HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIACOLLEGE STATION MIXED USE
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS >
January 11, 2012
COLLEGE STATION MIXED USE
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS >
Prepared for
Capstone / Woodridge Capital Partners, LLC
Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1175
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 904-3700
Facsimile: (512) 904-3773
Website: www.hdrinc.com
January 11, 2012
COLLEGE STATION MIXED USE
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS >
Description of Project
HDR Engineering, Inc. has been retained by CapstoneMoodridge Capital Partners, LLC, to perform a
traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed College Station Mixed Use development located in the
northwest corner of Texas Avenue (Business SH 6) and University Drive (FM 60) in College Station, Texas.
For the purposes of this report, Texas Avenue is considered as the north -south roadway. Currently, the
site consists of a vacant 17 story tower and other structures which comprised the Plaza Hotel consisting of
300 rooms, a former gasoline service station with 8 vehicle fueling positions, a vacant fast food restaurant
with drive -through, vacant apartment buildings with 44 dwelling units, a vacant single family detached
house, and a residential house with two dwelling units. The proposed development will replace the existing
development on the site as described above and will consist of student apartments with 487 dwelling units,
high-rise apartments with 128 dwelling units, residential condominium/townhomes with 16 dwelling units,
and specialty retail with 63,800 square feet. The proposed development will surround an existing Hampton
Inn, Applebee's Restaurant, Knights Inn and a planned extended stay hotel with 110 rooms. The proposed
development is to be constructed by 2013. This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of
work approved by the City of College Station, a copy of which is included in the Appendix.
As shown in Figure 1, the project site is located in the northwest corner of the Texas Avenue and University
Drive intersection. A bus turnout is proposed to be located on University Drive in the southwest corner of
the site. Access to the site will be provided via a total of four driveways to be located on Texas Avenue,
University Drive, Hensel Street and Meadowland Street as shown in Figure 2. The proposed driveways on
Texas Avenue and University Drive have been discussed with the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) and received preliminary approval. As part of this analysis, only the main driveways on University
Drive and Texas Avenue were evaluated.
HDR Engineering, Inc. t
L
J
N � Z
Wa
U W
L- Z H
L O Co
C)
u
Transportation System Description
Texas Avenue (Business SH 6) — Texas Avenue is a four -lane divided major arterial with a center two-way
left turn lane north of University Drive and a six lane divided major arterial south of University Drive. Daily
traffic volumes reported by TxDOT are summarized in Table 1. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Ref.
1) identifies Texas Avenue as a Major Arterial. It is designated as a six lane major arterial in the City of
College Station Thoroughfare Plan (Ref. 2). Required right-of-way (ROW) width is 150 feet (Ref. 3). Based
on available information, the existing ROW width is 100 feet.
University Drive (FM 60) — University Drive is a six -lane divided major arterial in the vicinity of the site.
Daily traffic volumes reported by TxDOT are summarized in Table 1. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(Ref. 1) identifies Texas Avenue as a Major Arterial. It is designated as a six lane major arterial in the City
of College Station Thoroughfare Plan (Ref. 2). Required right-of-way width is 150 feet (Ref. 3). Based on
available information, the existing ROW width is 120 feet.
Meadowland Street — Meadowland Street is a previous public street which was abandoned by the City of
College Station and is now a public utility easement consisting of a two-lane undivided asphalt street with
curb and gutter located within the western portion of the project site. It varies in width from 20 feet at
University Drive to 27 feet at Hensel Street with the transition occurring in the vicinity of the Hampton Inn.
There is no posted speed limit and no traffic counts are available. As part of the site development, the
street is proposed to be abandoned from University Drive for approximately 350 feet to the north. The
remaining portion of the street to the north to Hensel Street will be rehabilitated and continue to provide
vehicular access for existing and proposed development. A connecting roadway on the interior of the site
will be constructed to connect a proposed driveway on University Drive with the remaining section of
Meadowland Street.
Hensel Street — Hensel Street is a two-lane undivided asphalt street 30 feet in width with curb and gutter
located along the north boundary of the project site. The posted speed limit is 20 miles per hour (mph). No
traffic counts are available. There are no plans to upgrade Hensel Street at this time.
Hensel Drive — Hensel Drive is a two-lane undivided asphalt street located along the west boundary of the
project site and is owned by Texas A&M University. It is 30 feet in width with curb and gutter from north of
HDR Engineering, Inc. 4
Hensel Street to Nicolas Avenue. From there to its southern terminus at Front Street, the pavement is in
very poor condition with a nominal width of 18 feet. The posted speed limit is 20 mph. No traffic counts are
available. There are no plans to upgrade Hensel Drive at this time.
Table 1.
TxDOT Average Daily Traffic Volume
Location
2010
2009
2008
2007
University Drive, West of Texas Avenue
30,000
38,000
39,000
41,000
University Drive, East of Texas Avenue
39,000
N/A*
37,000
39,000
Texas Avenue, North of University Drive
N/A*
21,000
25,000
25,000
Texas Avenue, South of University Drive
46,000
N/A*
42,000
40,000
*TxDOT data unavailable at location
Trip Generation
Unadjusted total trips per day, as well as the peak hour traffic associated with the project, were estimated
using the microcomputer program Trip Generation (Ref. 4), which is based on recommendations and data
contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers report Trip Generation (Ref. 5). Table 2 provides a
detailed summary of the estimated traffic produced by the assumed land use activities for the proposed
development. As a point of reference, the total unadjusted trips per day are estimated at 6,717 vehicles per
day (vpd) for this development.
Table 2.
Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation = Proposed
Land Use
Size
24-Hour
Two -Way
Volume
AM Peak
PM Peak
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Apartments
487 dwelling units
3,075
48
194
186
100
High Rise Apartments
128 dwelling units
683
10
29
32
21
Residential Condominium
16 dwelling units
131
2
10
9
4
Specialty Retail Center
63,800 SF
2,828
0
0
76
97
Total
1
1 6,717
60
1 233
1 303
1 222
HDR Engineering, Inc. 5
As noted previously, there were several types of previous land uses and currently vacant structures located
on the project site. Although these uses do not currently generate trips, their trip generation potential is
noted herein for comparison purposes, since these types of uses could be developed on the site. For
comparison purposes, the trip generation characteristics for previous land uses to be replaced by the
proposed development are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3.
Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Existing
Land Uses
Size
Daily
AM Peak
Period
PM Peak Period
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Gasoline Service Station
8 VFP
1,348
50
48
56
56
Hotel
300 Rooms
2,676
117
84
102
108
Fast food restaurant with drive -through
1,155 SF
573
29
28
20
19
Apartments
44 DU
390
5
20
27
15
Single Family Residential
1 DU
15
3
8
1
1
Residential CondominiumlTownhouse
2 DU
21
0
2
2
1
Total
5,023
r 204
190
208
200
As noted by comparison of Tables 2 and 3, the unadjusted peak period trips for the proposed development
will be 101 less in the AM and 117 more in the PM.
Assumptions
The traffic impact analysis process involves both the use of primary data and engineering judgment on
transferable parameters. Specifically, engineering judgment is required for estimation of background traffic
growth, pass -by capture, internal capture, and transit trip reductions, all of which are further described in
the following paragraphs.
Background Traffic - Table 1 summarized daily traffic volumes reported on TOOT traffic maps. Based on
these traffic volumes, a negative average growth rate of approximately two percent was observed between
2007 through 2010 in the vicinity of the site. To be conservative in this analysis, a three percent growth
rate was assumed, based on demographic information obtained from Bryan/College Station MPO
Transportation Plan (Ref. 6).
HDR Engineering, Inc. 6
Pass -By Capture — Studies have shown that retail land uses will capture from 20 to 60 percent of their
traffic as pass -by trips, depending upon their size. It is well documented that many other land uses also
experience significant pass -by trip capture, such as drive-in banks and restaurants. The amount of trip
reduction that each tract may attribute to the pass -by phenomenon will depend directly on the type of land
use that is developed. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 7) does not contain pass -by reductions for
the specialty retail land use; however, data collected for shopping center land use suggest a 34% pass -by
reduction in the PM peak period. In order to provide a more conservative analysis, the suggested shopping
center pass -by capture was reduced by 50%. A 17 percent pass -by reduction in the PM peak was
assumed for the specialty retail center land use for this project.
Internal Capture — Once the total buildout of proposed land uses occurs, there will be interaction among the
uses within this development. Internal capture is accounted for in two ways. First, to account for internal
capture among similar retail land uses in adjacent areas, the sizes may be combined during the trip
generation process. Because the equations used in trip generation estimations are logarithmic, the number
of trips generated by a site does not increase in direct proportion to an increase in the square footage of a
development. By combining retail projects in close proximity to each other, a lower number of trips will be
estimated, thereby taking into account the internal capture factor. The second way to account for internal
capture is to reduce the expected number of trips directly by some percentage, which reflects expected
multipurpose trip -making among different types of land uses that are in close proximity. As with pass -by .
trip reductions, internal capture depends on the type and quantity of land uses. For this project, a seven
percent internal capture was assumed for all the proposed land uses only for the PM peak based on
recommendations contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 7).
Transit Trips — The provision of transit service to an area may reduce the expected number of trips by
providing a mode of travel alternative to the private automobile. The reduction may be in two forms, either
a reduction in site generated trips or a reduction in background trips. Based on review of TAMU bus routes
(Routes 04E and 12 are immediately adjacent to the site) and the Brazos Transit District (three routes are
immediately adjacent to the site) (Ref. 8) bus routes as well as the most recent ridership information
provided on TAMU's website (30% of Fall 2009 enrollment) (Ref. 9), a 20% transit reduction was assumed
for both the AM and PM peak periods.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 7
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trips — Due to the proximity of the site to the TAMU campus, the nature of the proposed
land uses, and student population, significant trips can be expected via bicycles, walking, skate boarding,
etc. Based on information provided by TAMU Transportation Services (Ref. 10), 60% of students hold
parking permits which means that 40% of students use an alternate mode of transportation which couldbe
bus or one of the modes listed above. Based on this fact and the transit ridership noted previously, a
reduction of 10% was assumed for both the AM and PM peak periods due to pedestrian/bicycle trips.
Applying the reductions discussed above, the adjusted trip total for this project is 4,275 vpd. Table 4
provides a detailed summary of adjusted traffic.
Table 4.
Summary of Adjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed
Land Use
Size
24-Hour
Two -Way
Volume
AM Peak
PM Peak
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Apartments
487 dwelling units
2,137
35
140
125
67
High Rise Apartments
128 dwelling units
475
7
21
21
14
Residential Condominium
16 dwelling units
91
1
7
6
3
Specialty Retail Center
63,800 SF
1,572
0
0
42
54
Total
1
1 4,275
1 43
1 168
1 194
1 138
Directional Distribution — Once site generated trips were known, the next step involved distribution of those
trips to appropriate geographic directions and logical connecting roadways. The major thoroughfares that
have a direct bearing on the accessibility of the project have been previously identified.
Overall directional distribution of traffic was derived from turning movement data at the intersection of
Texas Avenue and University Drive which were provided by the City of College Station. Forecasted
directional distribution of traffic is presented in Table 5 below.
HDR Enqineerinq, Inc. 8
Table 5.
Forecasted Overall Directional Distribution of Site Oriented Traffic
Direction/Roadway
% of Site Traffic
North Texas Avenue
15
South Texas Avenue
25
East University Drive
30
West University Drive
30
Total
100
Traffic Analysis
Previous Intersection Analysis
In October 2010, HDR developed and presented to City of College Station personnel and the MPO an
analysis of the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive which evaluated a continuous flow
intersection (CFI) design, the results of which are included in the Appendix. The analysis evaluated a five
year growth scenario, estimated delay savings for the CFI design compared to the existing intersection
geometries and estimated road user cost savings due to improved intersection operations. Annual delay
would be reduced by 52% and 76% for 2010 and 2015, respectively, with a cumulative savings in road user
cost of $11.4 million by 2015. Preliminary graphics were prepared to illustrate the design concept overlaid
on the existing intersection as well as potential ROW requirements.
For illustrative purposes, the CFI design was overlaid with the proposed project site plan in the northwest
corner of the intersection; the graphic is located in the Appendix. The CFI design would modify access to
the proposed site driveways as follows:
1. From the north on Texas Avenue — Right turn into Hensel Street, Texas Avenue driveway or University
Drive driveway
2. From the south on Texas Avenue — Left turn at Hensel Street or U-turn at Hensel Street to Texas
Avenue driveway or University Drive driveway
3. From the west on University Drive —Left turn at Texas Avenue, then left turn at Hensel Street or U-turn
at Hensel Street to Texas Avenue driveway or University Drive driveway
4. From the east on University Drive — Right turn at Texas Avenue, then left turn at Hensel Street or U-
turn at Hensel Street to Texas Avenue driveway or University Drive driveway
HDR Engineering, Inc. 9
Current Analysis
The impact of the proposed development on existing area intersections was analyzed. Two (2) time
periods and three (3) travel conditions were evaluated:
■ 2012 Existing Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
■ 2013 Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
■ 2013 Site Plus Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
Intersection Level of Service
Intersections are considered locations of principal concern because they are locations of highest traffic
conflict and delay. The standard used to evaluate traffic conditions at intersections is level of service
(LOS), which is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors such as speed, volume of traffic,
geometric features, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience, and
operating cost. Two types of intersections include signalized and unsignalized, which use different criteria
for assessment of operation levels. The control delay for this study was determined using the
microcomputer program "Synchro 7.0" by Trafficware (Ref. 11), which is based on procedures contained in
the Highway Capacity Manual (Ref. 12). In general, overall intersection levels of service A to D are
deemed acceptable, while an overall LOS of E or F is unacceptable.
The TIA analyzed the signalized intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive and the two proposed
unsignalized site driveways. The results are summarized in Table 6. The build -out condition level of
service (LOS) assumes that all roadway and intersection improvements recommended in the TIA will be
constructed.
Table 6.
Intersection Level of Service
2012
2013
2013 Site
Intersection
Existing
Forecasted
Plus
Forecasted
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Texas Avenue and University Drive
E
E
E
F
E
F
Texas Avenue Driveway (Driveway A
A
A
University Drive Driveway (Driveway B
A
A
HDR Engineering, Inc. 10
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Coordinate with TAMU on its planned development adjacent to and west of the site to explore mutually -
beneficial access and circulation for transit, bicycles and pedestrians. This could include upgrade of
Hensel Drive to replace proposed bus turnout on University Drive, shared bus turnaround off Hensel
Drive, etc.
2. Provide incentives for non -auto use by patrons of the development such as adequate bicycle parking
facilities, encouragement of transit use and car pooling.
3. In conjunction with the proposed driveway on University Drive, construct a westbound deceleration lane
and restrict parking on the south side of the entrance road for a distance of at least 60 feet.
4. Texas Avenue and University Drive
a. As discussed previously, further study of the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive
should be undertaken in the future to determine an ultimate design to accommodate long-term
traffic demands.
b. This intersection currently operates at LOS E during both the AM peak and PM peak periods.
Assuming the same intersection geometry and signal timing, this intersection will operate at LOS E
and F under 2013 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during the AM peak and PM peak
periods, respectively. With the addition of site traffic, this intersection will continue to operate at
LOS E and F during the AM peak and PM peak periods, respectively.
The City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.12, Subsection D.4.g (Ref.
13) indicates that the applicant must propose mitigation strategies to intersections failing to meet
Level of Service D or better, only if site traffic is 5.0 percent or greater. Site traffic comprises
approximately 2.7 percent and 3.4 percent of the total intersection traffic during the AM and PM
peak periods, respectively. Therefore, no improvements are recommended as part of this
development.
5. The existing raised concrete median on Texas Avenue north of University Drive should be extended
approximately 100 feet to the north to preclude left turn maneuvers to/from the proposed site driveway.
6. Hensel Street and Texas Avenue — There is a significant grade change between the profile on Hensel
Street and the Texas Avenue cross -slope. Pavement gouges and scrapes indicate that some vehicle
undercarriages drag when crossing the north/south gutter line along the west side of Texas Avenue.
No sight distance or other traffic operational issues were noted.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 11
7. No sight distance limitations or other safety factors were observed during field review of traffic
operations at the following intersections:
a. Hensel Street and Meadowland Street
b. Hensel Street and Hensel Drive
HDR Engineering, Inc. 12
REFERENCES
1. 2010-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Amended February 9, 2011.
hUp://www.cstx.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3094
2. City of College Station Comprehensive Plan, Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan — Functional
Classification
3. Bryan / College Station Unified Design Guidelines, 2009, Streets and Alleys, Table V
4. Buttke, Carl H., "Trip Generation," Microtrans Corporation, Portland, Oregon, 2008.
5. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, An ITE Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C., 2008.
6. Bryan / College Station MPO 2005-2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Appendix C, Future
Thoroughfare System
7. Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, An ITE Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Washington, D.C., January 2004.
8. Brazos Transit District: http://www.btd.org/maps/find_fixed_route.asp
9. TAMU Transportation Services: http://transport.tamu.edu
10. Telephone conversation with Peter Langer, TAMU Transportation Services, December 30, 2011
11. Husch, David and John Albeck, "Synchro 7.0", Trafficware Ltd., Sugar Land, Texas, 2007.
12. Highway Capacity Manual, (SR 209), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
13. City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance, Website:
http://www.cstx,govlhome/index.asp?page=418
HDR Enaineerina. Inc. 13
APPENDIX
HDR Engineering, Inc. 14
Plaza Redevelopment Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Scope of Work
December 19, 2011
A pre -submission consultation meeting was held on December 12, 2011, attended by Joe Guerra, Josh Norton,
Veronica Morgan and James Batenhorst with Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, and Mike Mclnturff with HDR Engineering,
Inc.). A limited purpose TIA will be conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of Section 7.12 of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
Study Area and Thoroughfare Network
The following intersections and roadways will be included in the TIA for discussion of potential improvements based
on existing and future traffic conditions:
1. Texas Avenue and University Drive — Summary of results and potential refinements from the 2010
presentation to City staff and the MPO
2. Texas Avenue and and Hensel Street
3. Meadowland Street and Hensel Street
4. Meadowland Street and University Drive
5. Hensel Drive and Hensel Street
6. Potential access points on adjacent roadways
Analysis will be undertaken to evaluate potential mitigation solutions as a result of proposed development.
Bryan/College Station Design Guidelines for traffic volume capacities for different classifications of streets will be
considered as a part of the analysis.
Preliminary Analysis and Summary Documentation to be Submitted to the City
1. Trip generation for proposed land uses will be developed in accordance with Trio Generation published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and/or Tables 1 and 2 of Section 7.12 of the UDO.
2, Traffic growth rates — Based on historical ADT available from TxDOT for previous three years
3. Internal capture — Based on data and recommendations contained in the Trip Generation Handbook
published by ITE
4. Trip distribution — Based on review of traffic count data collected previously and consideration of adjacent
existing land uses
5. Transit use — Based on Information to be obtained from TAMU Transportation Services for other similar
developments in the area
6. Application of provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (such as Section 7.3, Subsection I
concerning right turn deceleration lanes) will be considered as a part of the analysis and recommendations.
Submitted by Mike Mclnturff, P.E., PTOE
l t
Approved by t Date: /2 /2 ` ea r/
m
`a
a
c
m
c
z
0
x
r
Y
a
h
N
Yd
l
,10
1 0 1
ea
a>
0
Q
Lo
0
N
L
cu
M
'd'
N
M N N �-
(smog eioigw puesnoyj)
i(elaa Ienuuy
co
N!
C
ca
N
d
G
d
:r+
T
N O co Ip e{
THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE>
February 17, 2012
THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE>
Prepared for
Capstone / Woodridge Capital Partners, LLC
Prepared by
HDR Engineering, Inc.
504 Lavaca Street, Suite 1175
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 904-3700
Facsimile: (512) 904-3773
Website: www.hdrinc.com
February 17, 2012
THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT
< TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UPDATE>
Purpose
HDR Engineering, Inc. was retained by CapstoneMoodridge Capital Partners, LLC, to perform a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Plaza Redevelopment located in the northwest corner of Texas
Avenue (Business SH 6) and University Drive (FM 60) in College Station, Texas. The TIA was submitted
on January 11, 2012. The proposed development will replace the existing development on the site and will
consist of two phases resulting in the following land use types and quantities on the site: student
apartments with 595 dwelling units, residential condominium/townhomes with 16 dwelling units, specialty
retail with 38,280 square feet and 25,520 square feet of restaurants. The revised concept plan is shown in
Figure 1. This report has been prepared to update the original TIA and provide responses to City review
comments received and discussed with staff on January 31, 2012. Several of the comments related to
elements included with the original TIA with some responses provided on February 15, 2012 by letter to
Jason Schubert from Veronica Morgan. This report provides updated traffic analysis information to support
several of the responses. For completeness in response to City staff comments and ease in comparison
and review of previous responses, this report provides analysis and support for responses and contains a
list of the comments and complete responses thereto in the Appendix.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 1
____a
} %4
�! � ' �a 3031100
a3VU013A3(13wVZVa+!
r
r
:
___+___
E®|q§
/
)
-
.
!
-8)h
)
)22
�
({\)
°
LU
�
/
/LU
�
]\\#
/
{) } 79�
E;#!!
Existing Traffic Volumes
Daily traffic volumes reported by TOOT are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
TOOT Average Daily Traffic Volume
Location
2010
2009
2008
2007
University Drive, West of Texas Avenue
30,000
38,000
39,000
41,000
University Drive, East of Texas Avenue
39,000
N/A*
37,000
39,000
Texas Avenue, North of University Drive
N/A*
21,000
25,000
25,000
Texas Avenue, South of University Drive
46,000
N/A*
42,000
40,000
`TXDOT data unavailable at location
Trip Generation
Unadjusted total trips per day, as well as the peak hour traffic associated with the project, were estimated
using the microcomputer program Trip Generation (Ref. 1), which is based on recommendations and data
contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report Trip Generation (Ref. 2). Table 2
provides a detailed summary of the estimated traffic produced by the assumed land use activities for the
proposed development, summarized by Phases 1 and 2. Trip generation estimates were developed using
rates and equations as recommended by ITE. As a point of reference, the total unadjusted trips per day
are estimated at 8,471 vehicles per day (vpd) for this development.
Table 2.
Summary of Unadjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed
Land Use
Size
24-Hour
Two -Way
Volume
AM Peak
PM Peak
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Phase 1
Apartments
383 dwelling units
2,340
36
139
135
75
Specialty Retail Center
38,280 SF
1,697
0
0
46
58
Quality Restaurant
6,380 SF
574
0
0
32
16
High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant
19,140 SF
2,434
115
106
126
87
Subtotal
7,045
151
245
339
236
Phase 2
Apartments
212 dwelling units
1,295
20
77
75
42
Residential Condominium
16 dwellingunits
131
2
10
9
4
Subtotal
1,426
22
87
84
46
Total
8,471
173
332
423
282
HDR Engineering, Inc. 3
Assumptions
The traffic impact analysis process involves both the use of primary data and engineering judgment on
transferable parameters. Specifically, engineering judgment is required for estimation of background traffic
growth, pass -by capture, internal capture, and transit trip reductions, all of which are further described in
the following paragraphs.
Background Traffic — Table 1 summarized daily traffic volumes reported on TxDOT traffic maps. Based on
these traffic volumes, a negative average growth rate of approximately two percent was observed between
2007 through 2010 in the vicinity of the site. To be conservative in this analysis, a three percent growth
rate was assumed, based on demographic information obtained from Bryan/College Station MPO
Transportation Plan (Ref. 3).
Pass -By Capture — Studies have shown that retail land uses will capture from 20 to 60 percent of their
traffic as pass -by trips, depending upon their size. It is well documented that many other land uses also
experience significant pass -by trip capture, such as drive-in banks and restaurants. The amount of trip
reduction that each tract may attribute to the pass -by phenomenon will depend directly on the type of land
use that is developed. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 4) does not contain pass -by reductions for
the specialty retail land use; however, data collected for shopping center land use suggest a 34% pass -by
reduction in the PM peak period. In order to provide a more conservative analysis, the suggested shopping
center pass -by capture was reduced by 50%. A 17 percent pass -by reduction in the PM peak was
assumed for the specialty retail center land use for this project.
Internal Capture — Once the total buildout of proposed land uses occurs, there will be interaction among the
uses within this development. Internal capture is accounted for in two ways. First, to account for internal
capture among similar retail land uses in adjacent areas, the sizes may be combined during the trip
generation process. Because the equations used in trip generation estimations are logarithmic, the number
of trips generated by a site does not increase in direct proportion to an increase in the square footage of a
development. By combining retail projects in close proximity to each other, a lower number of trips will be
estimated, thereby taking into account the internal capture factor. The second way to account for internal
capture is to reduce the expected number of trips directly by some percentage, which reflects expected
multipurpose trip -making among different types of land uses that are in close proximity. As with pass -by
HDR Engineering, Inc. 4
trip reductions, internal capture depends on the type and quantity of land uses. For this project, a seven
percent internal capture was assumed for all the proposed land uses only for the PM peak based on
recommendations contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Ref. 4).
Transit Trips — The provision of transit service to an area may reduce the expected number of trips by
providing a mode of travel alternative to the private automobile. The reduction may be in two forms, either
a reduction in site generated trips or a reduction in background trips. Bus service for the site will be
available as follows:
a. There is an existing TAMU bus route (04) along Hensel Drive and Moore Avenue with a stop at the
intersection, immediately adjacent to the proposed parking garage and dwelling units in the
northwest corner of the site. This route and stop will provide bus service for TAMU students on the
site with easy access for pedestrians from the site.
b. Brazos Transit District has three routes immediately adjacent to the site which provide service to
TAMU (Ref. 5). The fixed routes travel the same path every hour on the hour. Riders may board
the bus anywhere along the route as long as they are on the same side of the street as the
entrance to the bus. TAMU students may ride free of charge with student ID card.
c. Based on these bus routes as well as the most recent ridership information provided on TAMU's
website (30% of Fall 2009 enrollment) (Ref. 6), a 20% transit reduction was assumed for both the
AM and PM peak periods.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trips — Due to the proximity of the site to the TAMU campus, the nature of the proposed
land uses, and student population, significant trips can be expected via bicycles, walking, skate boarding,
etc. Based on information provided by TAMU Transportation Services (Ref. 6), 60% of students hold
parking permits which means that 40% of students use an alternate mode of transportation which could be
bus or one of the modes listed above. Based on this fact and the transit ridership noted previously, a
reduction of 10% was assumed for both the AM and PM peak periods due to pedestrian/bicycle trips.
Applying the reductions discussed above, the adjusted trip total for this project is 5,230 vpd. Table 3
provides a detailed summary of adjusted traffic at completion of both phases of the project.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 5
Table 3.
Summary of Adjusted Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation — Proposed
Land Use
Size
24-Hour
Two -Way
Volume
AM Peak
PM Peak
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Apartments
595 dwelling units
2,640
42
1 163
147
82
Residential Condominium
16 dwelling units
91
1
7
6
3
Specialty Retail Center
38,280 SF
943
0
0
26
32
Quality Restaurant
6,380 SF
215
0
0
12
6
High Turnover (Sit -Down)
Restaurant
19,140 SF
1,341
83
76
48
33
Total
5,230
127
246
239
1 156
Directional Distribution — Once site generated trips were known, the next step involved distribution of those
trips to appropriate geographic directions and logical connecting roadways. The major thoroughfares that
have a direct bearing on the accessibility of the project have been previously identified.
Overall directional distribution of traffic was derived from turning movement data at the intersection of
Texas Avenue and University Drive which were provided by the City of College Station. Forecasted
directional distribution of traffic is presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4.
Forecasted Overall Directional Distribution of Site Oriented Traffic
Direction/Roadway
% of Site Traffic
North Texas Avenue
15
South Texas Avenue
25
East University Drive
30
West University Drive
30
Total
100
Shared Parking
Parking will be provided on the site within three parking garages with a limited amount of surface parking.
Table 5 provides a comparison of proposed parking and required parking. in mixed -use developments with
specific land uses identified in the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking report (Ref. 7), there exists a
potential for utilization of adjacent parking spaces by more than one land use during the course of the day.
This potential increases as the time between periods of maximum parking demand of each use increases.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 6
The major factors in addition to land use which influence parking demand are captive market, automobile
occupancy rate, non -auto trips, and seasonal variations. Captive market is the percentage of patrons,
which are served by a second land use within the mixed -use development (i.e., residents shopping the
same development where they live, retail patrons dining within the development). Automobile occupancy
rate is a measure of potential trip reduction and parking demand, which can be satisfied by one vehicle and
its associated parking space by providing service to an average of more than one person per vehicle. Non -
auto trips are those external trips made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and bus patrons, which do not generate
a need for additional parking spaces. The results of a study published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (Ref. 8) provide documentation of the magnitude of captive market in mixed -use developments.
Interviews conducted with several hundred persons entering mixed -use sites for a primary purpose
determined percentages of those with multiple trip purposes or persons who represent a captive market.
Based on the results of those studies, 27 percent captive market is associated with retail and food sales
land uses, and 15 percent captive market is associated with restaurant land uses. Based on information
provided by TAMU Transportation Services (Ref. 6), 60% of students hold parking permits which means
that 40% of students use an alternate mode of transportation which could be bus, bicycle or walking.
Based on the above factors, mode adjustment and captive market factors for all uses in this study were
assumed to be a total of 15%.
For the purposes of this analysis, adjustments may be made to account for automobile occupancies for
each land use type. The ULI Shared Parking report suggests that average automobile occupancies are 1.8
persons/auto for retail uses and 2.0 persons/auto for dining/entertainment uses. In order to provide a
conservative analysis, these assumptions were not incorporated into the analysis.
Parking demand for some uses, such as office, does not vary by season. However, it has been found to
vary for retail uses, which generally peak during the winter holidays, and restaurant and cinema uses,
which are the highest during the summer months. The month of December was found to generate the
highest demand for parking at this site.
Using the values discussed above in the shared parking analysis results in a maximum parking demand of
1,827 parking spaces. Tabular and graphic summaries of the input values and results are provided in the
Appendix.
HDR Enaineerina. Inc. 7
Table 5.
Proposed Parking vs. Required Parking
Land Use
Size
Proposed Parkin
**Parking Req't
DU
*BR
Rate
Spaces
Rate
Spaces
Apartments
595
1,871
1 per BR
1,871
1 per BR
1,871
Residential Condominium
16
64
1 per BR
64
1 per BR
64
Subtotal
611
1,935
Subtotal
1,935
Subtotal
1,935
Quality (25%of restaurant)
6,380
1/250 SF
26
1/65 SF
98
High Turnover/Sit-Down (75%of Restaurant)
19,140
1/250 SF
77
1/65 SF
294
Subtotal (40%of retail)
25,520
Subtotal
103
Subtotal
392
Specialty Retail Center (60% of retail)
38,280
1/250 SF
153
1/250 SF
153
Total Retail
63,800
Total
2,191
Total
2,480
BR - Bedrooms
** Section 7.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance
Traffic Analysis
The impact of the proposed development on existing area intersections was analyzed. Two (2) time
periods and three (3) travel conditions were evaluated:
■ 2012 Existing Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
• 2013 Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
• 2013 Site Plus Forecasted Conditions (AM peak and PM peak)
Intersection Level of Service
Intersections are considered locations of principal concern because they are locations of highest traffic
conflict and delay. The standard used to evaluate traffic conditions at intersections is level of service
(LOS), which is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors such as speed, volume of traffic,
geometric features, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, convenience, and
operating cost. Two types of intersections include signalized and unsignalized, which use different criteria
for assessment of operation levels. The control delay for this study was determined using the
microcomputer program "Synchro 7.0" by Trafficware (Ref. 9), which is based on procedures contained in
HDR Engineering, Inc. 8
the Highway Capacity Manual (Ref. 10). In general, overall intersection levels of service A to D are
deemed acceptable, while an overall LOS of E or F is unacceptable.
The TIA analyzed the signalized intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive and the two proposed
unsignalized site driveways. The results are summarized in Table 6. The build -out condition level of
service (LOS) assumes that all roadway and intersection improvements recommended in the TIA will be
constructed.
Table 6.
Intersection Level of Service
Intersection
2012
Existing
2013
Forecasted
2013 Site
Plus
Forecasted
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Texas Avenue and University Drive
E
E
E
F
E
E
Texas Avenue DrivewayA
A
University Drive DrivewayA
A
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Coordinate with TAMU on its planned development adjacent to and west of the site to explore mutually -
beneficial access and circulation for transit, bicycles and pedestrians. This could include upgrade and
extension of Hensel Drive to University Drive to accommodate bus route alternatives, shared bus
turnaround off Hensel Drive, etc.
2. Provide incentives for non -auto use by patrons of the development such as adequate bicycle parking
facilities, encouragement of bus use and car pooling.
3. In conjunction with the proposed driveway on University Drive, construct a westbound deceleration lane
and restrict parking on the south side of the entrance road for a distance of at least 60 feet.
4. In conjunction with the proposed driveway on Texas Avenue, construct a southbound deceleration
lane.
5. The existing raised concrete median on Texas Avenue north of University Drive should be extended
approximately 110 feet to the north to preclude left turn maneuvers to/from the proposed site driveway.
6. Texas Avenue and University Drive - This intersection currently operates at LOS E during both the AM
peak and PM peak periods. Assuming the same intersection geometry and signal timing, this
HDR Engineering, Inc. 9
intersection will operate at LOS E and F under 2013 forecasted (without site) traffic conditions during
the AM peak and PM peak periods, respectively. With the addition of site traffic, this intersection will
continue to operate at LOS E and F during the AM peak and PM peak periods, respectively. In order to
improve traffic operations at the intersection, two improvements were evaluated as follows:
a. Provision of an additional southbound right turn lane on Texas Avenue. As shown in the summary
table in the Appendix, this improvement will decrease AM peak period delay by 2.0%; PM peak
period delay will increase by 2.4%.
b. Provision of an additional eastbound left turn lane on University Drive. As shown in the summary
table in the Appendix, this improvement will decrease AM and PM peak period delay by 11.6% and
5.0%, respectively.
c. Provision of both improvements will decrease AM and PM peak period delay by 12.7% and 5.2%,
respectively.
These improvements as well as the driveway recommendations are shown on the schematic in the
Appendix.
7. Hensel Street and Texas Avenue — There is a significant grade change between the profile on Hensel
Street and the Texas Avenue cross -slope. Pavement gouges and scrapes indicate that some vehicle
undercarriages drag when crossing the north/south gutter line along the west side of Texas Avenue.
No sight distance or other traffic operational issues were noted.
8. No sight distance limitations or other safety factors were observed during field review of traffic
operations at the following intersections:
a. Hensel Street and Meadowland Street
b. Hensel Street and Hensel Drive
HDR Engineering, Inc. 10
References
1. Buttke, Carl H., 'Trip Generation," Microtrans Corporation, Portland, Oregon, 2008.
2. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, An ITE Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C., 2008.
3. Bryan / College Station MPO 2005-2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Appendix C, Future
Thoroughfare System
4. Trip Generation Handbook, tad Edition, An ITE Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Washington, D.C., January 2004.
5. Brazos Transit District: hftp://www.btd.org/maps/find_fixed_route.asp
6. TAMU Transportation Services: http://transport.tamu.edu
7. Shared Parking, The Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers,
Second Edition, Washington D.C., 2005.
8. Trip Generation, An Informational Report, Update to the 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1995.
9. Husch, David and John Albeck, "Synchro 7.0", Trafficware Ltd., Sugar Land, Texas, 2007.
10. Highway Caoacitv Manual, (SR 209), Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 11
Appendix
1. Shared Parking Demand Summary
2. Shared Parking Hourly Demand
3. Texas and University Delay Comparison
4. Conceptual Site Plan with Turn Lanes
5. Responses to review comments:
TRANSPORTATION
1. The trip generation rates should use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report 8th
edition. The rates used in the trip generation table do not reflect the 8th edition of the ITE report.
Response: The TIA references on Page 11 include the 81h edition of Trip Generation. Tables 2 and 3
of the TIA were developed using these rates and equations as recommended by ITE.
2. In the trip generation table please separate dwelling units per pad site. This will help should
phasing the project become one mitigation option.
Response: The trip generation summary in Table 2 consists of a tabulation of land uses and estimated
trips for each phase shown in the Concept Plan.
3. Because the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive is already operating at
unacceptable levels of service (LOS), demonstrated strategies must be presented as part of the
PDD to minimize further impact to University Drive and Texas Avenue. To satisfy the question that
may be presented by Planning and Zoning or City Council, 'Why should we approve this if the
intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue is operating at unacceptable LOS", stating that
this development adds less than the five percent of traffic as per the UDO requirement threshold at
such a critical intersection is not acceptable as a mitigation option and because this is a PDD
rezoning request, traffic mitigation is part of the PDD negotiation process.
Response: Item #6 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations describes two proposed
improvements at the intersection which can result in a peak hour reduction in delay as much as 12.7%.
Summary information and a graphic illustration of the improvements are included in the Appendix of the
TIA.
4. Because the driveways proposed do not meet TxDOT spacing requirements and are subject to
TxDOT permitting, all driveways to the site will have right turn deceleration lanes and must meet
TxDOT right turn length requirements. As per TxDOT's request all driveways will be right in and
right out only. To accomplish this on Texas the current raised median needs to be extended to the
north past the proposed driveway location. These will be conditions for meritorious modification
#4.
Response: Recommendations for deceleration lanes at the proposed driveways are included as Items
#2 and #3 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations and a graphic illustration of these
improvements is included in the Appendix.
5. Staff recommends that Meadowland's current intersection with University Drive be retained to
provide another access point to the site via eastbound University Drive. This would allow
eastbound traffic from campus to avoid the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue
providing some mitigation relief to that intersection. Furthermore, a public way projection to the
HDR Enaineerina. Inc. 12
Texas A&M property along the former Meadowland Street will allow for an alternative route for
traffic to avoid the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue. Both of these will be a
condition for meritorious modifications #3 and will be considered a mitigation strategy.
Response: As noted in response to Planning Comment #13, TAMU will not allow vehicular
connections from the site to University property. We analyzed the provision of an additional eastbound
to northbound left turn lane to quantify the reduction in delay resulting from this improvement as
described in response to Transportation Comment #3. This will also allow additional capacity for
eastbound traffic to access the site and provide improved operation at the intersection. As noted below
in TxDOT Comment #1, TxDOT agreed with the planned access drive from FM 60. Maintaining the
Meadowland Street intersection will result in two access points within 450 feet on University Drive. As
noted in Item #1 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations, continuing discussion will be held with
TAN to consider a joint effort for upgrade and extension of Hensel Drive to University Drive to
accommodate bus route alternatives. This would provide a better location for a public street
intersection and median opening on University Drive. As such, our request for the block length
variance along the Texas A&M University property line stands and we do not intend to keep
Meadowland in its current location.
6. With the additional ROW dedication on Texas Avenue, a dual right turn lane configuration
southbound to eastbound should be explored as a mitigation strategy and could satisfy meritorious
modification N.
Response: As clarified with the Transportation Planner at the 1/31 meeting, the concern is southbound
to westbound traffic. Item #6 in the TIA Conclusions and Recommendations describes this as one of
two proposed improvements at the intersection which can result in a peak hour reduction in delay as
much as 12.7%. Summary information and a graphic illustration of the improvements are included in
the Appendix of the TIA.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 13
LO
0 0
0 0
N o
N N
0 0 0
0 0 0
Ln o Ln
SIIe3S BU14JLcr
0
4%-
\\\
^��
\&{=mamma
)\/{)
\7/
\uj
CO
I=�
@mow
;ROE
\j��
\)/
\\)
®)3
2£
mum
)I/]
\\0
±
Lq
Fn
\z2
^93
Gm�
�
/f/
co 0
lc-uo
]��
)\
)k
»mm
¥I
- Q8
1°1'Oe..
Q1-el
S3NV-1 Nuni 03SOI �n �I •._ ' �.,(
� i1 I�,
1
NVd 31lS �1df11d3ON00 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ y _ _._
___:_'.
-._, _._ _._._ -'._.
1
�t_.II
_ -.__.
_ /'� L� �J
DnN3A S�
�../�/ 1XDI 30vmvololanlll
4A
d'6000'9E' -
1Itl13aa3nOAtl018Y
Ill NN2I1dD r{.-;-1
0:6,9001AltV'
9030 1N3W1atld
z Dole
'1,3
a
i I
�! �. 1 �'�. i.•,v'^• �I' � JI
I
—to
1 e;i.T��'A
ffffff!!!!!! ❑ I''I' II:
�' I
4] l0
, 1 7
oa
3Dt/aVD DNINHVd
,
1
uu1 s1461uN �4µ, Nwnelsoa ssegPlddq
__
4-�
t 3
4Q 0 10
C
fT
I^41 ._• . r li
s3 aoola wt®
3snOHemo
83AO
�1
- 2 -
— _1 t
930Vd9 eL AM N3
Z
B9PYae0Y i IeloH •CIS P9puopcj pe6odol
uul9WdW9H
1N3W1aVdV
`eM
I/ NWP}-I
U
lODl6
9aj
vn
_ __
�1�
a a4a
CA
=
AO
• ^ �•
40
109 :,. ..
l
Sol
33Dtl O16 E
is
100d
�* I
G•.
/
_ --_
�• 1-_ �� — — — — — — — — - — —
= -
— --- —
lU .
-- -. 11tl13a
cam.
ds ow lz
a3no Aaol
40
40
909999L
LO 4U 16 To 10
I''i2 VcPVION j
1N3W18k
vc Dale
0 0 40 l0 L LO 40 L
TIrT
'4
40 10
049='O189X06
�'
II Itll
II
L3 SLL ='a3111'O1SB
90tlaVODMXatld — 23 Z3
-
I V —
l0 •� .L
I
tF.l
40 l Z3 �tl N 1 it I I II
1
_ l0
4 0 40
,
-
--- —
SON POE 1N3Wlatldtl
AYo1S9
603BOLL 1N3Wlatldtl
9E sal9
P 133d. 31V05 - ha0419
001 09 0 SZ 05 -
:9
I