Laserfiche WebLink
existing traffic levels on Snelling Avenue are much greater than on Fairview <br />Avenue during the peak hours, thus existing traffic levels projected out 12 years <br />to Year 2018 will result in a much greater traffic increase on Snelling than at <br />Fairview Avenue, for example. This, coupled by the fact that a greater <br />percentage (47%) of Northwestern College student trips use Snelling Avenue <br />compared to Fairview Avenue (14%), accounts for the disproportionate impact to <br />the Snelling Avenue/Lydia Avenue intersection. <br />10. Comment: It is difficult to understand why the Snelling and Lydia and the <br />Snelling and C-2 intersections appear only to be degraded in the worst case, <br />even though those worst cases are quite substantial. <br />Response: Overall infersection level of service is a calculation of average delay <br />for all vehicles moving through an intersection over a peak period. Because <br />future trips due to College expansion pr�dominantly impact the minor street <br />movements (i.e., Lydia Avenue and,;Caui�ty Road G2), there is a <br />disproportionate impact to those pvements. These movements are a/so the <br />most susceptible to impact, beca of the predc�minate allocation of green time <br />to the state highway (i. e., Snelling rr��r�nue). Th�re is very little impaci to either <br />the Snelling/Lydia Avenue or Snellingl�R-C2 pverall intersection levels of <br />service because the allocation of green time fo the predominant northbound and <br />southbound through volumes is virtually unaffected. <br />11. Comment: Several mitigation strategies are su�gx,� ed to accommodate the <br />College's desire for increased enrollment. Howev �no real solution for <br />problems,��,�,��r�t�t�aRoad G2 and Snelling or at Lydia and Snelling are offered. <br />acknowledged. See also the response to comment 1.8.3. <br />12. Com'� '~�"M` � It app t�a�, even with the mitigation measures proposed, many of <br />�� <br />which °, nc�t� �'' �as ����lement for a variety of reasons, delays and <br />queues alot�;Sl�r�lling at Ly�t����t�County Road G2 remain at E and D levels. <br />Response: Cor►�'� ' ts acknowledged. !t should be noted that LOS D is <br />considered accep��`�` � by most jurisdictions and LOS E conditions for a Year <br />2018 scenario in a g=' °`ing urbanized corridor is better than some other similar <br />corridors. LOS E operations represent a condition where traffic is af or <br />approaching roadway capacity. <br />13. Comment: The premise of the study was based on regular students attending <br />classes on the campus at the normal daytime hours. This does not include <br />evening and weekend activities on the campus and during the summer. All of <br />these activities have significant environmental impacts with regard to traffic. <br />Response: Comment acknowledged. The p.m. traffic analysis used traffic <br />volume counts for the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour which included nearly as <br />many inbound (students✓staff arriving for evening c/asses) as outbound vehicles. <br />Summer traffic conditions were not analyzed because summer volumes are <br />typically lighter with respect to both College and non-College fraffic and do not <br />represent "worsf case" conditions. Traffic from weekend activities was not <br />analyzed because background traffic peaks vary greatly from weekend to <br />weekend and a/so do not represent "worst case" conditions. <br />TKDA Project No. 13529.002 Page 19 Draft Date: July 9, 2007 <br />