CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT August 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report By Grijalva Engineering and HDR, Inc. August 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 1 August 2010 Table of Contents SECTION 1.0 PAGE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option .................................................................. 6 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option ................................................................. 6 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues ....................................................................................... 7 2.0 Transportation ANALYSIS................................................................................... 13 2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS .............................................................. 13 2.2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS................................................................ 13 2.2.1 Main Street Study Area.............................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Methodology .............................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Traffic Analysis Assumptions and Approach.............................................. 16 2.2.4 Roadway Geometry Input .......................................................................... 21 2.2.5 Speed Limit Input....................................................................................... 22 2.2.6 Turn Lane Length Input ............................................................................. 22 2.2.7 Signal Timing and Phasing Input ............................................................... 24 2.2.8 Pedestrian Traffic Input.............................................................................. 25 2.2.9 Bus Stop and Parking Input ....................................................................... 26 2.2.10 Traffic Operation Analysis Findings ........................................................... 27 2.3 TRAFFIC DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION/CONSIDERATIONS DUE TO LRT.... 30 2.3.1 Signal Phasing and Timings - Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT Priority Systems..................................................................................................... 30 2.3.2 Turn Lane Lengths .................................................................................... 30 2.3.2 Impacts to On-street Parking ..................................................................... 33 2.3.3 Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................ 35 2.3.4 Impacts on Bicycle Facilities...................................................................... 35 2.4 IMPACTS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION - MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC........................................................................................................... 37 2.4.1 Utility Relocation........................................................................................ 37 2.4.2 Roadway Widening.................................................................................... 38 2.4.3 LRT Track and Station Construction.......................................................... 39 2.4.4 Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................ 39 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report ii August 2010 List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Central Mesa Study Area .............................................................................. 1 Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................................................... 4 Main Street Section, Sycamore to Country Club Drive .................................. 8 Main Street Sections, 2-Lane Option........................................................... 10 Main Street Sections, 4-Lane Option........................................................... 12 Central Mesa LET Extension Study Intersections ....................................... 15 Mesa Bicycle Map – Main Street Downtown and West Mesa...................... 36 Bike Lane Ends ........................................................................................... 37 Sharrow Marking ......................................................................................... 37 May Use Full Lane....................................................................................... 37 List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: LRT Operating Plans ..................................................................................... 3 Stations, Bus Interface, and Park-And-Rides ................................................. 5 Main Street Existing Roadway Characteristics – Sycamore Drive to Mesa Drive ................................................................................................... 14 Signalized Intersection LOS Definitions ....................................................... 16 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Definitions ................................................... 16 2009 Existing Conditions Intersection/Turning Movement Traffic Volume – PM Peak Hour.............................................................................................. 17 2015 No-Build Intersection/Turning Movement Traffic Volume PM Peak Hour.............................................................................................. 18 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option Intersection/Turning Movement Traffic Volumes – PM Peak..................................................................................... 20 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option Intersection/Turning Movement Traffic Volumes – PM Peak..................................................................................... 21 Proposed Design Left Turn Lane Length 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option.............................................................................................. 23 Proposed Design Left Turn Lane Lengths 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option.............................................................................................. 24 Proposed 2015 Build Scenarios Pedestrian Volume At Light Rail Stations Daily and PM Peak Hour ............................................................................. 26 Los Results At Main Street Study Area Intersections .................................. 28 Proposed Design Turn Lane Length 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option.............................................................................................. 31 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report iii August 2010 Table 15: Proposed Design Turn Lane Lengths 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option.............................................................................................. 32 Table 16: Mesa Downtown Parking Impacts Sycamore St. to Horne .......................... 34 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report iv August 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Transportation Study technical report is being prepared to support the Environmental Assessment (EA) for high capacity transit improvements being considered in the Central Mesa Corridor. This chapter begins with a short background of the study and a description of the alternatives being considered in the EA. 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND The Central Mesa Corridor study area is bounded on the west by the Central Phoenix / East Valley (CP/EV) eastern terminus at Main Street/Sycamore; University Drive to the north; Power Road to the east; and the Superstition Freeway (U.S. 60) on the south (Figure 1). Figure 1: Central Mesa Study Area Source: METRO (2009) A two-tiered alternatives development process was implemented to evaluate the Central Mesa Corridor conceptual alternatives. The first phase (Tier 1) included a conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the initial list of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the corridor (see separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, October 2007, for more information). The initial alternatives considered both light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) modes. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 1 August 2010 All alternatives began at the eastern terminus of the recently opened LRT Starter Line Station at Main Street/Sycamore and extended east to the Superstition Springs Center area via Main Street (with 1st Street and 1st Avenue suboptions downtown) and Power Road. Fixed guideway (via LRT or BRT) generally extended east to about Horne (between Mesa and Stapley Drives) with BRT offering limited stop express service further east in existing travel lanes (similar to Valley Metro Link) to Superstition Springs Center. LRT consisted of a dedicated fixed guideway with two tracks (one track in each direction) that ran mostly in the middle of the existing street system. BRT also had a dedicated fixed guideway for a portion of the corridor as previously mentioned. The initial alternatives were subject to a “fatal flaw’ screening at the Tier 1 phase; the most feasible alternatives were identified and retained for further analysis, and the alternatives deemed unresponsive to Tier 1 evaluation criteria were eliminated from continued study. The alternatives that remained after the Tier 1 analysis and public, agency, and other stakeholder input were then subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2). The Tier 2 evaluation continued to consider both LRT and BRT build alternatives. The criteria developed to analyze all of the build alternatives in Tier 2 began to quantify ridership potential, capital and operating and maintenance costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preferences. See the complete Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, December 2008, which defines the Tier 2 alternatives considered and details the results of the evaluation. Based on the results of the Tier 2 evaluation, public meetings, and agency and other stakeholder input, the recommended build alternative is to advance light rail transit as the preferred technology and Main Street as the preferred alignment. The locally preferred alternative (LPA) includes a light rail extension on Main Street east to an interim end-of-the-line east of Mesa Drive as Phase 1. See the complete Recommended Alternative Report, Draft July, 2009 for discussion of the rationale for selection of the LPA. The Phase 1 project is the major focus of the EA being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The No-Build Alternative will also continue to be considered as specified by NEPA. The Phase 1 project connects logical termini and has independent utility meaning that the project is a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. 1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE The LRT Main Street Alternative was selected as the recommended LPA for more detailed analysis in the EA. This LPA recommendation was approved by the City of Mesa City Council (May 2009) and the METRO Board of Directors (June 2009). The LPA has two design options for Main Street in the area east of Country Club Drive: 1) 2 Lanes; and 2) 4 Lanes. The design options are described at the end of this discussion. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 2 August 2010 Whether to implement the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option or the Build Alternative, 4Lane Option will be decided after completion of a series of public workshops, the Draft EA, and receipt of input during the Draft EA public comment period. The Build Alternative, or LPA, is shown in Figure 2. The Build Alternative includes a double-track LRT guideway that would operate in the center of Main Street from just east of Sycamore to just east of Hobson, a distance of 3.1 miles. LRT is electrically powered and receives its power from overhead power lines within the street right-ofway. LRT operations would include a traffic signal priority system (predictive priority), to allow for faster travel times. The light rail vehicles will be the same as the ones currently being used for the LRT Starter Line. Major operating plan features are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: LRT OPERATING PLANS Headways Number of Vehicles Line-haul Capacity Hours of Operation All day except late evening: 10 minutes Late evening: 20 minutes 42 – LRT Starter Line + Central Mesa LRT Extension 8 – Spare vehicles 50 – Total current fleet 2,700 passengers per peak hour per direction (Based on 3 vehicles per train and 150 passengers/vehicle)1 Daily = ~20 hours 1 Ultimate capacity. LRT operating plans call for 2-car consists during normal operations with 3-car consists operating only during special events or other high periods of demand. This alternative is an extension of the LRT Starter Line that opened in December 2008 and would provide a seamless connection (no transfer required) from the current eastern terminus of the LRT Starter Line at Sycamore along Main Street to Mesa Drive. Tail tracks would continue east of the station platform a distance of approximately 425 feet east of Hobson. East of Centennial Way to Superstition Springs Transit Center, the existing Valley Metro LINK BRT would connect to LRT and operate in mixed traffic as it does today as a skipstop express service. As a result of the Build Alternative, Valley Metro LINK BRT service would be discontinued along Main Street between Sycamore and Centennial Way to eliminate service duplication, and its operational frequency in the off-peak will increase from 30 to 15 minutes. However, service during peak periods will remain the same as today (15 minutes). Other than that, no other changes to the LINK operations or facilities will be necessary for the Phase 1 LRT extension being evaluated in the EA. LRT stations/LINK BRT stops and park-and-ride locations are identified in Table 2. A new park-and-ride facility would be built near the end-of-line LRT station on the northeast corner of Main Street/Mesa Drive. Each LRT station would serve one or more existing or planned bus routes in the area. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 3 August 2010 FIGURE 2: LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Also recommended, as part of the LPA, is a future (Phase 2) extension of LRT to Gilbert Road. This extension would provide enhanced regional transit connections and opportunity for a larger regional park-and-ride facility. At this time, Phase 2 is not identified in the MAG RTP, is unfunded, and is not evaluated in the EA. However, the Phase 2 recommendation has been forwarded to MAG and has been identified as an “illustrative project” for inclusion in the RTP. Should the Phase 2 project move forward as a federal project, it will be subject to NEPA compliance. Construction of the Build Alternative would include installation of trackwork, an overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electricity to LRT vehicles, traction power substations, and signaling and communication systems. The LRT transitway would consist of tracks formed of continuously welded rails. The rails would be embedded track supported on a concrete slab. The OCS would consist of poles, approximately 25 feet tall, installed along the operating right-of-way at intervals from 90 to 170 feet to support the electrical power line. The OCS would be designed to be compatible with visual and aesthetic characteristics of the corridor. The poles would generally be located in the center of the two tracks, wherever possible. In some locations, catenary poles may be located on the side of the LRT trackway with the overhead electrical line suspended over the LRT tracks with head spans. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 4 August 2010 TABLE 2: STATION AND PARK-AND-RIDE LOCATIONS Station/Stop LRT Facilities (Stations) Sycamore/Main St. (LRT Starter Line End-of-Line Station) Alma School/Main St. Country Club/Main St. Center/Main St. Mesa Dr./Main St. Location1 Park-andRide Yes East of intersection Existing facility and not attributable to LRT extension No No No Yes East of intersection East of intersection East of intersection Station—East of intersection Park-and-Ride—Northeast of intersection. A 6.4-acre area of interest identified. Park-and-ride would accommodate approximately 500 vehicles and will not likely require the entire 6.4-acre site. Layout to be determined during final design. The park-and-ride site may have potential market value for transit-oriented development sometime in the future. Valley Metro Link BRT Facilities (Existing Stops—Facilities not attributable to LRT extension) Stapley/Main St.2 No East of intersection Gilbert/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Lindsay/Main St.2 No East of intersection Val Vista/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Greenfield/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Higley/Main St.2 No East of intersection Recker/Main St.2 No West/east of intersection Power/Main St.2 No West of intersection Broadway/Power2 No North of intersection Yes North of intersection U.S. 60/Power (Superstition 2 Springs Center) 1 All LRT stations have a center platform configuration. 2Station locations as part of existing Valley Metro LINK BRT project. Station locations and amenities would remain. Source: METRO, 2010. Electricity for LRT operations would be supplied to the OCS from traction power substations (TPSS) located along the proposed LRT alignment. These electrical substations would be enclosed structures approximately 20-by-40 feet (30-by-60 feet including the grounding mat around the substation) located proximally to the LRT alignment. One TPSS would be required for roughly each one to one and a half mile of track. Specific locations will be determined as design is further refined. LRT vehicles for the Central Mesa LRT Extension would be maintained and serviced at the existing LRT Starter Line Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), located south of Washington Street between State Route (SR) 143 and Loop 202. The OMC will have sufficient capacity to service LRT vehicles allocated to the Central Mesa LRT Extension, and expansion of the existing facility, or construction of a new facility will not be required. The existing traffic lane capacity along Main Street would be maintained between Sycamore and Country Club Drive. Typical cross sections are presented in Figure 3. For the segment east of Country Club Drive to the LRT eastern terminus near Hobson (just east of Mesa Drive), two design options are being considered: Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 5 August 2010 • • Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option These design options are further described below. 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Main Street’s traffic lane capacity would generally be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction from Country Club Drive to Horne. The exception is in the westbound direction only between Mesa Drive and Horne where two through lanes would be available. At the westbound approach to Mesa Drive intersection, one through lane would be trapped into a right turn lane. Single left turn lanes would be maintained at Country Club Drive (double left is removed), Robson, MacDonald, Center Street, Centennial Way/Sirrine Street, Hibbert, Mesa Drive, Lesueur, and Hobson. Acquisition of additional right-of-way along the alignment would be minimal to accommodate the fixed guideway as a result of the reduction of travel lanes. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option are shown in Figure 4. The station and park-and-ride locations presented in Table 2 apply to the 2Lane Option. This option could allow for future conversion, if desired, to 2 lanes in each direction through downtown by eliminating the dedicated left turn lanes and using splitphase traffic signals that would allow through and left-turning traffic to share the same left lane. The conversion would require minor curb revisions and/or parking removal beyond that shown in the current design between Country Club Drive and Robson. Between Mesa Drive and Udall, some additional curb and right-of-way revisions would be needed on the south side of Main Street. 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option With the 4-lane option, the current four through travel lanes (two in each direction) would be maintained from Country Club to Hobson. This scenario assumes split-phase traffic signals, and single left turn lanes would only be provided at Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. All other existing turning lanes would be removed. The bike lane would be eliminated west of Lesueur, and parking would continue to be provided at most locations along this segment where it presently exists. To keep the existing numbers of through lanes will require acquisition of additional right-of-way at the northeast and southeast corners of Main Street and Mesa Drive. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option are shown in Figure 5. All of the stations and park-and-ride facility locations are as illustrated in Table 2. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 6 August 2010 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues Several issues will be further refined as the EA proceeds and community outreach continues. In addition to the previously discussed optional traffic design configurations downtown, decisions will need to be made about the following: • • • • • • • • TPSS locations OCS Pedestrian access points Park-and-ride sizing, layout and capacity Station design Urban design/public art Refinement of utilities and location Construction staging Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 7 August 2010 FIGURE 3: MAIN STREET SECTIONS, SYCAMORE TO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 8 August 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 9 August 2010 FIGURE 4: MAIN STREET SECTIONS, 2-LANE OPTION Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 10 August 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 11 August 2010 FIGURE 5: MAIN STREET SECTIONS, 4-LANE OPTION Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 12 August 2010 2.0 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS This chapter of the report provides an assessment of, and potential mitigation for the impacts of the Build and No-Build Alternatives on streets, parking, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This information will assist METRO and the City of Mesa in understanding the potential impacts of the proposed project and in developing appropriate design strategies, where needed, to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. 2.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS Table 3 identifies and documents the existing roadway lane configurations, traffic volumes, transit operations, on-street parking availability and pedestrian/bicycle facilities along the planned 3.1 mile Mesa LRT corridor extension on Main Street from Sycamore Drive on the west through the Mesa town center to Lesueur Street on the east. 2.2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS This section of the report summarizes the traffic analysis conducted for the Central Mesa LRT Extension. The traffic analysis was conducted for the PM peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections as shown in Figure 6 for the following scenarios: • 2009 Existing Conditions • 2015 No-Build • 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option • 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option Analyses of these scenarios provide a comparison of impacts to each of the alternatives. At this level, the traffic operations analysis will assist staff in their understanding of the relative impacts of the alternatives on a comparative basis. Future design phases will integrate LRT operations along Main Street using the VISSIM traffic analysis software, or similar, for the preferred alternative. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 13 August 2010 TABLE 3: MAIN STREET EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS - SYCAMORE DRIVE TO MESA DRIVE ROAD Sycamore Street to Alma School Road Alma School Road to Extension Road Extension Road to Country Club Drive Country Club Drive to Center Street Center Street to Mesa Drive Mesa Drive to LeSueur Street TRAVEL LANES 2008 Traffic Volume vehicles/day INTERSECTIONS Signalized: Sycamore Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Longmore Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Alma School Road: EB left, EB right turn lanes Unsignalized: North Brooks Street North Rogers Street Standage Street (EB to NB only) Stewart Street (EB to NB only) Two travel lanes each direction Raised median Two travel lanes in each direction Raised median Signalized: Alma School Road: WB left turn lane Extension Road: EB left turn lane Unsignalized: Beverley: EB and WB left turn pockets Two travel lanes in each direction Raised median Signalized: Extension Road: WB left turn lane Country Club Drive: Dual EB left, EB right Unsignalized: Date: EB and WB left turn lanes South Vineyard: EB and WB left turn lanes Raised median Raised median Two travel lanes each direction Raised median 16,900 LINK- Main Street BRT 15-30-min. service weekdays, 60-min. service weekends 14 PEDESTRIAN On-street parking, primarily north side Striped bicycle lane each direction. Sidewalks both sides Both sides Striped bicycle lane each direction. Sidewalks both sides Both sides Striped bicycle lane each direction. Sidewalks both sides METRO LRT @ Sycamore Rte. 104 Alma School 22,000 Rte 40 - Apache/Main St LINK- Main Street BRT Rte. 112 - Country Club Rte 40 - Apache/Main St 19,800 LINK- Main Street BRT BUZZ on Robson BUZZ on Macdonald Rte 40 - Apache/Main St 19,400 LINK- Main Street BRT BUZZ, LINK on Center Rte. 120 - Mesa Drive 25,300 Rte 40 - Apache/Main St LINK- Main Street BRT On-street parallel parking is provided on both sides of the street, except in the section between Morris Street and Country Club Drive. Striped bicycle lane each direction. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street, except between North Pomeroy and Mesa, and east of mid-block between South Pomeroy and Mesa Drive. Striped bicycle lane each direction. Both sides Striped bicycle lane each direction. 2002 City of Mesa Transportation Plan Street Functional Classification: Arterial 2009 Mesa Bicycle Map: Bicycle lanes on Main Street 2008 Traffic Volume: City of Mesa Transportation Division, 2009 Traffic Volume Map METRO LRT (Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit), LINK ( Mesa BRT Route, Sycamore – Superstition Springs), BUZZ (Mesa Neighborhood Circulator Route) Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report BICYCLE Rte 40 - Apache/Main St 30-minute service weekday/weekend LINK- Main Street BRT Signalized: Center Street: WB left turn lane Sirrine Street/Centennial Way: EB and WB left Hibbert Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Mesa Drive: EB left, EB right turn lanes Unsignalized: North Pomeroy Street: Right in/right out Signalized: Mesa Drive: WB left, WB right turn lanes Unsignalized: Udall: EB and WB left turn lanes LeSueur Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Two travel lanes each direction ON-STREET PARKING Rte 40 - Apache/Main St Signalized: Country Club Drive: Dual WB left, WB right Robson Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Macdonald Street: EB and WB left turn lanes Center Street: EB left turn lane Unsignalized: South Drew Street (WB to SB only) Two travel lanes each direction TRANSIT August 2010 Sidewalks both sides. Curb extensions at Robson, Macdonald, and Center. East of Morris, sidewalk is behind street trees and landscaping. Signalized mid-block crossings between Robson and MacDonald, and at Drew Street. Sidewalks both sides, with street trees and landscaping. Signalized mid-block crossing with curb bulb between Center and Shrine/ Centennial. Curb bulbs at Sirrine/Centennial and Hibbert Street. Sidewalks both sides 2.2.1 Main Street Study Area The study area for the traffic analysis consists of the Main Street corridor from Sycamore Drive to Horne Street. Figure 6 shows the study corridor along with the study intersections. FIGURE 6: CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION STUDY INTERSECTIONS The study area for this phase of the traffic analysis was focused along Main Street to assist in understanding the differences in impacts to traffic operations for the two alternatives studied: 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option versus the 4-Lane Option using a microsimulation software. A previous study, Mesa Tier 2 Traffic Evaluations Technical Memorandum, dated November 3, 2009, by Grijalva Engineering and HDR, evaluated link and intersection level of service impacts to other parallel and cross streets in a larger study area for 2030 in the PM peak period. The results of that study are available upon request. 2.2.2 Methodology Traffic analysis of roadway and intersection operational performance for the study scenarios was performed using the Synchro/SimTraffic simulation analysis package (version 7, Build series 755) developed by Trafficware, Inc, which evaluates intersection delay and congestion based on procedures similar to those given in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Chapters 16 and 17). Basic inputs used for Synchro relate primarily to traffic data including traffic volumes, lane geometry (i.e., number of lanes, lane widths, turn-lane storage lengths), signal timing data, bus and heavy vehicle traffic levels, on-street parking, bus blockage and a variety of other data items. The methodology used in this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), for the determination of Level of Service (LOS) for existing traffic conditions and future traffic conditions. The analysis results are expressed using LOS and Intersection Delay. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 15 August 2010 Level of Service is a quantitative measure (intersection delay and intersection capacity) is frequently expressed in qualitative terms as LOS A (free-flow) to LOS F (congested), to describe traffic operational conditions and, in qualitative terms, the perception of traffic conditions by motorists and passengers (Tables 4 and 5). TABLE 4: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10 – 20 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20 – 35 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 – 55 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55 – 80 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. ≤ 10 > 80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 TABLE 5: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay (second/vehicle) Description A Little or no delay 0 – 10 B Minor delays > 10 – 15 C Average delays > 15 – 25 D Moderate delays > 25 – 35 E Lengthy delays > 35 – 50 F Excessive delays/gridlock > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 2.2.3 Traffic Analysis Assumptions and Approach This traffic analysis employed a conventional approach that included basic data collection, investigation of existing roadway and traffic conditions, and analysis of study scenario operational impacts. The traffic volumes and traffic signal timing provided by the City of Mesa were used to document the 2009 existing conditions. New traffic counts were obtained at study intersections where existing counts were not available. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 16 August 2010 The traffic volumes for the 2015 study scenarios are based upon the MAG Regional Travel Demand Model (TDM) model runs. The 2015 TDM model traffic volumes for No- Build and Build scenarios were adjusted using engineering assumptions. The study analyzed only the PM peak hour traffic conditions, as the evening peak period is expected to generate the most congested traffic conditions during a weekday. The following are the assumptions and approach adopted during the development of the traffic models in SYNCHRO for traffic analysis: Existing Volumes The turning movement counts for the existing conditions were obtained from the City of Mesa. The traffic volumes included counts from 2007, 2008 and 2009. It was observed from the historic counts that the traffic volumes have decreased somewhat in Mesa. As the historic traffic growth rate along study corridor was observed to be negative, an engineering assumption of a conservative 1% annual growth rate was used to project 2009 counts from the 2007 and 2008 traffic counts Table 6 shows the PM peak hour turning movement volume used for analysis of existing conditions. TABLE 6: 2009 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION /TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME – PM PEAK HOUR Main Street Intersection at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Sycamore 43 15 49 66 20 27 27 707 25 41 575 30 Longmore 23 17 65 41 12 48 39 647 27 43 438 56 Alma School Road 142 784 175 225 1,441 53 79 511 139 202 429 107 Extension Road 109 323 173 58 372 64 65 713 121 126 561 49 Date 13 8 48 12 8 45 52 888 16 15 647 23 Country Club Drive 126 1,025 197 125 1,165 120 157 608 130 182 397 109 Robson 16 5 10 36 21 53 36 843 44 21 592 15 West 150 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 887 0 0 614 0 MacDonald 42 89 62 38 97 37 35 795 57 53 520 54 West 50 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 905 0 0 627 0 Center Street 19 240 46 88 275 130 157 772 45 60 505 65 Lewis Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 919 0 0 655 0 Sirrine/ Centennial 21 18 70 87 41 71 27 874 32 46 583 40 Hibbert 17 53 92 17 32 31 29 930 26 50 630 14 Mesa Drive 81 679 156 206 927 47 55 899 143 115 479 113 Lesueur 8 10 45 17 5 25 15 1,109 13 26 693 21 Hobson 13 8 32 40 20 20 29 1,162 20 41 640 28 Horne 78 152 92 63 196 16 33 1,252 56 75 693 49 LT = Left Turn TH = Through Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report RT = Right Turn 17 August 2010 2015 No-Build Traffic Volume To develop the 2015 No-Build traffic volume and turning movement counts (TMCs), an assessment of available MAG 2009 and 2015 TMC’s and TDM information was required. This involved using TMCs for the 2015 No-Build scenario obtained from the MAG TDM projections. The TDM traffic volumes for 2009 No-Build and 2015 No-Build scenarios were compared and the differences were added to 2009 traffic counts to obtain 2015 No-Build traffic volumes. The projected TMC obtained from the TDM model were adjusted to eliminate inconsistencies using below listed engineering assumptions. 1. If difference between 2015 No-Build and 2009 No-Build traffic volume is negative, a 1% growth per year was applied to 2009 TMC, or the difference was added to 2009 TMC to develop 2015 No-Build Adjusted Volume. 2. If 2009 No-Build MAG TDM TMC value is 0, a 1% growth per year was applied to 2009 TMC to develop 2015 No-Build Adjusted Volume. 3. At the minor street intersections that are not included in TDM model, the 2015 TMC’s were developed by applying 1% annual growth rate to 2009 TMC’s Table 7 shows the PM peak hour traffic volume projections for 2015 No-Build scenario. TABLE 7: 2015 NO-BUILD INTERSECTION /TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC VOLUME – PM PEAK HOUR Main Street Intersection at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Sycamore 43 16 52 70 21 27 28 746 26 41 574 30 Longmore 24 18 69 44 13 96 41 743 29 46 465 95 Alma School Road 174 896 186 239 1,563 86 84 613 151 267 455 114 Extension Road 116 347 270 62 395 84 83 757 167 221 606 52 Date 15 8 50 13 8 51 54 929 17 17 737 26 Country Club Drive 134 1,139 242 133 1,237 214 165 661 146 193 386 110 Robson 16 5 11 39 22 52 39 913 48 21 579 15 West 150 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 961 0 0 600 0 MacDonald 41 94 67 41 103 36 38 861 62 52 508 53 West 50 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 980 0 0 613 0 Center St 20 255 72 102 292 138 189 800 78 70 536 69 Lewis Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 969 0 0 667 0 Sirrine/ Centennial 21 19 74 92 44 72 28 922 34 47 594 41 Hibbert 17 56 97 18 34 32 31 981 27 51 642 14 Mesa Drive 112 745 166 283 984 50 58 923 165 190 492 120 8 11 49 19 5 26 16 1,214 14 27 718 22 Lesueur Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 18 August 2010 Main Street Intersection at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Hobson 13 8 35 44 21 21 32 1,272 22 42 663 29 Horne 103 163 98 83 208 17 35 1,382 91 77 736 51 Notes: 1. The highlighted cells represent traffic volume projections obtained from Travel Demand Model. 2. The traffic volumes at minor street intersections that are not included in TDM model are estimated by applying 1% annual growth rate to obtain the 2015 volumes LT = Left Turn TH = Through RT = Right Turn 2015 Build Traffic Volume The turning movement counts (TMC) for the 2015 Build scenarios for both the 2-Lane Option and the 4-Lane Option were obtained from the MAG TDM projections. The projected TMC obtained from the TDM model were adjusted to eliminate inconsistencies using below listed engineering assumptions. 1. If the sum of 2015 Adjusted No-Build and the difference between 2015 Build and 2015 No-Build is less than zero, then 2015 Build volume is considered as 2015 Build Adjusted Volume, or the difference is added to 2015 adjusted No-Build volume to develop 2015 Build Adjusted Volume. 2. At the minor street intersections that are not included in TDM model, the 2015 TMC’s were developed by applying 1% annual growth rate to 2009 TMCs and by balancing the TDM adjusted TMC volumes between major street intersections. Diversion Considerations The MAG TDM model runs were used to study the traffic diversion occurring in the build scenarios. It was observed that the traffic diversion in the Build Alternative 4-Lane Option from Sycamore to Mesa Drive was minimal, less than 1%. The Build Alternative 2-Lane Option reduced the Main Street capacity from existing 4 lanes to 2 lanes between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. This reduction in capacity on Main Street with no change to traffic generators (origin and destination of trips) resulted in traffic shifting to other roadways in the network. It was observed that this diversion resulted in an average traffic growth of 7% on University Drive and Broadway Road between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. The MAG TDM model traffic generator connectors and roadway network showed that a percentage of traffic was shifted to minor roads between University Drive/Main Street and Broadway Road/Main Street. This traffic growth was assumed to have diverted to minor roads like 1st Street and 1st Avenue which are not included in MAG TDM model. The 1st Street and 1st Avenue intersections have available capacity. These roadways function as a partial couplet with Main Street in Downtown Mesa and also connect all the traffic generators in Downtown. Tables 8 and 9 show the PM peak traffic volume projections for the 2015 Build Alternative 2Lane Option and the 4-Lane Option. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 19 August 2010 TABLE 8: BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2- LANE OPTION INTERSECTION/TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PM PEAK Main Street Intersection at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Sycamore 41 16 51 68 21 26 28 730 26 39 554 29 Longmore 24 18 69 36 13 94 26 725 29 46 436 98 Alma School Road 182 848 254 271 1,483 66 97 496 228 316 441 90 Extension Road 143 275 334 102 356 60 131 586 269 168 599 55 Date 14 8 48 12 8 48 52 881 16 16 688 24 Country Club Drive 224 1,142 145 111 1,240 320 454 241 220 147 174 61 Robson 9 5 6 21 22 29 21 488 25 11 324 8 West 150 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 336 0 MacDonald 23 94 36 22 103 20 20 460 33 29 284 30 West 50 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 524 0 0 343 0 Center Street 29 411 63 48 380 138 124 334 21 77 234 37 Lewis Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 519 0 0 411 0 Sirrine/ Centennial Way 13 19 40 49 44 45 15 493 18 29 366 25 Hibbert 11 56 52 10 34 19 16 525 15 31 395 9 Mesa Drive 83 886 135 244 1,163 79 62 437 75 147 219 162 Lesueur 5 11 33 12 5 16 11 811 10 17 449 14 Hobson 8 8 23 29 21 13 21 850 15 27 414 18 Horne 13 158 232 164 200 17 25 1,036 11 117 584 67 Notes: 1. The shaded cells represent traffic volume projections obtained from Travel Demand Model. 2. The traffic volume at minor street intersections not included in TDM model are estimated by applying 1% annual growth rate to obtain the 2015 volumes and by balancing the TDM adjusted TMC volumes between major street intersections. LT = Left Turn TH = Through RT = Right Turn Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 20 August 2010 TABLE 9: BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4-LANE OPTION INTERSECTION/TURNING MOVEMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES – PM PEAK Main Street Intersection at: Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Sycamore 43 16 52 69 21 27 28 744 26 41 571 30 Longmore 24 18 69 44 13 95 39 740 29 46 461 94 Alma School Road 172 902 178 249 1,553 86 78 607 160 268 453 109 Extension Road 116 341 276 64 391 85 90 750 164 224 599 51 Date 15 8 50 13 8 51 54 929 17 17 734 26 Country Club Drive 134 1,138 236 128 1,233 220 162 664 147 192 377 114 Robson 16 5 11 39 22 52 39 908 47 20 577 15 West 150 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 956 0 0 598 0 MacDonald 41 94 67 41 103 36 38 857 61 52 507 53 West 50 Block Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 975 0 0 611 0 Center Street 20 253 71 103 285 138 184 794 81 69 534 68 Lewis Crosswalk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 965 0 0 664 0 Sirrine/ Centennial Way 21 19 73 91 44 72 28 917 34 47 591 41 Hibbert 17 56 97 18 34 31 30 976 27 51 638 14 Mesa Drive 111 742 163 286 981 49 58 917 164 189 488 121 Lusueur 8 11 49 19 5 26 16 1,210 14 27 717 22 Hobson 13 8 35 44 21 21 32 1,268 22 42 662 29 Horne 101 163 99 82 207 17 33 1,378 92 76 738 51 Notes: 1. The shaded cells represent traffic volume projections obtained from Travel Demand Model. 2. The traffic volume at minor street intersections not included in TDM model are estimated by applying 1% annual growth rate to obtain the 2015 volumes and by balancing the TDM adjusted TMC volumes between major street intersections LT = Left Turn TH = Through RT = Right Turn 2.2.4 Roadway Geometry Input The 2009 existing roadway geometry including lane configurations, storage lengths and link distances has been obtained from existing available base maps, aerial images and field reviews. The 2009 No-Build and 2015 No-Build Synchro models used the existing roadway geometry. The roadway geometry for 2015 Build models for both the 2-Lane Option and the 4-Lane Option used the roadway geometry proposed for the EA developed by HDR/URS and dated January 2010. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 21 August 2010 2.2.5 Speed Limit Input The Main Street Synchro model used the existing posted speed limit for the 2009 and 2015 No-Build options. The existing posted speed limit on Main Street is 40 mph between Sycamore and Alma School Road, 35 mph between Alma School Road and Country Club Drive, 30 mph between Country Club Drive and east of Mesa Drive, and 35 mph between east of Mesa Drive and Horne. Speeds used for the Synchro model on Main Street for both Build scenarios is 35 mph between Sycamore and Country Club Drive, 25 mph between Country Club Drive and Hobson and 35 mph between Hobson and Horne. 2.2.6 Turn Lane Length Input Existing turn lane lengths were used as part of the Synchro data input for the 2009 Existing Condition and the 2015 No-Build scenario. For the two 2015 Build scenarios, the consultant traffic engineers worked with the road and track engineers to develop the proposed design storage lengths as shown in EA drawings developed dated January 2010. Tables 10 and 11 summarize the proposed design turn lane storage lengths shown in the EA drawings. These lengths are consistent with the Mesa Standards. The Mesa Engineering & Design Standards Manual, Section 212.4, specifies: Standard left turn lanes within a median shall have one hundred and fifty (150') of storage and one hundred feet (100') of reverse curve. Left turn lanes within a median at an arterial intersection shall have two hundred and fifty feet (250') of storage and one hundred and twenty feet (120') of reverse curve. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 22 August 2010 Table 10: Proposed Design LEFT Turn Lane Length 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option Main Street Intersection at Sycamore Longmore Alma School Road Extension Rd Date Country Club Drive Robson MacDonald Center Street Centennial Way Hibbert Mesa Drive Lesueur Hobson Horne Approach Movement EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT EB RT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT EB RT WB LT WB RT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option PM Peak Peak Volume (Vehicles/Hour) 28 39 26 46 97 316 131 168 52 16 454 220 147 21 11 20 29 124 77 15 29 16 31 62 75 147 162 11 17 21 27 25 117 *Proposed Design Storage Length (feet) 200 165 250 265 350 350 250 250 250 240 350 250 200 250 250 250 225 250 220 270 250 250 250 375 120 350 250 250 230 230 250 100 100 * The “Proposed Design Storage Lengths” shown represent an early estimate of available storage lengths based on coordination with traffic and track/civil engineers and available geometry/right of way constraints. LT = Left Turn Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 23 August 2010 TABLE 11: PROPOSED DESIGN LEFT TURN LANE LENGTHS 2015 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4-LANE OPTION Main Street Intersection at Sycamore Longmore Alma School Road Extension Road Date Country Club Drive Mesa Drive Horne Approach Movement 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option PM Peak PM Peak Volume (Vehicles/Hour) *Proposed Design Storage Length (feet) EB LT 28 200 WB LT 41 165 EB LT 39 250 WB LT 46 265 EB LT 78 350 WB LT 268 350 EB LT 90 250 WB LT 224 250 EB LT 54 250 WB LT 17 240 EB LT 162 350 WB LT 192 200 EB LT 58 240 WB LT 189 250 EB LT 33 100 WB LT 76 100 * The “Proposed Design Storage Lengths” shown represent an early estimate of available storage lengths based on coordination with traffic and track/civil engineers and available geometry/right of way constraints. LT = Left Turn 2.2.7 Signal Timing and Phasing Input The existing signal timing and phasing information provided by the City of Mesa was used for the 2009 scenario. For the 2015 No-Build scenario the signal timing was optimized using the existing signal phasing. The 2015 Build options propose a center running LRT along Main Street for the study corridor between Sycamore and Hobson with four LRT stations located at Alma School Road, Country Club Drive, Centennial Way and Mesa Drive. Therefore all roadway signalization along Main Street and all cross streets will require integration and Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 24 August 2010 coordination with LRT operations, i.e. a new signal system, similar to that used in the LRT Starter Line corridor. All crossings/crosswalks at the proposed station locations on Main Street will also be signalized/controlled crossings. The existing un-signalized intersections of Main Street/Date and Main Street/Lesueur will also be signalized. For the 2015 Build options, the LRT and roadway design and operations are similar for both the Main Street 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options between Sycamore and just east of Country Club Drive. The lane configurations and thus the operations differ in the Downtown area. For the 2015 Build Main Street 2-Lane Option, the proposed signal phasing will include protected left turn phases at all signalized Main Street intersections. The signal timing and progression were optimized using 120 second cycle length, similar to the LRT Starter Line. For the 2015 Build Main Street 4-Lane Option, split phase operations are proposed along Main Street between the Country Club Drive and Hobson Drive intersections for the proposed LRT operation. Individual phases for eastbound, westbound and combined northbound and southbound movements will be established. Eastbound and westbound left turns will occur with the movement’s split phase. A separate LRT phase will occur at each signal. As the SYNCHRO program cannot model the LRT phase, a HOLD phase was assumed for LRT phase. At Country Club Drive, Center Street and Mesa Drive, left turn lanes are proposed so that the signal phasing can include protected left turn phases, and the LRT phase was assumed to be simultaneous with the through phase on Main Street. The signal timing and progression was optimized using 120 second cycle length. More analysis will be performed during future Preliminary Engineering/Final Design efforts using VISSIM (or other sophisticated traffic analysis software) that will design and integrate LRT operations along Main Street for the preferred alternative. 2.2.8 Pedestrian Traffic Input Pedestrian counts obtained in Downtown Mesa in 2007 were used for the study. A 1% annual growth rate was applied to develop the 2015 pedestrian volumes. The passenger boarding and alighting projections at proposed LRT stations were obtained from the MAG TDM model for 2015 Build scenarios, summarized in Table 12. Based on the number of crosswalks at each station, the pedestrian traffic at each crosswalk was estimated and added to existing pedestrian traffic at the corresponding crosswalks in the SYNCHRO model. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 25 August 2010 TABLE 1: PROPOSED 2015 BUILD SCENARIOS PEDESTRIAN VOLUME AT LIGHT RAIL STATIONS – DAILY AND PM PEAK HOUR Passenger Boarding and Alighting (Daily)1 Passenger Boarding and Alighting (PM Peak 1 Hour)2 No. of Crosswalks3 Pedestrian Traffic on Crosswalk 1 at LRT Station Pedestrian Traffic on Crosswalk 2 at LRT Station Alma School Road 2426 202 2 101 101 Country Club Drive 2345 195 2 98 98 Center Street 982 82 2 41 41 Mesa Drive 5933 494 2 82 412** LRT Station at: Notes: 1. Passenger Boarding and alighting data obtained from MAG TDM model 2. A 25% of the total daily boarding and alighting is expected to occur during the three hour PM Peak period. Value represents 1-hour Peak. 3. Number of crosswalks at each LRT station. ** 2/3 of projected pedestrian traffic at Mesa Station is assumed to use crosswalk at Lesueur due to the proposed Park & Ride facilities near Lesueur. 2.2.9 Bus Stop and Parking Input Local buses stopping for passenger boardings/alightings along Main Street at designated bus stops are expected to impact the traffic flow of other vehicles. The number of buses stopping at bus stops near study area intersections in 2009 and 2015 study scenarios during PM peak hour was provided by Valley Metro. On Main Street, the local bus route #40 would be retained in both the Main Street 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options, and the LINK BRT route that currently runs west to Sycamore would be truncated further east at Center Street. See Bus Route Plan Maps for existing (2009) and planned (2015) in Appendix A. The maneuvers into and out of on-street parking spaces are expected to impact the traffic flow on Main Street. The number of such maneuvers during the PM peak hour was estimated considering the number of existing on-street parking spaces for No-Build (2009 and 2015) scenarios and proposed on-street parking spaces for the two 2015 Build options. Existing on-street parking counts were determined by field observation in February 2010. The range of on-street parking spaces for Build options was estimated from EA strip plots provided by HDR/URS dated January 2010. For existing on-street parking space counts and impacts to on-street parking supply due to the build scenarios, see Section 2.3.3. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 26 August 2010 2.2.10 Traffic Operation Analysis Findings Table 13 summarizes the intersection delay and LOS of the Main Street study area intersection performance for each study scenario. For purposes of this planning study, LOS E with intersection delay of 80 seconds or less is considered acceptable congestion during the PM peak hour by the City of Mesa Transportation Department. LOS F with signalized intersection delay of greater than 80 seconds is considered unacceptable congestion in downtown Mesa. See Table 4 for Intersection LOS definitions. LOS E is an acceptable urban standard in congested downtown situations such as downtown Mesa where urban design and pedestrian environment considerations are balanced against traffic flow, where transit service provides a viable option to driving and where roadway/intersection widening constraints are contrary to the vision of downtown. The City of Mesa has allowed LOS E on a similar project, Mesa Proving Grounds Master Transportation Plan 2008, and provides the basis for accepting LOS E for this planning study. 2009 No-Build All the Main Street study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS of E or better. The intersection of Main Street/Alma School Road presently experiences the highest intersection delay of 59 seconds while all the remaining study intersections operate at intersection delays of 35 seconds or less during the PM peak hour. 2015 No-Build All the Main Street study area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS of E or better. The intersection of Main Street/Mesa Drive is expected to experience the highest intersection delay of 59 seconds while all the remaining study intersections would operate at intersection delays of 30 seconds or less during PM peak hour. Although all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS, LOS would decrease from D to E at one intersection and from C to D at two intersections compared to existing conditions. LOS would improve at one intersection from LOS E to D compared to existing conditions. 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option All the Main Street study area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS of E or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection at Main Street/Country Club Drive is expected to experience the highest intersection delay of 63 seconds, followed by Main Street/Mesa Drive with intersection delay of 47 seconds. The forecast increased delay at Main Street/Country Club Drive and Main Street/Mesa Drive is the result of increased turning volumes at these intersections due to traffic diversion with the reduced 2-lane capacity in Downtown. See potential mitigation described in section 2.3. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 27 August 2010 TABLE 2: LOS RESULTS AT MAIN STREET STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS Main Street Intersection at 2009 No-Build HCM LOS 1&1 Delay (sec) 2015 No-Build HCM LOS 1&1 Delay (sec) 2015 Build 2-Lane Option HCM Delay LOS 1&1 (sec) 2015 Build 4-Lane Option HCM Delay LOS 1&1 (sec) Station 1 X-Walk B 11.6 B 13.3 Station 2 X-Walk B 16.2 C 21.3 Sycamore B 16.3 B 16.6 B 15.8 B 15.5 Longmore A 8.2 B 10.0 B 13.5 B 13.4 Alma School Road E 58.9 D 48.6 D 48.2 D 49.3 Extension Road C 20.3 C 26.7 C 31.3 C 31.8 Date 2 D 28.9 E 2 44.0 B 18.6 B 12.7 Country Club Drive C 33.5 D 44.8 E 62.4 D 47.9 Robson A 6.3 A 6.4 B 12.2 C 34.2 W150B X-Walk A 4.0 A 4.2 B 13.5 A 2.4 Macdonald B 11.1 B 10.6 B 17.1 D 41.2 W50B X-Walk B 14.9 B 14.4 A 8.5 A 2.4 Center Street A 7.8 A 8.3 C 33.4 E 66.1 Lewis X-Walk B 10.2 B 10.4 A 8.9 A 4.6 Centennial Way A 8.7 A 8.9 B 15.4 D 44.7 Hibbert A 9.6 A 9.8 B 19.3 D 50.9 Mesa Drive C 32.9 D 44.2 D 46.4 D 54.0 2 2 2 Lesueur D 25.7 D 30.9 B 14.6 E 56.4 Hobson B 11.7 B 12.1 B 14.9 D 39.3 Horne Street B 11.7 B 13.5 C 24.1 B 17.8 Notes: 1. Level of service for signalized intersections based on average control delay per vehicle, according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2000. 2. Side street stop controlled intersection LOS based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach, based on the methodology in the HCM, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Approximately 85% of the Main Street study area intersections would operate at intersection delays of 35 seconds or less (LOS C) during the PM peak hour. Although all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS, LOS would decrease, compared to 2015 No-Build, from A to B at 4 intersections; from A to C at 1 intersection; from B to C at 1 intersection; and from D to E at 1 intersection. These changes in LOS have been presented to City of Mesa staff and are acceptable, at this level of study. Future design phases will study better define LOS of LRT operations along Main Street using VISSIM or other traffic analysis software for the preferred alternative. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 28 August 2010 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option All the Main Street study area intersections would operate at acceptable LOS of E or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection at Main Street/Center Street is expected to experience highest intersection delay of 66 seconds, followed by Main Street/Mesa Drive and Main Street/Lesueur with increased delay of 56 seconds. The forecast increased delay is due to the split phase operation that includes a LRT phase at these intersections. Approximately 60% of the Main Street study area intersections would operate at intersection delays of 40 seconds or less (LOS D) during the PM peak hour. Although all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS, LOS would decrease compared to 2015 No-Build from A to C at 1 intersection; from A to D at 2 intersections; from A to E at one intersection; from B to D at 2 intersections; and from D to E at 1 intersection. These changes in LOS have been presented to City of Mesa staff and are acceptable, at this level of study, but do show more changes (i.e. more than 1 “letter” category changes) than the 2 Lane Option . Future design phases will study better defined LOS of LRT operations along Main Street using VISSIM or other traffic analysis software for the preferred alternative. Traffic Operations Analysis Summary and Observations: • All intersections for each option appear to operate at an overall acceptable levels of service. • Both the 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option and 4-Lane Option would have the same number of intersections that “change/degrade” to a lower LOS category (7) compared to the 2015 No-Build. • The 2015 Build Alternative 4 Lane Option has more intersections that degrade 2 increments of LOS designations. • The 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option would have less approach delay overall than the 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane option. (Refer to Synchro output runs available upon request.) • For the 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option, the use of split phase, in general, is typically not an efficient form of traffic operation. • Traffic diversion would occur for the Build Alternative 2-Lane Option. This traffic would divert to other north-south and/or east-west corridors where there is roadway capacity. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 29 August 2010 2.3 TRAFFIC DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION/CONSIDERATIONS DUE TO LRT 2.3.1 Signal Phasing and Timings - Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT Priority Systems The existing CP/EV LRT Starter Line uses a Predictive Priority Control system with traffic signals. Predictive priority uses detection devices placed far upstream of intersection crossings to estimate train arrival times at the intersections. With that information, adjustments can be made to traffic signal timing and train station departures in advance of the arrival of the train at the downstream intersections. The detection has to be far enough upstream from the intersection to provide sufficient time to complete minimum phases for any vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements initiated prior to detection. Under predictive priority, the basic traffic signal background cycle will be maintained with changes made to length and sequencing of phases to allow the phase serving LRT trains to be extended or advanced. Upon passage of the LRT train through the intersection, the signal cycle would return to normal operation, with no change in the background cycle length. 2.3.1.1 Mitigation of Signal Phasing and Timings The City of Mesa plans to use the same Predictive Priority Control system for the Mesa LRT Extension corridor. The design of this system will be performed in the Preliminary Engineering and Final Design phases and will use more advanced traffic analysis software that will determine the signal timings to be used to integrate LRT operations along Main Street. It is anticipated that all traffic control systems, software and hardware, at each signalized intersection will need to be replaced or modified. This will be determined in Final Design. 2.3.2 Turn Lane Lengths Tables 14 and 15 summarize the required storage lengths needed to accommodate vehicles at turn lanes at each intersection compared to what is proposed and shown in the EA drawings. The left turn vehicle storage lengths proposed in the EA drawings (shown in far right column of Tables 15 and 16) will be sufficient to accommodate both the 50th percentile and 95th percentile queue lengths at all intersections except at Country Club Drive for the eastbound left turn lane. These queue lengths were calculated by Synchro and are shown in the shaded columns of Tables 15 and 16. The 50th percentile maximum queue length is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle and the 95th percentile queue length is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The maximum queue length is approximately equal to the 50th percentile queue length divided by the upstream v/c ratio. These queue lengths are used to assess the storage length required for turn lanes. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 30 August 2010 TABLE 3: PROPOSED DESIGN TURN LANE LENGTH 2015 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2-LANE OPTION Main Street Intersection at Sycamore Longmore Alma School Road Extension Road Date Country Club Drive Robson MacDonald Center Street Centennial Way Hibbert Mesa Drive Lesuer Hobson Horne Approach Movement EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT EB RT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT EB RT WB LT WB RT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT EB LT WB LT 2015 Build Alternative 2-Lane Option PM Peak 50th percentile 95th percentile Number of Peak Volume Queue Queue Lanes1 Length2 Length3 28 1 23 53 39 1 34 73 26 1 20 51 46 1 34 55 97 1 76 126 316 1 ~263 #452 131 1 112 m132 97 165 168 1 52 1 46 m74 16 1 12 m16 454 1 ~526 #723 220 1 41 121 107 142 147 1 21 1 15 m30 11 1 10 m29 20 1 17 m34 29 1 26 61 124 1 105 163 77 1 44 96 15 1 13 m24 26 m61 29 1 16 1 12 m27 31 1 25 m54 62 1 54 m93 75 1 8 m41 147 1 ~127 #266 162 1 32 13 11 1 9 m10 17 1 13 m34 21 1 19 m25 27 1 22 53 25 1 8 22 55 #164 117 1 Proposed Design Storage Length (ft) 200 165 250 265 350 350 250 250 250 240 350 250 200 250 250 250 225 250 220 270 250 250 250 375 120 350 250 250 230 230 250 100 100 Notes: 1. Entered as number of lanes. Shared Lanes are entered as 0.5 2. 50th percentile queue length in feet as reported from SYNCHRO. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles 3. 95th percentile queue length in feet as reported from SYNCHRO. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles "~" Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite "#" 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer "m" Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 31 August 2010 TABLE 4: PROPOSED DESIGN TURN LANE LENGTHS 2015 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4-LANE OPTION Main Street Intersection at Sycamore Longmore Alma School Road Extension Road Date Country Club Drive Mesa Drive Horne Approach Movement 2015 Build Alternative 4-Lane Option PM Peak 50th Number 95th percentile PM Peak percentile of Queue Volume Queue Lanes1 Length3 2 Length Proposed Design Storage Length (ft) EB LT 28 1 23 54 200 WB LT 41 1 36 77 165 EB LT 39 1 31 69 250 WB LT 46 1 40 82 265 EB LT 78 1 74 127 350 WB LT 268 1 ~243 #424 350 EB LT 90 1 62 m79 250 WB LT 224 1 190 #279 250 EB LT 54 1 42 m58 250 WB LT 17 1 15 m22 240 EB LT 162 1 130 #279 350 WB LT 192 1 142 #304 200 EB LT 58 1 51 m57 240 WB LT 189 1 ~188 #342 250 EB LT 33 1 8 21 100 WB LT 76 1 32 #77 100 Note: General: The Build Alternative 4-Lane Option represents a split phased operation-left turns occur with the thru lane movement. The intersections above represent those locations that will have left turn pockets. 1. Entered as number of lanes. Shared Lanes are entered as 0.5 th 2. 50 percentile queue length in feet as reported from SYNCHRO. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles 3. 95th percentile queue length in feet as reported from SYNCHRO. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles "~" Volume exceeds capacity, th "#" 95 percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer "m" Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal 2.3.2.1 Mitigation for Turn Lane Lengths The calculated design turn lane storage lengths proposed in the EA design for the 2Lane Option and the 4-Lane Option, as shown in Tables 14 and 15, meet or exceed the 50th percentile queue length for each intersection on Main Street, except for: Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 32 August 2010 • 2-Lane Option: Country Club Drive Eastbound Left Turn Lane. At this location, dual left turn lanes are recommended. The length of the dual left turn lanes will be determined in final design. At many intersections, for both options, the proposed EA strip plot drawings, turn lane lengths significantly exceed the calculated/required turn lengths by Synchro. At these locations further design studies in Final Design should be performed to reduce the proposed turn lane lengths. In particular, for the Build 2-Lane Option, left turn lengths at Extension Road and Date could possibly be reduced to 150-200 feet and 100 feet, respectively; the right turn length at Country Club Drive could be reduced to 100 -150 feet. At Alma School Road, for both the Build 2-Lane and 4-lane Options, the eastbound left turn pocket could be reduced to 150-200 feet. Reducing the length of these turn lanes may assist to minimize impacts to right-of-way, and sidewalk and building impacts at these locations. Further analysis during Preliminary Engineering and Final Design should be performed to reduce turn lane lengths. Any reduction of turn lane lengths will need to be coordinated and approved by the City of Mesa. 2.3.2 Impacts to On-street Parking Within the study area, Main Street has four travel lanes and bicycle lanes with parallel parking generally on both sides. Between Sycamore Street and Country Club Drive, all of the 122 existing on-street parking spaces would be displaced in the 2015 Build Alternative for both 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options. In Downtown Mesa - between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive - there are currently 145 on-street parallel parking spaces. As shown in Table 16, the Build Alternative 2-Lane Option would displace 3 to 4 onstreet parking spaces in Downtown Mesa between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive, while the Build Alternative 4-Lane Option would displace 13 to 15 on-street parking spaces. Between Mesa Drive and Horne, all of the existing 60 parking spaces would be displaced in both the 2-Lane Option and the 4-Lane Option. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 33 August 2010 TABLE 5: MESA DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPACTS SYCAMORE ST. TO HORNE Existing Parking* Estimated Parking Displaced/Retained 2-Lane Option** Estimated Parking Displaced/Retained 4–Lane Option** Sycamore – Country Club 122 122/0 122/0 Country Club – Robson 22 3-4/18-19 3-5/17-19 Robson – MacDonald 23 0/23 0/23 MacDonald – Center 25 0/25 0/25 Center – Centennial 20 0/20 6/14 Centennial – Hibbert 23 0/23 0/23 Hibbert – Mesa 32 0/32 4/28 Mesa - Horne 60 60/0 60/0 Total 327 185 – 186 Displaced 195 – 197 Displaced 141 – 142 Retained 130 – 132 Retained Downtown – Country Club Drive to Mesa Drive 145 3 - 4 Displaced 13 - 15 Displaced 141 – 142 Retained 130 – 132 Retained Road Segment * Existing parking determined from Google Maps (2010) and field observation February 2010 ** Range of parking spaces estimated from January 2010 HDR/URS Alignment Strip Plots Shaded cells indicate the downtown Mesa segment of Main Street. 2.3.3.1 Mitigation for Loss of Main Street On-Street Parking • Main Street: Sycamore - Country Club Drive No mitigation is proposed for the 122 on-street parking spaces displaced. These spaces are consistently underutilized. There is typically sufficient off-street parking provided for each business, plus on-street parking is available along the north/south cross streets that intersect Main Street. • Main Street: Country Club Drive – Mesa Drive Much of the parking in downtown Mesa is retained in both the 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options. Three to four on-street spaces would be displaced in the 2-Lane Option and 13 to 15 spaces would be displaced in the 4-Lane Option. No mitigation is proposed for displaced on-street parking along Main Street as there is additional parking available off-street in surface lots behind the commercial buildings that front on Main Street, and on parallel streets and north/south cross streets. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 34 August 2010 • Main Street: Mesa Drive to Horne No mitigation is proposed for the 60 on-street parking spaces displaced. These spaces are consistently underutilized. There is parking available off-street and along parallel and north/south cross streets. 2.3.3 Impacts on Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist on Main Street on its entire length within the study area, and these are planned to be maintained. In some locations, especially near the stations, sidewalks will be widened and improved with the development of LRT and LRT Stations, post construction. No permanent impacts to pedestrian facilities are anticipated. (See Section 2.4 for impacts during construction). 2.3.4 Impacts on Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes on Main Street exist between Sycamore and Mesa Drive, with bicycle lanes planned ultimately between the Mesa western city limits and Gilbert Road, according to the Mesa Bicycle Plan (2002). As shown in Figure 7, a bicycle route is designated on 1st Street between Extension Road and Horne. 1st Avenue has no bicycle facility designation. Both the Build Alternative 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options would maintain the existing striped bicycle lane on Main Street west of Country Club Drive and east of Lesueur. However, the 2015 Build options would remove the bicycle lanes on Main Street between Country Club Drive and Lesueur, and would also affect north/south bicycle circulation. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 35 August 2010 FIGURE 7: MESA BICYCLE MAP - MAIN STREET DOWNTOWN AND WEST MESA Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 36 August 2010 2.3.4.1 Mitigation for Bicycle Facility Impacts The January 2010 cross sections and alignment strip plots for both of the 2015 Build options do not show a striped bicycle lane on Main Street through downtown Mesa, between Country Club Drive and Lesueur Street. It is recommended that bicyclists ride in mixed traffic along Main Street in a shared travel lane with general purpose traffic. Signage should be placed on Main Street west of Country Club Drive and east of Lesueur advising bicyclists and motorists that the bicycle lane will end and bicyclists ahead will be sharing the travel lane with motorized vehicles. Figure 8: Bike Lane Ends MUTCD Sign R3-17bP Shared bike lanes are recommended for Main Street between Country Club Drive and Lesueur Street, with the use of "sharrow" pavement markings, as shown in Figure 8, together with appropriate regulatory signage, as shown in Figure 9. Sharrow placement should be per MUTCD requirements and City of Mesa standards. This proposed design will be detailed in Final Design and coordinated and approved with City of Mesa staff. 2.4 IMPACTS Figure 10: May Use Full Lane ANTICIPATED MUTCD Sign R4-11 DURING CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC Figure 9: Sharrow Marking This section of the report discusses the preliminary traffic control concepts related to utility relocation, roadway MUTCD Sign 9C-9 widening and track and station construction. 2.4.1 Utility Relocation Relocations of underground utilities such as fiber optic cable, sewer storm drains, water lines, irrigation, and electrical cabinets and conduits would be accomplished first, prior to roadway widening and LRT construction although the specific timing for various construction activities would vary depending on the implementation of the construction Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 37 August 2010 process. Several options have been considered to minimize the period of construction and the disruption to downtown businesses caused by construction of the Central Mesa LRT extension project. Utility relocation will be required to stay 1/2 mile to 1 mile ahead of the track/civil construction to reduce potential conflicts. Local traffic control will be needed due to the utility relocation process that requires all utility work to be completed in one entire reach and should not be truncated into smaller segments. Utility relocations would be done in segments that are between 500 and 1,200 feet in length. Construction would be sequenced to start from the west near Sycamore and move east with about 50 to 100 feet of open trench at any given time. Local traffic control will be provided. Special maintenance of traffic procedures would be required for offsets from manholes for the 84" storm drain. The storm drain system is very deep and work would require lane closures. Excavations of approximately 25' to 30' in size would be required at the site of each manhole. These would be excavated/constructed one at a time, and would likely require a full travel lane closure in each direction. Construction alternatives could be explored to minimize traffic impacts. Two lanes of traffic on Main Street and on intersecting north/south streets would be maintained at all times, with partial lane closures implemented as needed. No full closures of Main Street or intersecting streets are expected for utility relocations. Potential maintenance of traffic strategies include: • • • • Use of advanced planning during preliminary engineering and final design to minimize interruption of utility services during construction. Utility replacement and/or relocation would be planned based on utility provider requirements and coordinated with other construction activities as well as other projects in the area to minimize disruption to adjacent properties and traffic. Develop and implement emergency response procedures in consultation with the utility providers to ensure quick and effective repair of any accidental cuts in service. City of Mesa street lighting should be maintained at all times during construction of roadway, track, and replacement lighting. 2.4.2 Roadway Widening All road reconstruction would be done following or concurrent with the utility relocation. Since the current LRT options require road reconstruction/widening in limited areas, those areas would be the focus of construction activity. Locations where road widening would be needed include the south side of Main Street near the East Valley Institute of Technology, around Alma School Road, and around Country Club Drive. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 38 August 2010 As with the utility relocations, one lane of traffic would be maintained in each direction on Main Street at all times, and no full roadway closures are foreseen, although partial lane closures may be implemented as needed. Roadway widening associated with turn lanes and center-platform station construction is expected to encroach on existing sidewalks in the segment between Sycamore and Country Club Drive. Some sidewalk encroachment is also expected near each Downtown Mesa station in both the 2-Lane and 4-Lane Options due to the widening of the roadway for the station platforms. As utility relocations and roadway and trackway construction proceed across intersections, north/south pedestrian connections across Main Street will be temporarily severed and detours will be established to safely guide pedestrians until sidewalks and crosswalks are restored. 2.4.3 LRT Track and Station Construction Track work includes installation of drainage structures, signal and communication fiber optics, steel and concrete foundations for the rail, overhead catenary system (OCS) foundations, and communications vaults. Track and station platform construction would follow the road reconstruction/widening work. Track construction could start on the west at Sycamore Street and could be constructed in 1 mile segments to be efficient. Between Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive, track construction would be completed in segments of 2 to 3 blocks for efficiency and to minimize the extent of construction disruption in downtown Mesa as much as possible. Track construction work should take about 1.5 months for each 2 to 3 block segment. There may be some impact to left turn lanes from time to time as the contractor would need the adjacent lane for material delivery. These turn lanes may be temporarily closed and traffic diverted. For station construction, most impacts to travel lanes, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities along Main Street should be minimized, although short term closure or partial closure of the roadway lane adjacent to the station platforms may be expected. A minimum of one lane of traffic in each direction on Main Street should be maintained at all times. At intersection locations, mitigation should ensure that north/south traffic flow is maintained with at least one lane of traffic in each direction. Pedestrian north/south circulation across Main Street should be maintained by closing only one intersection crosswalk (west side or east side) at any one time. Bicyclists should be accommodated in any traffic diversion of north/south streets, especially on the designated bicycle corridors of Alma School Road, Longmore, Extension, Lesueur, Hobson and Horne. Similarly, transit operations should be accommodated during construction on north/south transit corridors that intersect with Main Street including Alma School Road, Country Club Drive and Mesa Drive. 2.4.4 Bicycle Facilities Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 39 August 2010 During construction, alternate temporary bicycle routes that run parallel to Main Street could be established on 1st Street (westbound) and 1st Avenue (eastbound). While these routes would be less direct than maintaining the bicycle corridor on Main Street, they would provide a reasonable detour around construction. Currently there are no bike lanes striped on 1st Street or 1st Avenue, but those streets are wide enough to accommodate bicycles and the traffic volume is low (5,400 – 5,900 vehicles per day on 1st Street and 5,600 – 7,200 vehicles per day on 1st Avenue). Front-in angled parking could be switched to back-in angled parking to provide an increased measure of safety for both bicyclists and motorists. Wayfinding signage and pavement markings would be required to mark the temporary bicycle routes between Main Street/Country Club Drive on the west and Main Street/Lesueur Street on the east, and along 1st Street/1st Avenue. This proposed design would need to be coordinated with City of Mesa staff for approval. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation Technical Report 40 August 2010 APPENDIX A: Downtown Mesa Existing (2009) Bus Route Map Downtown Mesa Planned (2015) Bus Route Map DOWNTOWN MESA EXISTING (2009) BUS ROUTES DOWNTOWN MESA PLANNED (2015) BUS ROUTES