra spaces at the peak period of the day. The numbers only reflect a 5% cushion currently, but we believe the mode adjustment is very conservative. In order to see a breakdown of needed spaces by use for each peak period scenario refer to Appendix B.

Parking by Area In order to determine if ample parking was available for different areas within the site, the site was divided into five divisions. This section of the report details parking availability and shared parking scenarios within the five different divisions.

Entertainment District

The entertainment district contains the movie theater, bowling alley, and two large family restaurants. Also, parking within the parking garage will be dedicated to the nearest office tenants within the west office building. The parking garage will be six stories and have 600 parking stalls. There are also 133 on-street stalls, and 26 surface stalls. The peak demand for this area is at 1:00pm on the weekend and 680 stalls are needed. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the stalls needed during the peak periods during weekdays and weekends. It should be noted that there are more than 10% leftover stalls during both time periods. Figure 14 provides the outline of the area in which parking is provided.

Table 7: Entertainment District Parking Supply and Demand Time Period Weekday Peak Weekend Peak

Stalls Used 624 (12:00pm) 680 (1:00pm)

Available 759 759

18

Left Over 135 79

Figure 14: Entertainment district.

During the week there are additional spaces between 8:00am-5:00pm. About 100 parking stalls could be leased to students and revenue could be generated. After 5:00pm parking for students and office tenants could be opened to the general public. Appendix B contains a complete breakdown of the parking used.

North Residential District

The North Residential District contains 600 residential units and 22,400 square feet of retail.

The parking garage is six stories and contains 900 parking stalls for the residents. There are also 119 spaces located on the adjacent streets, with about 25 more on-street stalls further north of this area. Table 8 provides a breakdown of the stalls needed during the peak periods on weekdays and weekends. During the peak periods, there are not an extra 10% of spaces available. In order to accommodate this, an extra floor can be added to the garage, and the bottom floor could be dedicated to retail parking. This would create about 150 extra spaces.

However, it should be noted that the peak period of this district is not the same as the peak period of Campus Pointe. This means there are extra parking stalls throughout the site that could be utilized if this district reaches full capacity. Appendix B contains a complete breakdown of the parking used in this district. Figure 15 provides the outline of the area in which parking is provided.

19

Table 8: North Residential District Parking Supply and Demand Time Period Weekday Peak Weekend Peak

Stalls Used 1006 (8:00pm) 1004 (1:00pm)

Available 1044 1044

Left Over 38 40

Figure 15: North residential district.

North Office/Café District

The North Office/Café District contains 61,750 square feet of office space, 10,300 square feet of shopping, and about 31,300 square of restaurant related businesses. The parking garage has five stories and 500 parking stalls. There are 48 on-street parking stalls. Table 9 provides a breakdown of the stalls needed during the peak periods on weekdays and weekends.

Appendix B contains a complete breakdown of the parking used in this district. Figure 16 provides the outline of the area in which parking is provided.

Table 9: North Residential District Parking Supply and Demand Time Period Stalls Used Available Left Over Weekday Peak 520 (12:00pm) 548 28 Weekend Peak 378 (12:00pm) 548 170

20

Figure 16: North office/café district.

The weekend parking demand is significantly less than weekday parking demand. The office parking available on the weekend causes this. It should be noted that the office parking is available after 5:00pm on weekdays as well. Because of the availability of parking during specific time periods, this parking should be open to the public. The nearby coffee shops, cafes, and bars will be able to utilize this space.

West Residential District

The West Residential District contains 192 residential units, 61,750 square feet of office space, about 36,000 square feet of shopping, and about 46,000 square feet of restaurant related business.

The parking garage is six stories with about 600 parking stalls. There are about 100 on-street parking stalls and 70 surface stalls. Table 10 provides a breakdown of the stalls needed during the peak periods on weekdays and weekends. Appendix B contains a complete breakdown of the parking used in this district. Figure 17 provides the outline of the area in which parking is provided.

Table 10: West Residential District Parking Supply and Demand Time Period Weekday Peak Weekend Peak

Stalls Used 766 (1:00pm) 605 (7:00pm)

Available 770 770 21

Left Over 4 165

Figure 17: West residential district.

On the weekend the parking used by the office tenants will be available for public use. It should be noted that the weekday supply of parking does not provide 10% extra spaces during the peak period. In order to accommodate the 10% cushion, extra surface spaces could be distributed in the open area northeast of the parking garage.

Hotel and Conference Center District

The Hotel and Conference Center District contains 10,300 square feet of shopping, 20,600 square feet of restaurant related business, a 300 room hotel, and 30,000 square feet of conference space. The parking garage is five stories tall with 750 parking stalls. There are about 222 onstreet parking stalls and 85 surface stalls. Table 11 provides a breakdown of the stalls needed during the peak periods on weekdays and weekends. Appendix B contains a complete breakdown of the parking used in this district. Figure 18 provides the outline of the area in which parking is provided.

Table 11: Hotel and Conference Center District Parking Supply and Demand Time Period Weekday Peak Weekend Peak

Stalls Used 1,032 (11:00am) 624 (12:00pm)

22

Available 1,057 1,057

Left Over 25 433

Figure 18: Hotel and conference center district.

The hotel and conference center present a shared parking opportunity. The above figures do not show the shared parking possibility. If people attending the conference are also staying at the hotel, the same parking spaces used for the hotel guest can be used for the conference attendees.

Assuming that 50 percent of the people staying at the hotel are also attending the conference the associated parking reduction for the conference would be 150 parking stalls. This would reduce the overall parking demand to 882 during the peak. The public can utilize the abundance of parking in this district during the weekend. The entertainment district would benefit from having access to these extra spaces.

Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction Campus Pointe is a proposed mixed-use development located just north of the main campus of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. The bordering roads to the site include South College Main, University Drive, and Texas Avenue. Currently student housing exists on the site.

However, plans are underway for a mixed-use development that includes a hotel, conference center, office buildings, retail, restaurants, new residential, and entertainment. The purpose of this report is to analyze the potential traffic impact of the proposed development and to make suggestions on how potential traffic can be mitigated. Figure 19 is an image of the existing site, and includes labels for the intersections included in the study area for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).

23

7

6

5

4

1

3 2

Figure 19: Proposed Campus Pointe location.

The name of each of these intersections is given in Table 12. Although this study area is smaller than would normally be anticipated for a proposed development of this magnitude, it is considered adequate given the available traffic volume counts and scope of the assignment.

Table 12: Study Area Intersections Intersection Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Name of Intersection South College/Hensel South College/University University/Moore University/Polo University/Texas Texas/Hensel Texas/Rosemary

Existing Conditions The base level for analysis is April 2010. Previous volume counts at these major intersections were obtained from Ben Sperry, a PhD student. Traffic volumes for 2010 were calculated assuming a 2% growth rate—a common assumption for a TIA in a city like College Station.

This assumption was reached after attempting to obtain a more accurate growth rate based on a linear regression of previous years’ volume counts. However, linear regressions for multiple intersections yielded a negative growth rate—not a valid value for use in a TIA. PM Peak Hour vehicle counts were available for all of the intersections within the study area, excluding the

24

intersection of University and South College. Vehicle traffic counts for this intersection were generated using an algorithm.

The traffic impact of Campus Pointe traffic is being analyzed for the weekday PM peak period of the study site, which was determined to be from 5-6 pm. Study area characteristics, such as lane geometries and signal timings were obtained using either Google Earth or through field observation. Subsequently, this data, along with the grown vehicle counts was entered into Synchro. Synchro is a micro-simulation software tool that allows measures of effectiveness, such as level of service (LOS) and delay to be analyzed. The reports created in Synchro under each considered condition can be found in Appendix C.

Horizon Year The 2010 traffic volume data were further grown at a rate of 2% to April 2015—the anticipated date of full build-out. This allowed for a comparison between the no-build condition and the anticipated traffic effect from the Campus Pointe development.

Trip Generation The number of trips generated by the site was determined using ITE Trip Generation, 8th edition, which contains values obtained through data collection from sites across the country. The distribution of trips entering and exiting the site was obtained in like manner. The decision on whether to use a supplied equation or a given average rate was made using recommendations outlined in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition. Table 13 gives a breakdown of the land uses designated in the design of our Campus Pointe project, as well as the total number of trips generated by each land use prior to the consideration of internal capture and pass-by trips.

Table 13: Land Uses and Trips Generated Prior to Internal Capture and Pass-By Land Use Apartments Rental Townhouse Bowling Alley Movie Theater without Matinee Quality Restaurant Cafes/Fast Food Supermarket Apparel General Office Building Hotel/Conference Center Miniature Golf Course

Amount 792 dwelling units 40 dwelling units 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 71,167 square feet 87,767 square feet 10,000 square feet 89,167 square feet 247,000 square feet 300 rooms 9 holes

25

# of Trips Generated 453 29 142

Entering 295 15 50

Exiting 158 14 92

246 533 1,688 151 342

231 357 810 77 171

15 176 878 74 171

355 177 3 4,119

69 94 1 2,170

295 83 2 1,958

Internal Capture Given the mixed-use nature of Campus Pointe, it is logical that some trips will be made within the site—meaning that they do not constitute external trips. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition outlines the procedure for determining how many trips are captured internally based on the different land uses and their proximity. The more land uses involved in the internal capture calculation, the more complicated the procedure becomes. Thus, for simplicity’s sake, internal capture analysis was performed for the retail, residential, and office land uses shown in Figure 20, in addition to the residential units adjacent to the residential units shown in the upper right hand corner of the figure. The original idea was to have the internal capture area being considered encompass a 1,200 feet by 1,200 feet of area. However, all residential units in the northeast corner of the site were included in the internal capture analysis, even though some of the units fell just outside of the pre-established internal capture boundary because it was assumed that all residents in this area would generate internal trips at a similar rate.

Figure 20: A majority of the area considered in the internal capture analysis.

In using the internal capture chart, which can be viewed in Appendix C, a total trip reduction of 7 percent was calculated for the site. Table 14 shows the total number of external trips the site is estimated to generate after accounting for internal capture. This value is conservative. A higher reduction from internal capture could be obtained by including more land uses in the internal

26

capture rate calculations, or combining the internal capture rates for different segments of the site.

Table 14: Number of Trips Generated After Considering Internal Capture

From Internal Capture Portion Not From Internal Capture Portion Total # of Trips Generated

Entering 1,410

Exiting 1,227

Total 2,637

661 2,071

470 1,697

1,131 3,768

Pass­By Trips In addition to internally captured trips, some trips entering and exiting the site are pass-by trips— meaning that they involve vehicles that were already on the roadway system prior to the development of the site. Thus, pass-by trips still enter and exit the access points of the site, but are not added onto existing roadway volumes. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, was used in determining the percent pass-by for available land uses. Table 15 shows the pass-by trips that were calculated based on available data. These pass-by trip values are likely conservative because land uses other than supermarket and quality restaurant undoubtedly include some pass-by trips.

Table 15: Pass-By Trips Calculated for Campus Pointe Supermarket Quality Restaurant

Pass‐By Percentages Calculated # of Generated Trips # of Pass‐By Trips % Entering 36% 151 54 51 50% 533 266 67

% Exiting 49 33

# of Pass‐By Entering # of Pass‐By Exiting 28 26 178 88 206 114

Subtracting these pass-by trips from the number of external trips calculated to be generated after considering internal capture, gives us the number of entering and exiting generated trips used in the trip distribution process. The pass-by trips are simply added onto the access point volumes.

Table 16 gives the breakdown of trips needing to be distributed.

Table 16: Number of Trips Needing to be Distributed Entering 1,865

Exiting 1,583

Total 3,448

Access Points Figure 21 shows the location of access points for the proposed Campus Pointe development. The educational version of Syncrho is only able to analyze ten intersections at a time. Thus, access point 5 and the intersection of University/Moore were deleted from the analysis process because it was assumed that because few trips were distributed to these locations, there was not a need to worry about level of service and delay issues at these locations.

27

Access Point 7

Access Point 2 Access Point 6 Access Point 3

Access Point 1

Access Point 5 Access Point 4

Figure 21: Access point locations.

Trip Distribution For the trip distribution process, engineering judgment was used in choosing what percentage of entering trips originated from where and what percentage of exiting trips were attracted to where.

These percentages were then used in assigning the route and driveway vehicles used to enter and exit the site. Once the volumes were distributed, the appropriate number of trips was added to existing 2015 volume counts at the intersections. The new intersection volumes were then entered into Syncrho. Sketches showing the trip distribution process can be found in Appendix C.

Redistribution Upon viewing the Synchro results obtained using the first distribution attempt, the trips were redistributed in an effort to help mitigate southbound (SB) left-turning issues at the intersection of University/Polo. This mitigation technique was based on the logic that with the high level of delay being experienced at University/Polo, several vehicles would attempt to avoid this congestion by using the access point located at Texas/Hensel. The redistribution also attempted to help equalize the number of vehicles entering the three access points located on S. College.

This redistribution effort can be viewed in Appendix C.

28

Table 17 shows the approach level of service (LOS) and approach delay for signalized intersections within the study area for the five different Synchro runs performed. Similarly, Table 18 and Table 19 show the intersection capacity levels for the unsignalized intersections and additional access points respectively. Note that the last category includes the effect of improvements made to the intersections to help accommodate the additional site demand. These improvements, as well as other suggested forms of mitigation, are discussed in the next section of the report.

29Â Â

Table 17: Measures of Effectiveness for Signalized Intersections

2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed 2015 With Additional Trips 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements

2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

S. College/University EB WB Total Intersection Max v/c Ratio Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 112.5 83.8 sec 40.8 sec 62.8 sec 1.08 LOS F LOS D LOS E 85.8 45.2 66.8 1.09 112.5 LOS F LOS D LOS E 271.2 63.5 159.8 2.27 129.1 LOS F LOS E LOS F

SB 46.9 sec LOS D 53.7 sec LOS D 50.1 sec LOS D

NB 51.4 sec LOS D 60.2 sec LOS E 60.1 sec LOS E

52.4 sec LOS D

62.0 LOS E

287.1 LOS F

68.0 LOS E

169.1 LOS F

2.49

135.3

52.4 sec LOS D

62.0 LOS E

287.1 LOS F

68.0 LOS E

169.1 LOS F

2.49

135.3

SB 79.7 sec LOS E

NB 71.3 sec LOS E

Texas/University EB WB 110.4 sec 125.1 sec LOS F LOS F

98.1 sec LOS F

94.1 sec LOS F

124.1 sec LOS F

112.3 sec LOS F

109.8 sec LOS F

1.32

109.6

133.1 sec LOS F

146.3 sec LOS F

201.8 sec LOS F

177.9 sec LOS F

171.3 sec LOS F

1.54

119.8

221.7 sec LOS F

139.1 sec LOS F

164.8 sec LOS F

167.3 sec LOS F

170.0 sec LOS F

1.83

123.5

221.7 sec LOS F

139.1 sec LOS F

165.8 sec LOS F

167.3 sec LOS F

170.4 sec LOS F

1.83

123.5

SB 7.2 sec LOS A

NB 14.3 sec LOS B

Texas/Rosemary EB WB NA 20.5 sec NA LOS C

7.8 sec LOS A

15.8 sec LOS B

NA NA

20.7 sec LOS C

12.5 sec LOS B

0.72

67.0

9.0 sec LOS A

23.8 sec LOS C

NA NA

20.7 sec LOS C

17.0 sec LOS B

0.90

74.7

9.0 sec LOS A

23.8 sec LOS C

NA NA

20.7 sec LOS C

17.0 sec LOS B

0.90

74.7

9.0 sec LOS A

23.8 sec LOS C

NA NA

20.7 sec LOS C

17.0 sec LOS B

0.90

74.7

SB 46.7 sec LOS D

NB 19.6 sec LOS B

University/Polo EB WB 72.6 sec 51.0 sec LOS E LOS D

52.1 sec LOS D

33.7 sec LOS C

76.3 sec LOS E

31.5 sec LOS C

56.1 sec LOS E

1.07

101.0

2243.5 sec LOS F

60.4 sec LOS E

203.7 sec LOS F

97.6 sec LOS F

399.8 sec LOS F

5.93

126.8

1269.1 sec LOS F

72.8 sec LOS E

91.5 sec LOS F

103.6 sec LOS F

185.8 sec LOS F

3.74

107.4

125.2 sec LOS F

68.5 sec LOS E

94.3 sec LOS F

78.1 sec LOS E

89.1 sec LOS F

1.11

101.0

30

Total Intersection Max v/c Ratio Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 97.6 sec 1.21 97.6 LOS F

Total Intersection Max v/c Ratio Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 11.5sec 0.65 66.7 LOS B

Total Intersection Max v/c Ratio Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 59.9 sec 1.06 99.2 LOS E

Table 18: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization S. College/Hensel 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 33.7 36.3 59.2 63.4 63.4

Texas/Hensel 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 44.8 48.8 104.3 123.3 108.3

University/Moore 2010 Base Smoothed 2015 Base Smoothed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 54.7 59.7 ‐‐‐ Not Considered Not Considered

Table 19: Unsignalized Access Point Intersection Capacity Utilization Access Point 1 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 34.2 37.8 37.8

Access Point 3 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 36.8 44.0 44.0

Access Point 4 2015 With Additional Trips (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed (Optimized) 2015 With Additional Trips Redistributed +Improvements (Optimized)

31

Intersection Capacity Utilization (%) 53.2 55.6 55.6

Improvements As can be seen in Table 17, the intersection of University/Polo was experiencing an extraordinarily high delay for the southbound approach after the first round of trip distribution.

The SB delay was nearly cut in half by the redistribution of trips. As mentioned earlier, redistribution was done in an attempt to move some of the vehicles involved in the delay at the intersection of University/Polo to the intersection of Texas/Hensel. However, even though the redistribution effort yielded a noticeable reduction in both the SB and EB delay, something else needed to be done to reach a reasonable delay level at this intersection. Thus, two left turn lanes were added in the SB direction, and an additional left-turn bay was added in the EB direction.

By having two lanes designated for left-turns at these approaches, the delay was reduced even more. Even after the improvements, the intersection, as well as the SB and EB approaches, is still operating at LOS F. However, the delay is at a much more manageable level with the improvements. Figure 22 shows the new lane configuration proposed at the intersection of University/Polo.

Figure 22: New lane configuration proposed for the intersection of University/Polo.

Note that with the creation of two additional driveways along S. College to allow for access to the main developments of the Campus Pointe design, left turn bays were added to accommodate vehicles wanting to enter the site from these locations. Additionally, given the increased number of vehicles that were assigned to use the access point of Texas/Hensel after being diverted from University/Polo, the geometry of Texas/Hensel was altered to include both an exclusive left and an exclusive right lane for exiting purposes. As seen in Table 7, the intersection capacity utilization ratio increased at the intersection of Texas/Hensel with the redistribution. The lane geometry change did help to reduce the intersection capacity utilization ratio. However, because this lane geometry change did not reduce this ratio to below 1.0, it is recommended that further analysis be done to see if a signal is warranted at this intersection. Regardless of whether a signal is installed at this intersection, further analysis on the type of control at this intersection 32

should be performed to make it compatible with HCM analysis within Syncrho. Figure 23 shows the new lane configuration proposed at the intersection of Texas/Hensel.

Figure 23: Lane configuration change proposed for the intersection of Texas/Hensel Another option would be to investigate the potential of making the intersection of Texas/Rosemary another access point to the site. This would help alleviate some of the burden placed at the intersection of Texas/Hensel and may make it feasible to keep the intersection of Texas/Hensel unsignalized. The intersection of Texas/Rosemary is operating at LOS B, and thus has the capacity to handle more traffic than it currently does.

Larger Issues to Consider As can be seen from Table 17, the intersection of S. College/University, as well as the intersection of University /Texas experience large volumes of traffic. They both are located at critical locations for servicing Texas A&M students, as well as member of the community. An attempt was made to add a second left-turn bay to the EB approach of S. College/University.

However, there did not appear to be adequate space for this addition. Timing could theoretically be altered to improve the operation at these intersections, but this may mess with the coordination that is likely trying to be achieved along the adjacent arterials. It should be noted that although the intersections within the study area are actuated, they were optimized for all conditions excluding the Base 2010 case. Likewise, the offset between the intersections was set to 0. However, even though the intersections are actuated, they were treated as though they were pre-timed for the purposes of analysis during the peak period because it was assumed that during the peak period all actuated calls will be maxed-out.

Specifically looking at the intersection of Texas/University all approaches are operating at LOS F even prior to the addition of trips generated by Campus Pointe. Thus, it may not be fair to expect Campus Pointe to fund the cost of improving the intersection—or at least not in its entirety. However, this does not mean that possible solutions should not be considered.

33

There are a number of innovative intersection configurations that may contribute to better traffic operation along Texas/University. Brian Bochner, a researcher at the Texas Transportation Institute kindly supplied several possible solutions he found from Unconventional Arterial Intersection Design, Management and Operations Strategies, Jonathan Reid, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Program, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, July 2004. Among the suggestions are a high volume roundabout, a through lane underpass, left turn flyovers, triple left-turn lanes, or a combination of a roundabout and a through lane underpass.

Conclusions Potential solutions and forms of mitigation for the traffic affecting the area surrounding the Campus Pointe development have been given. It is anticipated that a more in depth consideration of internal capture and pass-by trips would reduce the total number of new trips calculated to be generated from the development. Future site plans would need to adjust for additional room needed to accommodate the lane additions at the intersection of University/Polo.

Additional feasibility analysis and cost benefit analysis should be performed on the cited potential solutions to help with the congestion being experienced along Texas/University and University/S. College to determine the best solution.

34

Modifications for Consideration After presenting the poster on April 29, 2010, we received suggestions for modifications to the plan. This section provides information on changes that could enhance our site plan.

Building/Use Placement The Entertainment District is largely clustered at the southeast corner of the plan. Brandon Houston suggested that entertainment uses be spread throughout the site so that no one portion of the site is dark at night. As seen in Figure 24 entertainment uses have been spread throughout the site. This reconfiguration would lead to the movie theater being moved closer to the University and S. College intersection. The relocation of this use would lead to more pedestrians accessing the movie theater from campus. There should also be an entertainment use located near the residential and recreational location at the northeast side of the site. This could be the location of an amphitheater for concerts and other events. Figure 24 shows the modifications that were made to the building placement and land uses.

Another modification could be a reconfiguration of the horseshoe. This area could be made more in the design of a square rather than a circle. If this were done, the streets could be made parallel with University Drive. This would force the office buildings closer to University Drive—making the site more accessible from University Drive because of a closer proximity between the sidewalk and businesses.

Parking The on-street parking stalls are currently 10 feet wide. The width of these stalls could be reduced to 8-9 feet. If this were done the additional right-of-way could be used for a small median or for wider sidewalks.

Pedestrian Connectivity In order to provide excellent pedestrian crossings at major intersections, several steps could be taken. Brian Bochner, a researcher from Texas Transportation Institute, suggested a four-way pedestrian bridge. This would provide grade separation between the pedestrians and automobile traffic. The pedestrian bridges would be located at the intersection of University Drive and S. College. One bridge would cross each street on each side of the road and be connected at the top, forming a square.

Another option would be to change the surface type and raise the intersection 6-9 inches. The surface of the University Drive and S. College intersection could be changed to brick pavers.

This would cause vibrations as the vehicle pass, slowing the traffic. Raising the intersection by 6-9 inches would force vehicles to slow down when travelling through the intersection. By making these adjustments, pedestrians would be safer while crossing the street.

35

Figure 24: Land use modifications for consideration.

36

APPENDIX A

37

38

APPENDIX B

39

Time‐of‐Day Factors

Weekday 6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

Customer

1%

5%

15%

35%

65%

85%

95%

100%

95%

90%

90%

95%

95%

95%

80%

50%

30%

10%

-

Employee

10%

15%

40%

75%

85%

95%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

95%

95%

95%

90%

75%

40%

15%

-

Customer

25%

50%

60%

75%

85%

90%

100%

90%

50%

45%

45%

75%

80%

80%

80%

60%

55%

50%

25%

Employer

50%

75%

90%

90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

75%

75%

95%

95%

95%

95%

80%

65%

65%

35%

Customer

5%

10%

20%

30%

55%

85%

100%

100%

90%

60%

55%

60%

85%

80%

50%

30%

20%

10%

5%

Employer

15%

20%

30%

40%

75%

100%

100%

100%

95%

70%

60%

70%

90%

90%

60%

40%

30%

20%

20%

Land Use

User

Shopping Center-Typical

Family Restaurant

Fast Food

Cineplex Typical

Customer

-

-

-

-

-

-

20%

45%

55%

55%

55%

60%

60%

80%

100%

100%

80%

65%

40%

Employee

-

-

-

-

-

-

50%

60%

60%

75%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

70%

50%

95%

100%

100%

-

-

Hotel-Business

Guest

Convention

Customer

95% -

Employee

90%

80%

70%

60%

60%

55%

55%

60%

60%

65%

70%

75%

75%

80%

85%

50%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

30%

30%

10%

30%

90%

90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

70%

40%

20%

20%

20%

20%

10%

5%

10%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

40%

60%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

50%

5%

-

-

Residential

Guest

Residential

Reserved

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Residential

Resident

100%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

70%

70%

70%

75%

85%

90%

97%

98%

99%

100%

100%

100%

Office

Visitor

1%

20%

60%

100%

45%

15%

45%

100%

45%

15%

10%

5%

2%

1%

Office

Employee

30%

75%

95%

100%

100%

90%

90%

100%

100%

90%

50%

25%

10%

7%

3%

40

12:00 AM

-

3%

1%

-

-

-

-

Weekend Factors 6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

Customer

1%

5%

10%

30%

50%

65%

80%

90%

100%

100%

95%

90%

80%

75%

65%

50%

35%

15%

-

Employee

10%

15%

40%

75%

85%

95%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

95%

85%

80%

75%

65%

45%

15%

-

15%

50%

55%

45%

45%

45%

60%

90%

95%

100%

90%

90%

90%

50%

Land Use

User

Shopping CenterTypical

Fine/Casual Dining

Family Restaurant

Fast Food

Cineplex - Typical

Convention Center

Customer

-

Employee

-

-

-

-

-

20%

30%

60%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

85%

50%

Customer

10%

25%

45%

70%

90%

90%

100%

85%

65%

40%

45%

60%

70%

70%

65%

30%

25%

15%

10%

Employer

50%

75%

90%

90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

75%

75%

95%

95%

95%

95%

80%

65%

65%

35%

Customer

5%

10%

20%

30%

55%

85%

100%

100%

90%

60%

55%

60%

85%

80%

50%

30%

20%

10%

5%

Employer

15%

20%

30%

40%

75%

100%

100%

100%

95%

70%

60%

70%

90%

90%

60%

40%

30%

20%

20%

Customer

-

-

-

-

-

-

20%

45%

55%

55%

55%

60%

60%

80%

100%

100%

100%

80%

50%

Employee

-

-

-

-

-

-

50%

60%

60%

75%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

70%

50%

Visitor

-

-

Employee

50%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

30%

30%

10%

-

-

-

-

-

5%

30%

33%

33%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

70%

40%

25%

20%

20%

5%

95%

90%

80%

70%

60%

60%

55%

55%

60%

60%

65%

70%

75%

75%

80%

85%

95%

100%

100%

50%

-

-

-

-

Hotel-Business

Guest

Conference/Banquet

Customer

-

-

30%

60%

60%

60%

65%

65%

65%

65%

65%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Convention

Customer

-

-

50%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

30%

30%

10%

30%

90%

90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

90%

75%

60%

55%

55%

55%

45%

45%

30%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

40%

60%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

50%

Employee

5%

-

Residential

Guest

-

Residential

Reserved

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Residential

Resident

100%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

70%

70%

70%

75%

85%

90%

97%

98%

99%

100%

100%

100%

Office

Visitor

-

20%

60%

80%

90%

100%

90%

80%

60%

40%

20%

10%

5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Office

Employee

-

20%

60%

80%

90%

100%

90%

80%

60%

40%

20%

10%

5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Visitor

-

90%

90%

100%

100%

30%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Medical/Dental

41

12:00 AM

-

-

-

-

-

-

Office

Bank

Employee

-

-

60%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Customer

-

-

25%

40%

75%

100%

90%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Employee

-

-

90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Source: Shared Parking by Mary S. Smith

Aggressive Scenario Weekday

Peak Hour and April adjustment

1 PM Weekday

Noncaptive Adjustment

Mode Adjustment

Land Use

User

Shopping Center‐ Typical

Customer

230

0.9

0.9

186

Employee

62

1

1

62

Family Restaurant

Customer

530

0.85

1

451

Employer

107

1

1

107

Fast Food

Customer

1119

0.5

0.8

448

Employee

197

1

1

197

Cineplex ‐ Typical

Customer

107

0.9

96

Employee

6

1

6

42

Total

Hotel‐Business

Guest

165

1

1

165

Employee

75

1

1

75

Convention Space

Customer

600

1

0.8

480

Residential

Guest

24

0

1

24

Residential

Reserved

0

0

1

0

Residential

Resident

832

0

1

832

Office

Visitor

28

1

1

28

Office

Employee

700

1

1

700

Total

4707

3857

Conservative Scenario Weekday

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 1 PM Weekday

Mode Adjustment

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐ Typical

Customer

230

0.9

1

207.060696

Employee

62

1

1

62.47521

Family Restaurant

Customer

530

0.85

1

451

Employer

107

1

1

107

43

Total

Fast Food

Customer

1119

0.5

1

559.514625

Employee

197

1

1

197.47575

Cineplex ‐ Typical

Customer

107

1

107

Employee

6

1

6

Hotel‐Business

Guest

165

1

1

165

Employee

75

1

1

75

Convention Space

Customer

600

1

1

600

Residential

Guest

24

0

1

23.76

Residential

Resident

832

0

1

831.6

Office

Visitor

28

1

1

27.7875

Office

Employee

700

1

1

700.245

Total

4707

4120

44

Appendix C

Entertainment District Parking Weekend

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment Land Use

User

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

24

0.9

0.9

19

Employee

3

1

1

3

Family Restaurant

Customer

402

0.85

1

341

Employer

91

1

1

91

Fast Food

Customer

123

0.5

0.8

49

Employee

21

1

1

21

Cineplex ‐ Typical

Customer

146

0.9

132

Employee

8

1

8

Office

Visitor

1

1

1

1

Office

Employee

16

1

1

16

Total

Weekday

1 PM Weekend

Noncaptive

834

Total

680

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment

45

Mode Adjustment

12 PM Weekday

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

23

0.9

0.9

18

Employee

6

1

1

6

Family Restaurant

Customer

334

0.85

1

284

Employer

60

1

1

60

Fast Food

Customer

131

0.5

0.8

52

Employee

23

1

1

23

Employee

3

1

3

Office

Visitor

2

1

1

2

Office

Employee

175

1

1

175

Total

757

624

46

Mode Adjustment Total

North Residential District Weekend

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 9 PM Weekend

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Mode Adjustment Total

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

29

0.9

0.9

23

Residential

Guest

90

0

1

90

Residential

Resident

891

0

1

891

Total

Shared Parking Reduction

Weekday

1010

1004

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 8 PM Weekday

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

42

0.9

0.9

34

Residential

Guest

90

0

1

90

Residential

Resident

882

0

1

882

Total

1014

1006

47

Mode Adjustment Total

North Office/Café District Weekend

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 12 PM Weekend

Mode Adjustment

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Total

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

21

0.9

0.9

17.07153408

Employee

3

1

1

2.77857

Fine/Casual Dining

Customer

0

0.9

1

0

Employee

0

1

1

0

Family Restaurant

Customer

121

0.85

1

103

Employer

23

1

1

23

Fast Food

Customer

375

0.5

0.8

150.1968

Employee

63

1

1

62.582

Office

Visitor

2

1

1

1.66725

Office

Employee

18

1

1

17.784

Total

625

378

48

Weekday Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 12 PM Weekday

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

23

0.9

0.9

18.37190484

Employee

6

1

1

6.48333

Family Restaurant

Customer

85

0.85

1

72

Employer

15

1

1

15

Fast Food

Customer

399

0.5

0.8

159.5841

Employee

70

1

1

70.40475

Office

Visitor

2

1

1

2.315625

Office

Employee

175

1

1

175.06125

Total

777

Total

520

49

Mode Adjustment

Land Use

West Residential Parking Weekend

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 7 PM Weekend

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Mode Adjustment Total

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

83

0.9

0.9

67

Employee

10

1

1

10

Family Restaurant

Customer

103

0.85

1

87

Employer

23

1

1

23

Fast Food

Customer

431

0.5

0.8

172

Employee

21

1

1

21

Residential

Guest

6

0

1

6

Residential

Resident

202

0

1

202

Office

Visitor

1

1

1

1

Office

Employee

16

1

1

16

Total

Shared Parking Reduction

Weekday

894

605

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment Land Use

User

1 PM

Noncaptive

50

Mode Adjustment

Total

Weekday Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

83

0.9

0.9

67

Employee

23

1

1

23

Family Restaurant

Customer

77

0.85

1

65

Employer

15

1

1

15

Fast Food

Customer

458

0.5

0.8

183

Employee

23

1

1

23

Residential

Guest

6

0

1

6

Residential

Resident

202

0

1

202

Office

Visitor

7

1

1

7

Office

Employee

175

1

1

175

Total

1068

766

Hotel and Conference Center Parking Weekend

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 12 PM Weekend

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

21

0.9

0.9

17

Employee

3

1

1

3

51

Mode Adjustment Total

Fine/Casual Dining

Customer

0

0.9

1

0

Employee

0

1

1

0

Family Restaurant

Customer

121

0.85

1

103

Employer

23

1

1

23

Fast Food

Customer

123

0.5

0.8

49

Employee

21

1

1

21

Cineplex ‐ Typical

Customer

0

0.9

0

Employee

0

1

0

Hotel‐Business

Guest

149

1

1

149

Employee

0

1

1

0

Convention Space

Customer

300

1

0.8

240

Employee

0

1

1

0

Residential

Guest

0

0

1

0

Residential

Reserved

0

0

1

0

Residential

Resident

0

0

1

0

Office

Visitor

2

1

1

2

Office

Employee

18

1

1

18

Medical/Dental Office

Visitor

0

1

1

0

Employee

0

1

1

0

52

Bank

Customer

0

0.9

0.9

0

Employee

0

1

1

0

Total

Shared Parking Reduction

Weekday

780

624

Peak Hour Adjustment and April adjustment 11 AM Weekday

Land Use

User

Noncaptive

Shopping Center‐Typical

Customer

20

0.9

0.9

16

Employee

6

1

1

6

Family Restaurant

Customer

77

0.85

1

65

Employer

15

1

1

15

Fast Food

Customer

112

0.5

0.8

45

Employee

23

1

1

23

Hotel‐Business

Guest

180

1

1

180

Convention Space

Customer

600

1

0.8

480

Office

Visitor

7

1

1

7

Office

Employee

195

1

1

195

Total

1235

1032

53

Mode Adjustment Total

APPENDIX C

54

55

56

57

58

59

Base 2010

60

61

62

63

64

Base 2015

65

66

67

68

69

Base 2015 with Additional Trips

70

71

72

73

74

75

Base 2015 with Additional Trips Redistributed

76

77

78

79

80

81

Base 2015 with Additional Trips Redistributed and Improvements

82

83

84

85

86

87