Sender: phemminger@townofchapelhill.org
Subject: Re: Aura TIA
Message-Id: <SA1PR09MB8718B57EAA6C3EE4CD803432BD7C9@SA1PR09MB8718.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
To: miparker1@aol.com

nicely done - thank you!

External email: Don't click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report forward to reportspam@townofchapelhill.org

Having participated in the Council small group discussion as well as the two public meetings about both the Town-wide model and the Aura TIA (which used the Town-wide model as well as the old Synchro model), I wanted to share some thoughts/observations/requests:

 

Town-wide Model

 

• This model is a big step forward for us and I’m really excited about its potential. As was mentioned, it will need to be continually used and updated with new data, etc., so I hope that our upcoming budgets will have the resources necessary to do this.
• Given that traffic has inherent variability and that this is (thankfully) a probabilistic model, I think that it is crucial that we stop showing single values for performance at intersections, but rather show ranges. Showing an intersection with an average of, say 30 seconds delay is not nearly as useful as showing the range that is embodied in the 30 second average. This particularly true where the distribution is not normal and there are some large outliers on the long delay side.
• We need to use the model for sensitivity analyses that we have not been able to do in the past. It can be really useful to understand what the drivers of congestion are, both at a Town and project level. What are the relative contributions of commutation vs. local traffic? What are the effects of changing the use mix on the traffic associated with a specific project? Which mitigation measures yield the biggest benefits? Etc.

 

Aura TIA

 

• A number of folks both on Council and off have raised the need to look more comprehensively at the Estes-MLK area. Over the next few years it is logical to assume that other parcels in that area – the Rummel property, the YMCA, the Richardson properties, et al., will develop/redevelop. Most will rely on access to Estes. Given the current level of traffic on Estes vs. its capacity, I think we need to look at plausible scenarios for area development in toto before making a decision about the Aura. It may – or may not – be the case that once the Aura is built there will be little capacity left for other projects. I believe that the staff and Council would need to take this into account before making a decision on the Aura.
• In relation to a point I raised above, there seems to be a lot of variability in the level of congestion/delay in the traffic along Estes. We should use the model to understand that variability more clearly so as to understand how often the road is seriously congested rather than just using averages.
• A suggestion has been made – and the Central West Plan called for -- a road that would connect through the Rummel property to Somerset, with the Somerset-Estes intersection then being signalized or having a traffic circle. I have also been told of reasons why this could be problematic. I think that we should use the capabilities of the new model to assess this suggestion and understand its pros and cons so that staff can respond if/when this comes up in a public meeting.

 

As always, many thanks for all of your hard work on both the model and in dealing with the Aura. All the best.

 

Michael

 

917 770 9234 (mobile)

919 240 5406 (landline)

 

 

 

• Attachments-261/ForwardedMessage.eml