|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Volumes
- Table 1 summarizes the projected traffic volumes on Hazel
Avenue during commute hours for each of the potential alternatives.
- For those alternatives that would maintain 2 general purpose
travel lanes in the peak direction during commute hours
(Alternatives A, D, E, F and G), traffic volumes would be
about the same as the Do-nothing Alternative. Thus, bus
enhancements in the Hazel Avenue Corridor would not significantly
reduce traffic volumes during commute hours.
- For those alternatives that would add a third general
purpose lane, or an HOV lane in the peak direction during
commute hours (Alternatives B, C and H), traffic volumes
would be 15 to 30 percent higher than those alternatives
that would maintain 2 general purpose travel lanes.
|
|
Alternatives |
Year |
Peak
Hour/Peak Direction
Traffic Volume |
| Madison
to Sunset |
Sunset
to Winding Way |
Winding
Way to Gold Country |
| Do Nothing |
2000 |
2,000-2,300 |
2,700-3,000 |
3,100-3,500 |
Do Nothing
A) Bus Enhancements
D) Frontage Road
E) Bicycle, Pedestrian and Bus Emphasis
F) Arterial Upgrade -Landscaped Median
G) Arterial Upgrade -Dual Left Turn Lane |
2005
2022 |
2,300-2,500
2,300-2,500 |
3,300-3,700
3,200-3,300 |
3,700-4,300
3,700-4,000 |
B) General Purpose Road Widening
C) Central Arterial HOV Lanes
H) Reversible Lane |
2005
2022 |
3,000-3,300
3,200-3,300 |
3,800-4,200
3,900-4,100 |
4,200-4,700
4,300-4,700 |
|
|
| |
Traffic Congestion
- Table 2 summarizes the projected levels of traffic congestion
along Hazel Avenue by showing the total hours that severe
congestion (LOS F conditions) would exist during the combined
AM and PM commute periods.
- For those alternatives that would maintain 2 general purpose
travel lanes in the peak direction during commute hours
(the Do-nothing Alternative and Alternatives A, D, E, F
and G), LOS F conditions would occur for 3 to 5 hours each
weekday by 2005.
- For those alternatives that would add a third general
purpose lane, or an HOV lane in the peak direction during
commute hours (Alternatives B, C and H), the duration of
LOS F conditions would be less in 2005 than occurs today;
and by 2022, traffic congestion levels would be about the
same as today.
|
|
Alternatives |
Year |
Total
Hours of LOS F Conditions
(Combined AM and PM Commute Hours) |
| At
Madison |
Sunset
to Curragh Downs |
Gold
Country to
US 50 |
| Do Nothing |
2000 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Do Nothing
A) Bus Enhancements
D) Frontage Road
E) Bicycle, Pedestrian and Bus Emphasis
F) Arterial Upgrade -Landscaped Median
G) Arterial Upgrade -Dual Left Turn Lane |
2005
2022 |
1
1 |
3-5
3-5 |
0-1
1-2 |
B) General Purpose Road Widening
C) Central Arterial HOV Lanes
H) Reversible Lane |
2005
2022 |
1
2 |
1
1-2 |
1
2-3 |
|
|
| |
Transit Ridership
- Table 3 summarizes the projected daily transit ridership
in Hazel Avenue Corridor for each of the potential alternatives
- The alternatives where enhanced bus service was assumed
(Alternatives A, C and E) would have about double the transit
ridership volumes as the other alternatives.
|
|
Alternatives |
Year |
Daily Transit Ridership in
Corridor |
| Do Nothing |
2000 |
80 |
Do Nothing
B) General Purpose Road Widening
D) Frontage Road
F) Arterial Upgrade -Landscaped Median
G) Arterial Upgrade -Dual Left Turn Lane
H) Reversible Lane |
2005
2022 |
280-300
300-320 |
A) Bus Enhancements
C) Central Arterial HOV Lanes
E) Bicycle, Pedestrian and Bus Emphasis |
2005
2022 |
480-600
510-620 |
|
|
|
|
