OR126/Tom McCall

OR126/Tom McCall

(Prineville) Intersection

Improvements

December 17, 2015

Follow a public and transparent process

Corridor Plan and TSPs provide direction

Alternative Analysis by Kittelson & Assoc., Inc.

Highway/Civil Engineering using Best Practices

Can’t just pick a solution, must consider safety, engineering, and available funding

Process

Problem OR126/Tom McCall

Growth in traffic

Extremely long queues and congestion

Increased crashes

Intersection becoming significant barrier to economic development

Need Safety - Intersection use is increasing as surrounding land use grows

PurposeServe existing use and support future use from development of nearby industrial land

Need and Purpose

Design and construction of a roundabout

Roundabout approach treatments to slow traffic

Re-route George Millican Road and Airport Way

What is the OR126/Tom McCall Project?

Key goals include:

Provide a high level of safety in high-speed rural area

Support economic development within the City’s industrial lands

Accommodate oversized freight movements

Key Goals OR126/Tom McCall

Project Background and Schedule

OR126 Corridor Plan (2012)

Prineville TSP (2012/13)

City/County Requests STIP Funding (2012)

Project Design/Stakeholder Outreach (2015/16)

City and Freight Concurrence (2016)

Construction 2017/18

DesignConcepts

Design Refinement

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. – Traffic Analysis

Study Area

Existing Intersection Operations

Existing Safety Performance

OR 126 Intersection Number of

Crashes

Million Entering Vehicles (MEV)

Crash Rate (crash

per MEV)

Statewide 90th Percentile Rate

Tom McCall Road 10 21.4 0.47 0.41Airport Way-SW Millican Road 5 18.6 0.27 0.41

5 years of historical crash data (2009-2013)

Future Intersection Operations – No-Build

Evaluation YearStop-Controlled

Approaches LOS V/C Delay (sec)95th Percentile

Queue (ft)OR 126 and Tom McCall Road

2035Northbound F >1.0 >80 >500

Southbound F >1.0 >80 >500

OR 126 and Airport Way/SW Millican Road

2035Northbound E 0.65 46.5 100

Southbound F 0.22 59.9 25

What is a roundabout?

What is not a modern roundabout?

Pho

to: C

ity o

f For

t Wor

th, T

XRotary Traffic Circle

Pho

to: G

oogl

e M

aps

Pho

to: L

ee R

odeg

erdt

s

Neighborhood Traffic Circle

Conversion of Rotary to Roundabout:Kingston, NY

Pho

to: N

ew Y

ork

Sta

te D

OT

225 feet600+ feet

Why a roundabout?

Roundabouts reduce crashes

Over 90% reduction in fatalities 76% reduction in injuries 35% reduction in total crashes

* NCHRP Report 572

Pho

to: L

ee R

odeg

erdt

s

Safety Performance (NCHRP Report 572)

78% reduction in injuries 48% reduction in total crashes

CONVERTED TO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

How does a roundabout compare to a signal?Year 2035 Operations – Average Delay per Vehicle

> 80s

~ 26s

~ 22s

OR126/Tom McCall

Vehicle stackingQueues are approximately half as long with roundabout vs. signal

How does a roundabout compare to a signal?Future Safety Performance over 5 Years

6.5 Crashes3.5 Fatal/Injury

3.5 Crashes

1.5 Crashes0.5 Fatal/Injury

74% reduction89% reduction

OR126/Tom McCall

44% reduction

Roundabout Concept

Signal Concept

Freight Accommodation

Freight Accommodation

1,552 single-use permits on OR126 (2007-2012) 764 single-use permits on Millican Road (2013-2014)

Longest combination truck-trailer = 267 feet Widest load = 23.5 feet Over 12 loads = Height > 18 feet

Designing for Freight – US20/Barclay Example

Full-scale test in two locations

Tested 18 truck/trailer combinations– Up to 130’ in length

All test vehicles made it through the roundabout

Questions?

What is a modern roundabout?

YIELD control on entry– Priority to circulating

vehicles

Slow, consistent speeds Landscaping Pedestrian access &

crossing No Parking Direction of circulation

– Channelization

32 conflict pointsHigh-speedAngle CrashesHigh Impact

8 conflict pointsLow-speedNon-angle CrashesLow Impact

Vehicle Conflict Points: REDUCED

Pedestrian Conflict Points: REDUCED

16 conflict points 8 conflict points

Lower speed is safer for pedestrians

Chance of pedestrian death increases with vehicle speed

Roundabouts and Bicyclists

Roundabouts slow vehicles to speeds compatible with bicycles

Bicyclists have wide range of skills and comfort levels in mixed traffic– Experienced cyclists (e.g., commuter or utility

cyclists)– Inexperienced cyclists (e.g., children or

occasional recreation cyclists)

Give bicyclists option of either being vehicle or pedestrian

Pedestrian Safety

Netherlands (181 Intersections converted to roundabouts)– 73% reduction in pedestrian crashes– 89% reduction in pedestrian injury crashes

Norway (4 years of data)– 59 roundabouts = 1 pedestrian injury crash out of 33 injury crashes (3%)– 124 signals = 57 pedestrian injury crashes out of 287 injury crashes (20%)

NCHRP Report 572– 769 observed pedestrian events

• No crashes• Four conflicts (0.5%)

Cyclist Safety

NCHRP Report 572– 690 observed bicyclist events

• No crashes• Four conflicts (0.6%)

Public perception of roundabouts

Signalized Intersection Crashes in Oregon 2003 - 2007 (5 yrs)

At 1,240 Signalized Intersections on State Highways– 32 Fatal crashes– 308 Serious Injury crashes– 5,171 Moderate & minor injury crashes

Future (Year 235) Intersection Operations – Signal

Scenario #1 - No Airport Way/Millican Road Reroute

Scenario #2 – With Airport Way/Millican Road Reroute

Future Intersection Operations – Roundabout

2035 Design Year

(Volume Scenario #1 - no Airport Way/ Millican Road Reroute)

2035 Design Year (Volume Scenario #2 - with Airport Way/

Millican Road Reroute)

Approach Lane ConfigurationsVolume to

Capacity Ratio1 Delay (sec) 1 Lane ConfigurationsVolume to

Capacity Ratio1 Delay (sec) 1

HCM 2010

Eastbound LT, TR 0.50 10.5 LTR 0.90 33.7

Westbound LTR 0.70 15.5 LTR 0.84 26.8

Northbound LTR 0.55 20.0 LT,R 0.68 31.3

Southbound LTR 0.41 13.8 LTR 0.52 18.7

HCM 2010 (with City of Bend Calibration)

Eastbound LTR 0.77 16.9 LTR 0.72 15.2

Westbound LTR 0.57 10.0 LTR 0.68 14.0

Northbound LTR 0.50 16.6 LTR 0.71 24.7

Southbound LTR 0.29 8.4 LTR 0.36 10.3

1 Reported for the critical lane for multilane approaches

LTR = Single lane approach; LT,TR = Left/through and Through/right lanes; LT,R = Left/through and right lanes

Summary Intersection Operations2035 P.M. Peak Hour

No-Build SignalRoundabout

(HCM 2010)

Roundabout

(City of Bend

Calibration)

95th Percentile Queue (ft)

Eastbound OR 126 25 650 325 175

Westbound OR 126 25 500 275 150

Northbound Tom McCall Rd >500 100 125 150

Southbound Tom McCall Rd >500 125 75 50

Approach Capacity (v/c)

Eastbound OR 126 0.02 0.78 0.90 0.72

Westbound OR 126 0.04 0.69 0.84 0.68

Northbound Tom McCall Rd >1.0 0.58 0.68 0.71

Southbound Tom McCall Rd >1.0 0.65 0.52 0.36

Approach Delay (s)

Overall Intersection >80 25.9 28.316.0

Eastbound OR 126 0.5 22.7 33.7 15.2

Westbound OR 126 1.1 16.8 26.8 14.0

Northbound Tom McCall Rd >80 40.4 31.3 24.7

Southbound Tom McCall Rd >80 36.6 18.7 10.3

Level of Service (LOS)

Overall Intersection F C D C

Eastbound OR 126 A C D C

Westbound OR 126 A B D B

Northbound Tom McCall Rd F D D C

Southbound Tom McCall Rd F D C B

Scenario Total Entering Volume

OR126/Tom McCall

Existing 1,210

2018 1,355

2035 1,915

Brookswood/Bond/Reed Market May 2014 Counts 2,476

US 50/US 77 – Florence, KS

Steve King - KDOT

20% Trucks

40% Trucks

40% Trucks

Bypass for Overdimensional Loads