31

ProjectManagement

Hybrid Concept : Auchentoroly LocalRoad

32

ProjectManagement

Hybrid Concept: Eutaw PlaceRendering

33

ProjectManagement

Hybrid Concept: Design Rendering

34

ProjectManagement

Two Lane Concept: Typical Section

35

ProjectManagement

Two Lane Concept: Design Rendering

36

ProjectManagement

• Pedestrian bridge atLakeview Ave., whichhas a steep hill up toDruid Hill Park

Option 1: Pedestrian BridgeProposed Pedestrian BridgeLocation Map

Precedent: Pedestrian bridge to Brooklyn Bridge Park

37

ProjectManagement

Option 2: Cut and Cover Design

38

ProjectManagement

Option 3: EMS Access Opportunities

39

Station

Evaluation5.

40

Measures of Effectiveness Overview

• Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)• The following table is designed to compare the proposed concepts to one

another and to the existing corridor conditions.

• The MOE table compares the concepts both quantitatively and qualitativelybased on their ability to meet the proposed evaluation criteria developed aspart of the project’s initial public engagement efforts. The evaluation termsinclude the following:

• Doesn’t or Partially Meets Goals• Somewhat Meets Goals• Fully Meets Goals

41

ProjectManagement

Measures of Effectivenesscomparison

Doesn't Meet or PartiallyMeets

Somewhat Meets

Fully Meets

Ability to Meet Evaluation Criteria

No-Build Concept

Single LaneConcept

(One lane bothdirections)

Hybrid Concept(Two lanes WB /One Lane EB)

Two Lane Concept(Two lanes both

directions)

Themes Primary Evaluation Criteria Secondary Evaluation Criteria Unit of Measure

Simplified Intersections N/A Doesn't Meet/SomewhatMeets/Fully Meets

Doesn't / Partially Meets Fully Meets Fully Meets Fully Meets

Reduced crossing distances N/A Avg. intersection crossing distance(feet)

70-ft 20-ft 41-ft 56-ft

Reduced vehicular speeds N/A Doesn't / Somewhat / Fully Doesn't / Partially Meets Fully Meets Fully Meets Somewhat Meets

Ability to maintain current EMS response timelevels

N/A Doesn't Meet/SomewhatMeets/Fully Meets

Fully Meets Doesn't / Partially Meets Somewhat Meets Fully Meets

Shared Mobility Lanes Lane miles 0 1.26 mi 1.46 mi 1.47 mi

Shared Use Paths Lane miles .20 mi 1.81 mi 1.84 mi 1.86 mi

ADA Compliant Sidewalks Lane miles 1.94 mi 2.07 mi 2.18 mi 2.29 mi

Delay, travel time, queuing See traffic chart Fully Meets Doesn't / Partially Meets Somewhat Meets Fully Meets

Minimizes diversion to adjacent local networkDoesn't Meet/Somewhat

Meets/Fully MeetsFully Meets Doesn't / Partially Meets Somewhat Meets Fully Meets

Signalized # of signalized crossings 7 6 10 9

Roundabouts # of Roundabouts 0 3 0 1

Mid-block crossings # of Mid-block crossings 0 5 6 5

Improved vehicular signal progression N/A End to end travel times TBD TBD TBD TBD

Intersections with safe bike / ped accommodations N/A # of intersections(including mid-block crossings)

0 13 15 15

Improved transit accessibility Linear feet of Dedicated Bus Lanes 0 3,500 LF 3,500 LF 3,500 LF

Increased stop locations Opportunity for new bus stops No Yes Yes Yes

Landscaped buffers (not including medians) Lane miles .81 mi 3.15 mi 3.17 mi 3.30 mi

Impervious surface removal Removal square footage 0 498,260 SF 378,790 SF 349,869 SF

Contiguous park areaPark square footage

(additional)N/A 534,780 SF 78,165 SF 83,335 SF

Smaller compacted roadway designDoesn't Meet/Somewhat

Meets/Fully MeetsDoesn't / Partially Meets Fully Meets Somewhat Meets Doesn't / Partially Meets

Madison Ave. as Gateway to park Yes / No Somewhat Meets Fully Meets Somewhat Meets Fully Meets

Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)

Historic elements highlighted

Accessibility

Multimodal

Aesthetics

Safety

Increased access for pedestrians, cyclists, carlesshouseholds & individuals with disabilities

Manageable Traffic Congestion

Increases the number of crossings into the park

Increased transit opportunities

Increased green space

42

Traffic Assessment Overview• Traffic Assessment

• The following Traffic Assessments evaluate the No-Build and the three proposed design (SingleLane, Hybrid and Two Lane) concepts based on their traffic operational performance perintersection. The four metrics used during the assessment include the following:

• Delay: The amount of time a vehicle spends waiting at the intersection.

• Volume / Capacity Ratio: Evaluates if the lane configurations and signal design providesufficient intersection capacity.

• Level of Service (LOS): An intersection is assigned a letter grade (A-F) in order to definethe quality of the traffic operations generally based on volume-to-capacity ratios and/ordelay. LOS ‘A’ is the best quality; LOS ‘E’ and ‘F’ indicate failing traffic operations

• Travel Times: The time it takes a vehicle to travel between two specific points. Thisnumber is usually presented as an average of all vehicles to travel between those twopoints over a set time period (most often, peak hour).

43

ProjectManagement

Traffic Data – Open to Traffic

44

Station

Next Steps6.

45

Project Schedule

10/14/2021 45

2021 Jan Feb Mar Aug Sep Oct DecApr

• Review of plans &Studies

• Existing Conditionsassessments

• Interviews withcommunity leaders

• CommunityStakeholdervisioning

• InteragencyVisioning

• Publiccomment card

• Public Meeting

VirtualField Tour

• Community briefings

• Pop-up event

• Concept development &assessments

Conceptrevisions

BCDOTreview

Final reportand finalized

concepts

• Public Meeting

• Public feedbackand concepts

2021