UNR Midtown Post Condition Traffic Study

March 20, 2023
Kerrie Koski, P.E.

Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Reno
1 E. First Street
Reno, NV 89501
SUBJECT: RTC Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit (BRT) Extension Project
Midtown Reno Post-Construction Evaluation Study
Dear Ms. Koski,
The Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) completed the Virginia Street
Bus RAPID Transit Project (Project) in Fall 2020 to increase transit connectivity, enhance pedestrian
safety, and improve access to the Virginia Street corridor. Following the completion of the Project,
the RTC, in coordination with the City of Reno, performed a circulation study to address vehicle
circulation and compliance concerns of the constructed improvements in Midtown Reno.
The enclosed reports, entitled Midtown Virginia Street BRT – Post Condition Traffic Study (Study)
and Virginia Street/Center Street Technical Memorandum (Memo), analyzed several significant
roadway changes to the Midtown segment of South Virginia Street between Plumb Lane and Liberty
Street including the Center Street roundabout. Using roadside LiDAR and connected-vehicle data,
the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) evaluated the behaviors of road users, crash events, vehicle
volumes, parking, and vehicular accessibility.
In summary, the Study concludes that the installed roadway infrastructure has improved safety while
minimally impacting circulation and mobility. The majority of vehicles are traveling at the speed
limit or lower. The raised medians, specifically, have reduced the number of severe angle conflicts
and potential crashes. Although the center median limits left-turn movements, the Study supports
that the roundabout and channelized left-turn pockets help mitigate the effects and support vehicle
throughput. Parking appears to be adequately serving businesses. Lastly, the extended sidewalks
invite greater multimodal activity in the now ADA accessible corridor especially around the
business-dense areas.
While the Project was designed appropriately given the project constraints and standard practice
guidelines, the Study identifies opportunities to improve safety and operations. The RTC
recommends the following actions for consideration:
Recommendation #1: With a high number of DUI and potential DUI related crashes in this
area it is recommended that additional DUI and speed enforcement occur within this corridor.
RTC Board: Ed Lawson (Chair)  Vaughn Hartung (Vice Chair)  Hillary Schieve  Alexis Hill  Devon Reese
PO Box 30002, Reno, NV 89520  1105 Terminal Way, Reno, NV 89502  775-348-0400  rtcwashoe.com
Recommendation #2: Speed feedback signs along Virginia Street prior to entry into the
roundabout will help inform drivers of their speed along with the showing the recommended
speed of 15 miles per hour.
Recommendation #3: The installation of pedestrian bollard protection at the southwest

corner of the Center Street roundabout to help protect the adjacent building and potential
pedestrians in the area. Concrete bollards placed approximately 5-10’ north of the existing
building will be a final layer of protection for the building and vulnerable users from errant
vehicles. Additional pedestrian protection will be considered at all the intersection corners.
Recommendation #4: The installation of a pedestrian crossing at or near the intersection of

Virginia Street and Cheney Street to address pedestrian movement across Virginia Street.
Recommendation #5: The consideration of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) at

unsignalized crosswalks where appropriate.
The above recommendations would support additional layers of driver notification and pedestrian
protection to address the concerns from the City and adjacent property owners. We look forward to
future collaborations with the City for Virginia Street at Midtown.
Sincerely,
Dale Keller, P.E.

RTC Director of Engineering
Enclosure:
• Midtown Virginia Street BRT – Post Condition Traffic Study
• Virginia Street / Center Street Technical Memorandum
Midtown Virginia St. BRT Post Study Analysis
For
Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), Washoe
Performed By:
Trevor Whitley and Hao Xu, Ph.D., P.E.
Center for Advanced Transportation Education and Research
University of Nevada, Reno
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 1
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Project Data ...................................................................................................................... 7
2 Midtown Virginia St Corridor Information .......................................................................... 12
3 Crash Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15
4 Vehicles................................................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Virginia Through Volumes ............................................................................................ 17
4.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled .................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Accessibility ................................................................................................................... 22
4.4 Transit............................................................................................................................. 27
4.5 Parking ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.6 Vehicle Speeds ............................................................................................................... 36
5 Pedestrians and Bicycles ....................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes .................................................................................... 39
5.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing .................................................................................... 43
5.3 Bicycle On Roadway ...................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Pedestrian Level of Service ............................................................................................ 49
6 Conflicts and Interactions ..................................................................................................... 53
7 Behavior Analysis and Compliance ...................................................................................... 58
7.1 U-Turns .......................................................................................................................... 58
7.2 Side Street Non-Compliance .......................................................................................... 60
7.3 Wrong way ..................................................................................................................... 60
7.4 Other Non-Compliance .................................................................................................. 62
8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 63
1|Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Study area and intersections ............................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Stages of roadside LiDAR data processing .................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Sample of Wejo data in Washoe County, NV ................................................................ 11
Figure 4 Roadway classification and adjacent businesses ............................................................ 14
Figure 5 Midtown Virginia St 2013 to 2017 crash heat map ........................................................ 16
Figure 6 Site-by-site daily through volumes by direction and total.............................................. 18
Figure 7 Daily through volumes ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 Distance Traveled on Midtown Virginia ........................................................................ 20
Figure 9 Journey distance distribution by journey type ................................................................ 21
Figure 10 Wejo Virginia access from side street heat map .......................................................... 23
Figure 11 Daily side street access volumes for a weekday and weekend ..................................... 24
Figure 12 Wejo Virginia exits from side street heat map ............................................................. 25
Figure 13 Daily side street exit volumes....................................................................................... 26
Figure 14 Daily average offs from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1 ...................................... 28
Figure 15 Daily average ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1 ....................................... 29
Figure 16 Daily average offs from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Virginia Line (Route 100) ......... 31
Figure 17 Daily average ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Virginia Line (Route 100) ......... 32
Figure 18 Average daily vehicles parked along Midtown Virginia .............................................. 34
Figure 19 Average parking duration in minutes along Midtown Virginia ................................... 35
Figure 20 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday ............ 37
Figure 21 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend ............ 37
Figure 22 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday ........... 38
Figure 23 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend ........... 38
Figure 24 Daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St for weekday and weekend ...................... 39
Figure 25 Mapped daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St ................................................... 40
Figure 26 Daily Bicycle volumes along Virginia St for weekday and weekend .......................... 41
Figure 27 Mapped daily bicycle volumes along Virginia St ........................................................ 42
Figure 28 Daily pedestrian crossings along Virginia St for weekday and weekend .................... 43
Figure 29 Mapped daily pedestrian crossings along Virginia St .................................................. 44
Figure 30 Daily bicycle crossings along Virginia St for weekday and weekend ......................... 45
Figure 31 Mapped daily bicycle crossings along Virginia St ....................................................... 46
Figure 32 Mapped daily bicycle on the roadway along Virginia St ............................................. 48
Figure 33 Example of (a) vehicle to vehicle conflict (b) vehicle to pedestrian conflict ............... 54
Figure 34 Vehicle to Vehicle conflict heat map ........................................................................... 55
Figure 35 Vehicle to Pedestrian conflict heat map ....................................................................... 57
Figure 36 Non-compliance Examples ........................................................................................... 58
Figure 37 Daily weekday U-turns along Virginia St .................................................................... 59
Figure 38 Daily weekend U-turns along Virginia St .................................................................... 59
Figure 39 Mary St wrong way driving details .............................................................................. 61
1|Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 LiDAR sensor installation locations and duration ............................................................. 9
Table 2 Intersection control type .................................................................................................. 12
Table 3 Midtown Virginia St KABCO crash breakdown from 2013 to 2017 .............................. 15
Table 4 TRINA AADT versus LiDAR daily volumes ................................................................. 17
Table 5 Journey Type Breakdown ................................................................................................ 20
Table 6 HCM pedestrian LOS breakdown.................................................................................... 49
Table 7 Pedestrian LOS at each two-way stop-controlled intersection ........................................ 50
Table 8 HCM signalized intersection crossing LOS score ........................................................... 51
Table 9 Signalized intersection pedestrian LOS ........................................................................... 51
Table 10 Daily side street lefts and proportion to side street total daily volumes ........................ 60
Table 11 Wrong way driving events along Virginia St ................................................................ 61
Table 12 California St non-compliance ........................................................................................ 62
2|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Regional Transportation Commission for Washoe County (RTC Washoe) retained the
University of Nevada, Reno’s (UNR) Center for Advanced Transportation Education and
Research (CATER) to conduct a post-construction evaluation study on the Virginia St Bus Rapid
Transport (BRT) project in Midtown, Reno, Nevada. Roadside LiDAR data was collected at 18
intersections across 1.2 miles along South Virginia St in the Midtown neighborhood in Reno, NV.
This data provides multi-modal traffic counts, speeds, conflicts, and is used to identify behaviors
of road users such as non-compliance events. Wejo data was also used which is connected
vehicle data that has a 4-5 percent penetration rate of all vehicles in Washoe County, NV. UNR
used one week of this data to assess vehicle miles traveled and accessibility within the study area.
Other data sets used in this study include the Nevada Department of Transportation’s (NDOT)
historical crash data from 2013 to 2017, as well as their Traffic Records Information Access
(TRINA).
The study area is a commercial area with high multi-modal volumes such as vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicyclists. Upon construction, complete street elements were added to the roadway such as
raised medians, reduced lanes, greater crosswalk frequency, curb extensions, a roundabout,
shared lane markings and improvements made related to the bus rapid transit Virginia Line. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects on travel behavior post-construction. The results of
the following sections are summarized below:
Crash Analysis – From 2013 to 2017 there were 329 crashes along Midtown Virginia. There
was one fatal crash, 147 injury crashes, and 181 property damage only crashes. 20 crashes were
pedestrian-related and only 9 were bicycle-related. Plumb was a major hot spot for crashes but
also has the highest traffic volumes. Vassar, Center, and Liberty were also hot spots
Virginia Through Volumes – Through volumes range from roughly 10,000 to 12,000 daily
vehicles in both directions from Stewart St to Mt Rose and increases to 20,000 just south of
Plumb Ln. Liberty has the lowest though volumes at approximately 6,000 vehicles
Vehicle Miles Traveled – From Wejo data, it is estimated that 45 percent of vehicles are
traveling less than a quarter mile along the 1.2-mile Midtown Virginia St corridor. An additional
20 percent of vehicles traveled between a quarter and a half mile. Approximately 15 percent of
vehicle traveled nearly the full length of the study area including five percent that traveled
further than that. Those traveling further were from U-turns in the corridor or from vehicles
traveling along the study area more than once in a single trip.
Accessibility – LiDAR data and Wejo data were used to measure the ingress and egress between
Midtown Virginia St and the side streets. For ingress, the side streets Liberty, California,
Regency, and Plumb were the most significant access points to Midtown Virginia. For egress,
Plumb Ln was utilized by far the most, with Liberty and Wells also being utilized heavily.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes – The bicycle and pedestrian volumes section is outlined in
three ways, those traveling along Virginia St on the sidewalk and side street crosswalks, those
3|Page
crossing Virginia St, and bicycles traveling on the roadway. In general, overall pedestrian
activity was higher in the northern most region at Moran, St. Lawrence, and Cheney. These are
also areas in which there is a greater density of businesses and street parking along Virginia St
and on the side streets rather than at parking lots. There are also a large number of Virginia St
crossing events in areas where there are no crosswalks, such as Moran and Cheney. Bicycles
follow a similar trend as pedestrians when traveling on the pedestrian right-of-way; however, the
volumes are generally steadier throughout the corridor with a hot spot at St. Lawrence. For
bicycles on the roadway, there are hot spots at Cheney, Mt Rose, and Wells.
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) – The pedestrian LOS is determined using methods from the
Highway Capacity Manual 7th edition for two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and signalized
intersection crossing events on Virginia St. For the TWSC intersections, St. Lawrence and
Taylor have LOS of C and the rest are LOS of F. This is because of the existence of a median
refuge islands at those intersections. However, delay is also calculated which does not derive the
LOS result. In looking at the delay, there does not appear to be a great difference between LOS C
and LOS F. For signalized intersections, each crosswalk has an LOS of C or greater, with most
being LOS B.
Vehicle Speeds – The through vehicle speeds were extracted along Virginia St to obtain a
general speed profile for both passenger vehicles and vehicles over 38 feet such as buses. Overall,
a majority of vehicles are traveling at the speed limit or lower. Larger vehicles such as buses are
traveling at similar speeds as the rest of traffic except in areas in the southern most sites. The
Center St roundabout slows traffic up to 15 MPH at the approaches.
Transit – Transit Ridership data was acquired from RTC Washoe for Route 1 and Route 100.
The acquired data consists of the average offs, ons, and loads during the data collection period
12/8/2021 to 2/8/2022 for each stop throughout the day. For route 1 in the northbound direction,
users tend to get off at Thoma St the most where there are greater density of businesses and
pedestrian activity. In the southbound direction, users get off at Liberty St and Wells Ave. As for
the ons, users tend to utilize the stops at Thoma, La Rue, and Taylor which is where there more
businesses and pedestrian activity. The Virginia Line (Route 100) show more offs at Liberty St
and at the southern bus stop near the roundabout. On the other hand, the ons occur more
frequently at Liberty St and Walts in the southbound direction and at Center St near the
roundabout in the northbound direction.
Parking – Parking data is generated for each street parking space detected by the sensor for each
site. A total of 97 parking spaces were detected along Midtown Virginia. Such data includes the
entering and exit of each vehicle in each parking space greater than 5 minutes duration. The map
shows that there is a greater frequency of vehicles parking around Thoma St at durations less
than one hour, which corresponds to where there is a higher density of businesses. Around La
Rue, there are vehicles occupying spaces for longer than two hours. Martin St has one space that
has an average parking duration up two days. Parking spaces in the southern half have less
vehicle parking frequencies.
4|Page
Conflicts – From the LiDAR data, conflicts between road users are extracted and used as a
surrogate safety measure. Each conflict must have a time difference of under 2 seconds and at
least one road user must be traveling faster than 15 miles per hour (MPH). For Vehicle-to vehicle
conflicts, only those with a conflict angle of 90 degrees are greater were considered. For vehicle-
to-vehicle conflicts, Regency showed as being a major hot spot, but upon further inspection,
most of the conflicts had a time difference between 1.5 and 2 seconds. Overall, there are no
significant safety concerns between vehicles based on this data because of a combination of low
speeds and higher time differences. For vehicle-to-pedestrian interactions, Moran was triggered
as a hot spot which is concerning given there is no crosswalk. However, upon further inspection
of this data it appears that a majority of pedestrians cross more aggressively after a vehicle
passes. This appears to happen more often at intersection without a crosswalk, such as Cheney.
Behavior Analysis and Compliance – Using the LiDAR trajectory data, more detailed
information can be gleaned to understand more intricate patterns in the data. First off, there are a
larger number of U-turns that occur in the north end which are not allowed because of the raised
medians. Also, a majority of U-turns occur at the roundabout, which suggests the need for
vehicles to utilize the roundabout to access areas along Midtown Virginia. Stewart St has
between 17 and 21 percent of side street volumes making an illegal left turn around the raised
medians. Wrong way driving events are also common on Mary St at the west leg of the
roundabout and on the St. Lawrence left turn pocket. California saw many illegal eastbound
through and southbound lefts to access the businesses on the east side of the intersection.
Overall, the raised medians do reduce the number of more severe angle conflicts and potential
crashes. Additionally, they slow vehicles down more than in the southern half. While the
restricted limits access limits left turns in the northern study area, the roundabout and existence
of other left turn pockets mitigates the effect. The roundabout also reduces traffic speed and
eliminates more severe angle conflict points between vehicles. The roundabout’s impact to
pedestrians appears minimal because these lower speeds. Parking appears to be adequately
serving businesses, with minimal non-compliance issues of vehicles parking for longer than is
allows. The extended sidewalks invite greater multimodal activity especially around the
business-dense areas around St. Lawrence. The restrictions placed on vehicle turning movements
in turn improves mobility and safety for other road users, particularly pedestrians. In conclusion,
the infrastructure improvements appear to improve safety while minimally impacting the
circulation and mobility.
5|Page
1 INTRODUCTION
The Regional Transportation Commission for Washoe County (RTC Washoe) retained the
University of Nevada, Reno’s (UNR) Center for Advanced Transportation Education and
Research (CATER) to conduct a post-construction study evaluation study on the Virginia St Bus
Rapid Transport (BRT) project in Midtown, Reno, Nevada.
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Virginia St BRT Extension Project is a transit-oriented development along the Virginia St
corridor located in Reno, NV and led by the RTC Washoe. The Virginia BRT evaluation study
area spans 1.2 miles along the Virginia St corridor between the cross streets Liberty St to the
north, and Plumb Ln to the South. The study area is located in the Midtown neighborhood, which
is a commercial area of Reno that has high multi-modal traffic volumes such as vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrians. The study area has recently undergone reconstruction, with complete
street elements added. These elements include the following:
• Two lanes per direction to one
• Extended sidewalks
• More crosswalks with curb extensions
• Shared lane markings (sharrows) for bicyclists
• Restricting access through continuous raised medians
• A roundabout
• New streetlighting
• Transit stop shelters
• A BRT line
Street parking was maintained through the corridor with a 2-hour limit 8:00 am to 8:00 pm
Monday through Saturday.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the newly constructed complete
street from the perspective of mobility, safety, and circulation. The study objectives include
1) Traffic mobility performance, including volumes, delays, and level of service (LOS) of
multimodal traffic.
2) Traffic safety performance, including historical crash data, speeds, and conflict analysis.
3) Transit BRT performance, including BRT travel time, ridership, and station/stop access.
4) Business access including traffic circulation, parking, transit, and walking routes for
business access.
5) Identification of roadway elements positively or negatively impacting mobility, safety,
and business access for recommendations to future projects.
6|Page
1.3 PROJECT DATA

The data used for this study is outlined. UNR used the following data to complete the evaluation
• Geometric design of S Virginia St. in the study zone – RTC
• Pre-construction corridor study report - RTC
• Transit routes, stations, and stops – RTC
• Business along S Virginia ST. in the study zone – Google Maps and Zillow
• AADT data (before the construction) – NDOT TRINA
• Historical crash data (before the construction) – NDOT Web Crash Data App
• Sample trajectory data – Wejo
• Transit ridership - RTC
• LiDAR data for all traffic trajectories – UNR
1.3.1 Roadside LiDAR Trajectory Data

UNR used their roadside data collection platforms to collect data at each intersection in the 1.2-
mile stretch. Each data collection site is shown in Figure 1. Each data collection effort covers
four intersections and 4-5 days of continuous data is collection. Data collection started December
10th, 2021 and ended on February 8th, 2022, as shown in Table 1. Each site has at least one full
weekday and one full weekend day. Each sensor can detect a radius of 300 feet.
7|Page
Figure 1 Study area and intersections
8|Page
Table 1 LiDAR sensor installation locations and duration
Site Start Day End Day

Virginia St/Liberty St Friday, December 10, 2021 Tuesday, December 14, 2021
Virginia St/Stewart St Friday, December 10, 2021 Wednesday, December 15, 2021
Virginia St/California Ave Wednesday, December 8, 2021 Tuesday, December 14, 2021
Virginia St/Moran St Thursday, December 9, 2021 Thursday, December 16, 2021
Virginia St/Thoma St Saturday, December 18, 2021 Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Virginia St/Saint Lawrence Ave Saturday, December 18, 2021 Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Virginia St/Cheney St Saturday, December 18, 2021 Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Virginia St/W Taylor St Saturday, December 18, 2021 Wednesday, December 22, 2021
Virginia St/La Rue Ave Wednesday, January 19, 2022 Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Virginia St/Martin St Thursday, January 20, 2022 Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Virginia St/Center St Wednesday, January 19, 2022 Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Virginia St/Vassar St Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Virginia St/Arroyo St Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Virginia St/Pueblo St Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Sunday, January 30, 2022
Virginia St/Mount Rose St Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Virginia St/Regency Way Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Monday, February 7, 2022
Virginia St/S Wells Ave Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Monday, February 7, 2022
Virginia St/Plumb Ln Wednesday, February 2, 2022 Tuesday, February 8, 2022
The LiDAR sensor generates cloud points of surrounding objects through 32 pulsed lasers 360
degrees at a frequency of 0.1 seconds. The cloud points collected in the field are run through
artificial intelligence (AI) software to filter out the background, classify the road user as a
vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian, and track the road users’ movement. Figure 2 shows the Roadside
LiDAR platform used to collect the data, the cloud points generated by the LiDAR sensor, and
the trajectories of each road user for a 30-minute sample period. The trajectories shown on the
map show the movements of each road users’ movement every 0.1 seconds. For this project, the
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians are classified.
The traffic data that can be gleaned from these trajectories include the following:
• Multi-modal traffic counts (turning movement and crosswalk)
• Multi-modal traffic speeds
• Conflicts and interactions between road users
• Traffic compliance
• Localized traffic patterns
• Parking utilization
9|Page
Figure 2 Stages of roadside LiDAR data processing
1.3.2 Wejo Data

Wejo data is connected vehicle data from the GPS units in vehicles, which is cleaned and
provided by the company, Wejo. Much like the LiDAR trajectories, Wejo data can track the
movements of vehicles through time and space, but at a lower frequency of every 3-seconds.
Also, this data is only a sample of 4-5 percent of the actual vehicles on the roadway. A sample of
Wejo data for the Washoe County area is shown in Figure 3.Wejo data is more macroscopic and
therefore can provide a sample of vehicle origins and destinations to understand general travel
patterns.
For this project, one week of Wejo data is used between March 1st and March 6th, 2021. The data
is used to determine average miles traveled along Midtown Virginia St and accessibility to
Midtown Virginia St.
10 | P a g e
Figure 3 Sample of Wejo data in Washoe County, NV
11 | P a g e
2 MIDTOWN VIRGINIA ST CORRIDOR INFORMATION

The following section goes over the defining characteristics along the Midtown Virginia St
corridor. This includes looking at each site where there was data collected and the corridor as a
whole. These characteristics include the intersection control type, geometry, and where there is
street parking, transit stops, and other unique characteristics.
Table 2 tabulates the intersection control type of each intersection along the study area. The top
row is the northern-most site and the bottom row is the southern-most site. Many sites in the
northern half are three-legged one-way stop controlled that connect to local roads. The only time
for which vehicles’ flow is interrupted is at signalized intersections, the Center St roundabout,
and at crosswalks for crossing bicyclists and pedestrians. Otherwise, the flow is uninterrupted.
Table 2 Intersection control type
Site Control Type Restricted Movements

Virginia St/Liberty St Signalized None
Virginia St/Stewart St One-Way Stop-Controlled Westbound Left
Virginia St/California Ave Signalized (3-Legged) Westbound Left & Thru /
Southbound Left /
Eastbound Thru
Virginia St/Moran St One-Way Stop-Controlled Westbound & Southbound Left
Virginia St/Thoma St One-Way Stop-Controlled Southbound Left
Virginia St/Saint Lawrence Ave One-Way Stop-Controlled Eastbound Left & Thru /
Southbound Left / Westbound
Virginia St/Cheney St One-Way Stop-Controlled Westbound Left
Virginia St/W Taylor St One-Way Stop-Controlled Eastbound Left
Virginia St/La Rue Ave Two-Way Stop-Controlled Westbound & Eastbound Left &
Thru / Northbound & Southbound
Left
Virginia St/Martin St One-Way Stop-Controlled Eastbound & Northbound Left
Virginia St/Center St Roundabout Southbound Right / Northbound
Left / Westbound
Virginia St/Vassar St Signalized Eastbound
Virginia St/Arroyo St Two-Way Stop-Controlled None
Virginia St/Pueblo St Two-Way Stop-Controlled Eastbound
Virginia St/Mount Rose St Signalized None
Virginia St/Regency Way Signalized None
Virginia St/S Wells Ave One-Way Stop-Controlled Westbound & Southbound Lefts
Virginia St/Plumb Ln Signalized None
Figure 4 outlines the roadway classifications. Midtown Virginia St is classified as an arterial and
there are seven arterial cross streets, four collector cross streets, and 14 local cross streets in the
12 | P a g e
study corridor. The speed limit of the corridor is 25 miles per hour (MPH) from Liberty to
Vassar and 30 MPH from Vassar to Plumb. Vassar is also where the raised medians end and
turns into a standard median lane for left turns; therefore, access is less restricted. The raised
medians return on the southbound approach of Plumb Ln along the Wells intersection. The raised
medians in the northern half of the study area are used to restrict access in the left turn onto
Virginia St from the side street and onto the side streets to Virginia St. The intersections at
Stewart, St. Lawrence, Cheney, and Taylor do not allow for left turns onto Virginia, only right
turns can be made, but Virginia St has a left-turn pocket to turn onto the side streets. The
intersections at Moran, La Rue, and Martin also restrict access on the side street left turn, but
there is also no left turn pocket on Virginia St to allow for left turns; therefore, it is just a
continuous raised median. Thoma is a one-way in the westbound direction so there is no left turn
pocket on Virginia St, but right and left turns are allowed from Thoma onto the Virginia.
At each of the one- to two-way stop-controlled intersections there is one Virginia St crosswalk
except at Stewart, Moran, Cheney, and Wells. The signalized intersections have two Virginia St
crosswalks except at Mt Rose\Holcomb where there is one. At Taylor Street, there is a skewed
crosswalk. For bicyclists on the roadway, there are shared lane marking (“sharrows”) along the
corridor. From Mt Rose to Regency, there is a bus lane in both directions with sharrows. There is
a total of 13 transit stops along Midtown Virginia St services with 3 transit stops along Center St
that are also considered. Street parking was maintained through the corridor with a 2-hour limit
8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Figure 4 also maps the businesses along Midtown
Virginia St. The density of businesses is greatest in the northern end at St. Lawrence; however,
there is also a high density around the Center St roundabout. South of Center St, the density
lowers as the number of parking lots and larger stores increases.
13 | P a g e
Figure 4 Roadway classification and adjacent businesses
14 | P a g e
3 CRASH ANALYSIS
According to the Nevada Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) crash data from 2013 to 2017,
a total of 329 crashes occurred along S Virginia St in the Midtown region. Of those 329 crashes,
189 occurred at an intersection and 277 occurred on Virginia St as opposed to the side streets. 25
crashes were as a result of impaired driving and 7 are speed-related. There are 20 crashes
involving pedestrians and 9 involving bicyclists. There is one fatal crash, 147 injury crashes, and
181 property damage only crashes. The year-by year KABCO breakdown is shown in Table 3.
“K” is a fatal injury, “A” is an incapacitating injury, “B” is a non-incapacitating injury, “C” is a
possible or claimed injury, and “O” is a property damage only or no injury.
Table 3 Midtown Virginia St KABCO crash breakdown from 2013 to 2017
Year Total K A B C O
2013 66 0 3 8 15 40
2014 71 0 5 11 21 34
2015 60 0 2 8 11 39
2016 66 0 2 5 22 37
2017 66 1 1 11 22 31
Total 329 1 13 43 91 181
Figure 5 shows a heat map of all the 329 crashes along Midtown Virginia St. The Plumb St
intersection shows significantly higher crash frequencies, but also has the higher traffic volumes.
Other hot spots are shown on Vassar St and Center St/Mary St. However, since these crashes
occurred, the number of through lanes has changed from two to one and raised medians were
installed. Furthermore, The Center St/Mary St intersection was changed from a signalized
intersection to a roundabout.
15 | P a g e
Crashes
High
Medium
Low
Figure 5 Midtown Virginia St 2013 to 2017 crash heat map
16 | P a g e
4 VEHICLES
4.1 VIRGINIA THROUGH VOLUMES

NDOT has three Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counters along the study area on S
Virginia St in their Traffic Records Information Access (TRINA). Table 4 illustrates the AADT
at Stewart St, Vassar, and Wells Ave and the corresponding Daily volumes from the LiDAR
trajectory data. The AADT in the northmost and southmost regions are similar, but there is a dip
in ADDT by about 500 in the middle of the study corridor.
Table 4 TRINA AADT versus LiDAR daily volumes
Station Route Location 2021 AADT LiDAR

310218 S Virginia St 100ft N of Stewart St 16,600 10,800
310189 S Virginia St 135ft N of Vassar St 11,500 9,600
311143 S Virginia St 510ft N of Plumb Ln 16,700 20,100
Using the traffic volumes generated by the roadside LiDAR data, more granular data on daily
volumes can be extracted to see how through movement daily counts change throughout the
corridor. Figure 6 shows 16 intersection sites where through movements were generated. There
is large fluctuation in the northmost sites near Liberty, but shows more consistency from Thoma
to Center. Then, there is a spike in through volumes at Wells. In comparing these results to the
TRINA data set, the LiDAR output shows much less volume at Stewart and more volume at
Wells near Plumb. The LiDAR volumes can breakdown the volumes by direction. Based on
Figure 6, the direction volumes are similar for most sites except Liberty where northbound is
higher and at Wells where southbound is higher. These volumes show that Liberty and Plumb are
major access points to Midtown Virginia, as will be shown in a later section.
17 | P a g e
Thru Volumes
Northbound Southbound Total
25000
20000
Daily Volumes
15000
10000
5000
Sites
Figure 6 Site-by-site daily through volumes by direction and total
Figure 7 shows the daily volumes on a map with the distribution so of businesses along Virginia
St. There is a greater density of businesses in the north half of the study area where there are
more shops and restaurants. This are is also where there are more consistent volumes. However,
there is higher volumes in the southern most half where there is less density of businesses
indicating that more throughput volumes in this area.
18 | P a g e
Figure 7 Daily through volumes
19 | P a g e
4.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

Using Wejo data, the miles traveled through the approximately 1.2-mile Midtown Virginia can
be determined. Based on approximately 1-week of Wejo data between March 1st and March 6th,
2021, there was a total of 3345 trips that traveled along Virginia St. Table 5 tabulates the
breakdown of journey type. A majority of journeys are those that traveled through Midtown
Virginia St which suggests the Virginia St is being used primarily for throughout; However,
Figure 8 shows that an approximately 65% of all journeys are less than 0.5 miles. Therefore,
many journeys along Midtown Virginia are for smaller segments rather than the full 1.2-mile
length. Those journeys that traveled greater than the length of the study area is because of either
U-turn being made, or that the journey traveled along Midtown Virginia two or more times in the
same trip.
Table 5 Journey Type Breakdown
Journey Type Count

Destination 303
Origin 334
Origin-Destination 24
Through 2685
Total 3346
Distance Traveled on Midtown Virginia St

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Percent (%)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
< 0.25 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 1 1 - 1.25 > 1.25
Distance (mi)
Figure 8 Distance Traveled on Midtown Virginia
20 | P a g e
Figure 9 breaks down the distribution of miles traveled along Midtown Virginia by journey type.
The distribution between the 25th and 75th percentile is shown at the box, the horizontal line is
the 50th percentile (median), and the “X” is the mean. The figure shows that there is overlap in
the distance distributions between journey types and the similar means. This plot shows that the
majority of journeys are traveling less than 0.75 miles regardless of the journey type. The
journeys for which the study area is an origin shows generally lower distances traveled.
Figure 9 Journey distance distribution by journey type
21 | P a g e
4.3 ACCESSIBILITY
Accessibility is an important indicator in determining which side streets are being utilized to
enter and exit the Midtown Virginia corridor. For this section, both the Wejo and LiDAR
trajectory data will be used.
Figure 10 illustrates which side streets are utilized most to access Midtown Virginia St which is
determined based on if the vehicle turned onto Virginia St. Hot spots shown in the map include
Liberty, California, Mt Rose, Regency, and Plumb. These hot spots are validated by the LiDAR
trajectory data shown in Figure 11, where the daily volumes from the side streets for each
intersection for both a weekday and weekend day is shown.
22 | P a g e
Ingress
High
Medium
Low
Figure 10 Wejo Virginia access from side street heat map
23 | P a g e
Entering Virgina St Midtown

Weekday Weekend
6000
5000
4000
Daily Volumes
3000
2000
1000
Sites
Figure 11 Daily side street access volumes for a weekday and weekend
Figure 12 illustrates which side streets are utilized most to exit Midtown Virginia St which is
determined based on if the vehicle turned off of Virginia St. There is greater distribution of hot
spots for which vehicles exit than enter from the side street. The major hot spots appear at
Liberty, California, Wells and Plumb. These hot spots are validated by the LiDAR trajectory data
shown in Figure 13, where the daily volumes from the side streets for each intersection for both a
weekday and weekend day is shown.
24 | P a g e
Egress
High
Medium
Low
Figure 12 Wejo Virginia exits from side street heat map
25 | P a g e
Exiting Virginia Midtown

Weekday Weekend
14000
12000
10000
Daily Volumes
8000
6000
4000
2000
Sites
Figure 13 Daily side street exit volumes
Overall, entering into the study area occurs primarily in more localized areas along Virginia St,
whereas, exiting vehicles use the minor intersection side streets more frequently. Furthermore,
access from the side street occurs less frequently at the minor intersection in the northern end
where there is a greater density of businesses.
26 | P a g e
4.4 TRANSIT
Transit Ridership data was acquired from RTC Washoe for Route 1 and Route 100 which is the
bus rapid transit Virginia Line. The acquired data consists of the average offs, ons, and loads
during the data collection period 12/8/2021 to 2/8/2022 for each stop throughout the day. The
offs refer to those that exit the bus and on refer to those that enter the bus. Therefore, off
represent destinations and ons represent origins. In this study, the transit stops along Midtown
Virginia St and the immediate vicinity are used and only the offs and ons are considered to
understand the degree of transit utilization to and from Midtown Virginia St.
4.4.1 Route 1
Route 1 travels along the full length of Midtown Virginia St in both the northbound and
southbound direction. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the daily average offs and ons from
12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022, respectively. The Southbound stops will be located west of Virginia St
and northbound stops will be located east of Virginia St. In the northbound direction, users tend
to get off at Thoma St the most where there are greater density of businesses and pedestrian
activity. In the southbound direction, users get off at the end points of the study area at Liberty St
and Wells Ave. As for the ons, users tend to utilize the stops at Thoma, La Rue, and Taylor
which is where there more businesses and pedestrian activity.
27 | P a g e
Figure 14 Daily average offs from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1
28 | P a g e
Figure 15 Daily average ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1
29 | P a g e
4.4.2 Virginia Line

The Virginia Line (Route 100) travels along the full length of Midtown Virginia St in both the
northbound and southbound direction. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the daily average offs and
ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022, respectively. The Southbound stops will be located west of
Virginia St and northbound stops will be located east of Virginia St. The number of stops appear
to be less than in Route 1 and therefore there are no stops in areas with the highest density of
businesses. The offs show on Center Street at Liberty St and at the southern bus stop near the
roundabout. On the other hand, the ons occur more frequently at Liberty St and Walts in the
southbound direction and at Center St near the roundabout in the northbound direction. Overall,
the Center St, Walts, and Wells stops are utilized the most.
30 | P a g e
Figure 16 Daily average offs from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Virginia Line (Route 100)
31 | P a g e
Figure 17 Daily average ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Virginia Line (Route 100)
32 | P a g e
4.5 PARKING
Parking data is generated for each street parking space detected by the sensor for each site. A
total of 97 parking spaces were detected along Midtown Virginia. Such data includes the
entering and exit of each vehicle in each parking space greater than 5 minutes duration. Figure
18 displays a map of the average daily number of vehicles at each parking space detected along
Midtown Virginia. The map shows that there is a greater frequency of vehicles parking around
Thoma St where there are many shops and restaurants. Parking spaces in the southern half have
less vehicle parking frequencies. Figure 19 displays the average parking duration in minutes
along Midtown Virginia. In general, a lower value indicates greater turnover of parking and a
larger value indicates vehicles parked all day or over a day. There are five breaks in the
symbology as follows:
• Between five minutes and one hour
• Between one and two hours
• Between two and twelve hours
• Between twelve hours and one day
• Between one and two days
In general, the parking spaced along Thoma and St. Lawrence are occupied for less than one
hour at a time. Around La Rue, there are vehicles occupying spaces for longer than two hours.
Martin St has one space that has an average parking duration up two days.
33 | P a g e
Figure 18 Average daily vehicles parked along Midtown Virginia
34 | P a g e
Figure 19 Average parking duration in minutes along Midtown Virginia
35 | P a g e
4.6 VEHICLE SPEEDS

Vehicle speeds refer to each vehicle’s speed along Virginia St through the 18 data collection
sites in both directions. In this section, only through movements are considered. Both directions
are shown for both a weekday and weekend. Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the distribution of
speeds via box and whicker plots along Virginia St in the northbound direction during a weekday
and weekend, respectively. Similarly, Figure 22 and Figure 23 shows the same information in the
southbound direction. The blue boxes (first column) indicate vehicles that are of length 38 feet or
less, whereas orange boxes (second column) show vehicles 38 feet or greater. This breakdown is
meant to isolate the buses to analyze the speeds they are traveling relative to the rest of traffic.
The box portion of the plot is a distribution between the 25th and 75th percentile, the horizontal
line is the 50th percentile (median), and the “X” is the mean. The lines connect the means at the
“X”. The whiskers at the extreme ends refer to the outlier speeds. Signalized intersections will
have a wider distribution of speeds from stopped all the way to free flow, whereas uncontrolled
intersection will have more tighter distributions since it is largely uninterrupted except in cases
of pedestrian crossing events or during congested periods.
The common trend in each plot is that the south end speeds are steady and a majority are
traveling slower than the 25 MPH speed limit. The speeds remain in the northern half despite the
speed limit changing to 30 MPH. The Center St intersection provides traffic calming at the mid-
point of the study area with speeds dropping up to 10 MPH at the approaches. Liberty St also
shows significantly lower speeds. Buses tend to go similar speeds at the rest of traffic, but
decrease in speed in the southern end where there are two lanes with one being a bus lane.
Regency appears to be where the buses travel at consistently lower speeds than the rest of traffic.
There is no clear distinction between weekday versus weekend speeds. Furthermore, northbound
and southbound speeds follow similar trend except for St. Lawrence, where there is a dip in
speeds in the southbound direction that does not appear in the northbound direction. The
northbound direction appears to have greater speed distributions in the southern end at Mt Rose,
Regency, and Wells. This region has two lanes in each direction which could contribute to
variation.
Overall, a majority of vehicles are traveling at the speed limit or lower. Larger vehicles such as
buses are traveling at similar speeds as the rest of traffic except in areas in the southern most
sites. Center St see traffic slowing up to 15 MPH at the approach of the roundabout.
36 | P a g e
Figure 20 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday
Figure 21 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend
37 | P a g e
Figure 22 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday
Figure 23 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend
38 | P a g e
5 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES

The Midtown Virginia St area is a commercial area with high multi-modal volumes, such as
bicycles and pedestrians. As such, this section will focus on network-wide bicycle and pedestrian
volumes on the sidewalks and crossing the main street, as well as bicycles on the roadway.
5.1 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES

The pedestrian and bicycle volumes refer to the total volumes of pedestrians and bicycles
traveling alongside Virginia St on the sidewalks or side street crosswalks, both on the east and
west side. Figure 24 shows the daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St for a typical weekday
and weekend day. Figure 25 shows the pedestrian volumes mapped with the businesses. There
are greater pedestrian volumes in the northern half of the study area where there is a greater
density of businesses. Furthermore, Lawrence and Cheney, which have the greatest business
access, has the highest two pedestrian volumes on Virginia St. From Liberty to Moran, there is
greater pedestrian volumes on the weekend than the weekday; However, the reverse is true for
Thoma, Lawrence, Cheney, and Taylor. Pedestrian volumes level out from Center to Plumb from
200-300 daily volumes.
Pedestrian Volumes
700
600
500
Daily Volumes
400
300
200
100
Sites
Weekday Weekend
Figure 24 Daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St for weekday and weekend
39 | P a g e
Figure 25 Mapped daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St
40 | P a g e
Similar to the pedestrians, bicycle volumes traveling on the sidewalks and crosswalks can be
analyzed. Figure 26 shows the daily bicycle volumes along Virginia St for a typical weekday and
weekend day. Figure 27 shows the bicycle volumes mapped with the businesses. The daily
volumes are relatively steady throughout the corridor with an increase at St. Lawrence which is
where there is the greatest density of businesses. In the southern end of the corridor there are
higher bicycle volumes on the weekend day versus the weekday; However, Center Street has
double the bicycle volumes on the weekday.
Bicycle Volumes
120
100
80
Daily Volumes
60
40
20
Sites
Weekday Weekend
Figure 26 Daily Bicycle volumes along Virginia St for weekday and weekend
41 | P a g e
Figure 27 Mapped daily bicycle volumes along Virginia St
42 | P a g e
5.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSING

The pedestrian and bicycle crossing volumes refers to the pedestrians and bicyclists that cross
Virginia St. For pedestrian crossing volumes, sites without crosswalks were included to analyze
the crossing volumes outside of crosswalks. These sites include Stewart, Moran, Cheney, and
Wells. Figure 28 shows the daily pedestrian crossing volumes along Virginia St for a typical
weekday and weekend day. Figure 29 shows the pedestrian crossing volumes mapped with the
businesses. The sites with the highest pedestrian volumes include Liberty, Moran, Lawrence,
Cheney, Center, and Plumb. The high crossing volumes at Lawrence and Cheney match the trend
in the overall pedestrian volumes in the previous section and this is location where there is the
highest density of businesses. There are also higher numbers of pedestrian crossings at the
roundabout at Center, particularly on the weekend. The end points of the study area at Liberty
and Plumb have high pedestrian crossing volumes, particularly during the weekday. Areas
without crosswalks still showed high pedestrian crossing volumes, particularly at Moran and
Cheney. At Wells, there may not be as many pedestrian crossings, but there are four lanes and a
center median for which pedestrians need to cross.
Pedestrian Crossings
250
200
Daily Pedestrian Volumes
150
100
50
Sites
Weekday Weekend
Figure 28 Daily pedestrian crossings along Virginia St for weekday and weekend
43 | P a g e
Figure 29 Mapped daily pedestrian crossings along Virginia St
44 | P a g e
Figure 30 shows the daily pedestrian crossing volumes along Virginia St for a typical weekday
and weekend day. Figure 31 shows the pedestrian crossing volumes mapped with the businesses.
Figure 30 shows that there is more bicycle crossing events on the weekend except at California
Thoma, and Plumb. The hot spots occur at California, St. Lawrence, Center, Vassar, and Plumb.
These trends largely match the pedestrian crossing volumes for where there are crosswalks.
Bicycle Crossings
120
100
Daily Pedestrian Volumes
80
60
40
20
Sites
Weekday Weekend
Figure 30 Daily bicycle crossings along Virginia St for weekday and weekend
45 | P a g e
Figure 31 Mapped daily bicycle crossings along Virginia St
46 | P a g e
5.3 BICYCLE ON ROADWAY

The bicycles on the roadway refers to bicyclists traveling in the vehicle lanes. There are shared
lane markings through the study area allowing for vehicles and bicyclists to share the road.
Figure 32 shows the frequency of bicyclists on the roadway mapped with the businesses and
roadway classifications. Hot spots appear at Cheney, Center, Mt Rose, and Wells. At Center St,
there is interesting activity that occurs in which a group of bicyclists entered into the roundabout
and circled the roundabout more than once. Between Regency and Mt Rose, the shared lane
markings move to the outer bus lane. In this area, Regency has far less bicycle volumes than Mt
Rose, indicating that more bicycles are Turing off of Virginia at somewhere in between the two
sites.
47 | P a g e
Figure 32 Mapped daily bicycle on the roadway along Virginia St
48 | P a g e
5.4 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th edition is used to measure the pedestrian level of
service (LOS) at each Virginia St crossing event. The methodologies differ between a two-way-
stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection and a signalized intersection. Each will be discussed in this
section.
5.4.1 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections

The HCM methodology for determining pedestrian LOS at a TWSC intersection is based on the
following performance measures:
• Average pedestrian delay, and
• Perception-based LOS based on the probability of crossing without delay and the type(s)
of treatment(s) provided at the crossing.
The average pedestrian delay is estimated by summing up the expected delay from crossings
occurring when motorists yield, and the expected delay from crossings when pedestrians wait for
an adequate gap. Those two terms can be calculated through the estimation of critical gap, which
is the minimum time interval below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the
street, and the estimation of probability of a delayed crossing.
For pedestrian LOS, HCM provides a perception-based rating system considering the average
proportions of pedestrians who would rate their crossing experience as “dissatisfied” or worse
with their crossing experience, as shown in Table 6. HCM assume that the number of “satisfied”
and “dissatisfied” ratings from pedestrians will be in proportion to the respective satisfaction
probabilities when no delay occurs. So, the probability of “dissatisfied crossing” can be
determined by estimating the probability of a delayed crossing. The variables that are used to
determine the probability are as follows:
• Number of through lanes crossing on the major street
• Crosswalk length and width
• Presence of marks crosswalk, median refuge and RRFB
• AADT of major street
• Pedestrian flow rate
• Conflicting vehicle flow rate
Table 6 HCM pedestrian LOS breakdown
49 | P a g e
Since this method only applies to the two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection major street
crossings, the TWSC intersections without major-street crosswalk are not included. The sites for
which this applies is as follows:
• Virginia & Thoma
• Virginia & St. Lawrence
• Virginia & Arroyo
• Virginia & La Rue
• Virginia & Taylor
• Virginia & Pueblo
• Virginia & Martin
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 7. From the results, the LOS scores show F for all
site TWSC intersections except St. Lawrence and Taylor, which has a score of C. The main
reason for the C score is because of the existence of a median refuge; in looking at the average
delay, there does not appear to be a significant difference between each site. Another important
note is that the HCM is using equations calibrated by the authors through studies of their own,
which may not accurately reflect the unique situation in the Midtown Virginia region. Firstly,
since speeds are generally lower along this corridor, pedestrians tend to cross more aggressively
than the HCM calibration may account for. Secondly, there are many areas along Virginia St in
which pedestrians will cross that are outside of the crosswalk markings, which also reflects the
relative aggressiveness in crossing behavior.
Table 7 Pedestrian LOS at each two-way stop-controlled intersection
Side Street Average Delay (s) Prop of dissatisfied rating (%) LOS score
Thoma 8.66 51.82 F
St. Lawrence 6.00 17.21 C
Taylor 5.76 17.50 C
LaRue 11.46 55.29 F
Martin 9.52 54.11 F
Arroyo 10.65 55.39 F
Pueblo 9.24 54.15 F
5.4.2 Signalized Intersections

For signalized intersections, the pedestrian level of service is based on performance measures of
pedestrian delay and pedestrian LOS score. Pedestrian delay represents the average time a
pedestrian waits for a legal opportunity to cross an intersection leg. The LOS score is an
indication of the typical pedestrian’s perception of the overall crossing experience. For this
method, there are some assumptions made as follows:
• For the flow rate associated with the left-turn movement that receives a green indication
concurrently with the subject pedestrian crossing and turns across the subject crosswalk.
To assume a worst situation, here assume that all left turn traffic is permitted left turn.
50 | P a g e
• For the estimation of RTOR (right turn on red) flow rate, which is the flow rate
associated with the approach being crossed and that also turns across the subject
crosswalk. Assume the right-turn vehicle comes randomly and make right turn follows
normal distribution, so that the RTOR flow rate is the total right-turn traffic multiplied by
other phase’s time divided by the total cycle length.
Table 8 shows the breakdown of LOS score and corresponding LOS. The main factors that may
weigh the LOS score are as follows:
• Number of traffic lanes crossed when traversing crosswalk
• Number of right turn channelizing islands along crosswalk
• Vehicle flow rate
• Right turn on red flow rate
• Permitted left turn flow rate
• Midsegment 85th percentile speed
• Signal control information
Table 8 HCM signalized intersection crossing LOS score
Table 9 shows the results for all the signalized intersection crossings except for Vassar St
because of complications in the signal timing information. Each crosswalk has an LOS of B
except for those on Plumb Ln, which has LOS C. This indicates that the LOS of service for
pedestrians is good at signalized intersections along Midtown Virginia St. Also, the delay is
lower is the northern sites where there are more businesses and generally more pedestrian
activity.
Table 9 Signalized intersection pedestrian LOS
Crosswalk Average Delay LOS LOS
51 | P a g e
(s) Score Grade

Liberty North 40 2.12 B
Liberty South 38 2.50 B
Liberty West 40 2.23 B
Liberty East 37 2.28 B
California 24 2.25 B
North
South
West
Mt Rose South 57 2.49 B
Mt Rose West 57 2.02 B
Mt Rose East 57 1.91 B
Regency South 57 2.30 B
Regency West 55 1.82 B
Regency East 57 2.04 B
Plumb North 56 2.94 C
Plumb South 56 3.17 C
Plumb West 55 2.93 C
Plumb East 56 2.79 C
52 | P a g e
6 CONFLICTS AND INTERACTIONS

Through the trajectory data extracted from roadside LiDAR sensors, interactions and conflicts
between road users can be extracted and used as surrogate safety measures. The methodology
used in this report is extracting interactions for which two road users’ trajectories cross each
other within a certain time difference. In other words, if a vehicle makes a left turn in front of an
oncoming through vehicle, what is the time difference in which the two vehicles occupied the
same space. The same situation applies to other road users such as pedestrians. In the literature,
two seconds or less is a common threshold to trigger concern. However, given that this is a low-
speed intersection, speed is an important factor in determining if the interaction is truly
dangerous. Two vehicles traveling at low speeds and crossing at a conflict point is less
concerning than if one or both are traveling at fast speeds. The angle at with the two road users
passes each other is another important factor in determining how severe an interaction is. At low
speeds that are seen in Virginia St in Midtown, conflicts less than 90 degrees are not as critical as
those closer to 180 degrees. The following criteria is used to extract conflicts for this study:
• Vehicle to vehicle:
o Conflict angles of 90 degrees or greater: Left/thru and thru/thru conflicts
o Time difference less than 2 seconds
o Max speed is greater than or equal to 15 MPH
• Vehicle to pedestrian
o Conflicts between crossing pedestrians and vehicles
o Time difference less than 2 seconds
o Max Speed greater than or equal to 15 MPH
Figure 33 shows an example of a vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian conflicts. Note that
not all sites have vehicle to vehicle conflicts with angles 90 degrees or greater because some
geometries do not allow for it, such as the access controlled raised median sites and the
roundabout. Also, vehicle to pedestrian conflicts can occur outside of crosswalks. A total of two
days of data are used for each site, one weekday and one weekend.
53 | P a g e
(a) (b)
Figure 33 Example of (a) vehicle to vehicle conflict (b) vehicle to pedestrian conflict
Figure 34 shows a heat map of the vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts based on the outlined criteria. The
most obvious hot spot appears at Regency which is a signalized intersection with permissive left
turns in the northbound and southbound left directions. While the left turn volumes are not
particularly high, the through movement volumes are high as outlined in Figure 6 and there are
two lanes in each direction with one being a bus lane. However, a majority of conflicts occur at a
time difference of 1.5 and greater, indicating less severe interactions. Other hot spot includes
Arroyo, St. Lawrence, and Liberty. Overall, the main criteria in how many vehicle-to-vehicle
conflicts occur at a site is proportionate to the amount of conflict points there are in which the
one vehicle needs to yield or stop for oncoming traffic and find a gap to make their maneuver. St.
Lawrence is the only hot spot where there is only one conflict point considered: southbound
through and northbound left; however, if the threshold were changed to 1.5 seconds, St.
Lawrence would not be a hot spot. Overall, there are no significant safety concerns for concerns
between vehicles based on this data. With the combination of low speeds and higher time
differences, the chances of severe crashes happening is reduced.
54 | P a g e
Ingress
High
Medium
Low
Figure 34 Vehicle-to-vehicle conflict heat map
55 | P a g e
Figure 35 shows a heat map of the vehicle to pedestrian conflicts based on the outlined criteria.
The biggest hot spot is located at Moran St in which northbound and southbound vehicles
conflict with crossing pedestrians. Recall that Moran Street does not have a crosswalks and
relatively high pedestrian crossing volumes. St. Lawrence had comparable pedestrian crossing
volumes but has a crosswalk but does not show up as a hot spot. Cheney is another site which
had higher pedestrian volumes and no crosswalk and shows up as a hot spot in the map. Wells
had lower volumes with no crosswalk and shows up as a minor hot spot. The Center St
roundabout had more conflicts occurring on the east leg where there are only exiting vehicles.
The literature shows that yield rates at the exits of roundabouts is lower, which may contribute to
this hot spot. Lastly, Arroyo has relatively low pedestrian crossing volumes, but shows up as a
minor hot spot. This suggests that this location has a higher rate of conflicts when normalized to
pedestrian crossing volumes.
Another major criterion in determining how severe these conflicts are is by understanding the
order of the conflict. In other words, which road user entered into the conflict zone first, the
pedestrian or the vehicle. A pedestrian walking in front of a vehicle is more dangerous than a
pedestrian crossing directly after a vehicle has passed. For each site, the majority of conflicts are
pedestrians crossing directly after the vehicle has passed, which a less severe situation. That
being said, in order for the conflict to be triggered, the pedestrian would have to be close to the
passing vehicles, which, as speeds greater than 15 MPH, could be concerning.
Overall, most intersections have good pedestrian safety, however, areas where are no crosswalks
and high pedestrian activity are of higher concern.
56 | P a g e
Ingress
High
Medium
Low
Figure 35 Vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict heat map
57 | P a g e
7 BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND COMPLIANCE

The LiDAR trajectory data tracks each road users’ movement which allows for comprehensive
behavior analysis to see if there are any non-compliance and other interesting patterns. Non-
compliance includes illegal U-turns, left turns, and wrong-way driving. In the northern half there
are raised medians that restrict side street left turns and therefore it is important to understand if
drivers are following this. Furthermore, the medians also have large left turn pockets that cause
issues for drivers in the opposite direction that use them to make an illegal left. Examples of
these non-compliance events are shown in Figure 36. Figure 36 (a) shows an example of an
illegal U-turn and Figure 36 (b) shows a wrong way on the left turn pocket and an illegal
maneuver from the side street. Also shown in this section is all U-turns made at an intersection
regardless of compliance which will demonstrate areas in which restricted access has the greatest
effects.
(a) (b)
Figure 36 Non-compliance Examples
7.1 U-TURNS
U-turns made along Virginia St will be outlined. Figure 37 and Figure 38 show daily U-turns
made along Virginia St on a weekday and weekend day, respectively. Both figures show that
most of the U-turns are made at the roundabout, which means the roundabout improves
accessibility. However; There are still illegal U-turn events occurring along the north end of the
corridor from Liberty to Taylor. There are far less U-turn events that occur south of Center. This
shows that the limited accessibility from the raised medians causes more vehicles to make illegal
U-turns.
58 | P a g e
U-Turns Along Virginia St (Weekday)

NB U-Turn SB U-Turn
500
450
400
350
300
Count
250
200
150
100
50
0
Site
Figure 37 Daily weekday U-turns along Virginia St
U-Turns Along Virginia St (Weekend)

NB U-Turn SB U-Turn
500
450
400
350
300
Count
250
200
150
100
50
0
Site
Figure 38 Daily weekend U-turns along Virginia St
59 | P a g e
7.2 SIDE STREET NON-COMPLIANCE

Side street non-compliance refers to those vehicles that make illegal left turns where there are
raised medians that are designed to restrict side street access. The side streets Stewart, St.
Lawrence, Cheney, and Taylor are sites in which only right turns are permitted; however, Table
10 that there are vehicles making left turn maneuvers. Much like the illegal U-turns, these illegal
left turns are cause by the restricted access from the raised medians. Where this is most evident is
at Stewart St where 17 and 21 percent of side street volumes turn left for the weekday and
weekend day, respectively. Instead of turning westbound right toward Liberty St, these drivers
want to turn left toward the heart of midtown.
Table 10 Daily side street lefts and proportion to side street total daily volumes
Sites Left Total Percent

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Stewart 33 47 198 228 17% 21%
St. Lawrence 18 19 748 546 2% 3%
Cheney 31 42 990 884 3% 5%
Taylor 21 29 748 546 3% 5%
7.3 WRONG WAY

Wrong way driving events are those in which vehicles travel in the opposite direction in a one-
way street or pocket. There are six side streets that are one way and two scenarios of entering
into a left turn pocket in the wrong direction. Table 11 shows the breakdown of each scenario.
The Lawrence St row refers to the business access east of Virginia St, which is a one-way
entering access only. The St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence left turn pockets are those situations in
which vehicles are trying to exit and enter the business access, respectively. The Roundabout has
two one-way legs, the east and west leg. The west leg is Mary St and is an access point to
midtown Virginia, and east leg is Center St and is an exit. Mary St has many cases in which
vehicles use Mary St as an exit. Based on observations, this done both intentionally to access
businesses, or by accident because of confusion. Since this is a low volume street there is not
much concerns; however, Figure 39 shows some higher exit speeds which could lead to a head-
on conflicts or crashes.
60 | P a g e
Table 11 Wrong way driving events along Virginia St
Sites Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend

Wrong Way Wrong Way Total (Total) (%) (%)
Stewart Left Turn 11 3 552 244 2% 1%
Pocket
Thoma 19 14 758 535 3% 3%
St. Lawrence 19 14 349 312 5% 4%
St. Lawrence Left 25 34 661 574 4% 6%
Turn Pocket
Mary St 50 70 1045 1082 5% 6%
Center St 10 11 2353 2367 0% 0%
Caliente 3 4 148 141 2% 3%
Pueblo 9 14 423 339 2% 4%
Figure 39 Mary St wrong way driving details
61 | P a g e
7.4 OTHER NON-COMPLIANCE

California Street has a driveway that meets the signalized intersection, but is meant to only turn
right in and out of and yield for any traffic. It is not part of the signal timing sequence; however,
there are cases in which vehicles try to exit and enter into the business access through illegal
maneuvers such as eastbound through, southbound left, westbound through, and westbound left.
Table 12 shows the breakdown of these maneuvers.
Table 12 California St non-compliance
California
Direction Weekday Weekend
Eastbound Through 97 77
Southbound Left 42 44
Westbound Through 15 15
Westbound Left 4 10
62 | P a g e
8 CONCLUSIONS
The concluding remarks for the BRT Midtown Virginia Street LiDAR Study is outlined.
Roadside LiDAR data was collected at 18 sites along the 1.2-mile Midtown Virginia St segment.
Other datasets used include NDOT’s historical crash and TRINA data; Google Maps, RTC
Washoe’s transit routes, stations, stops, and ridership data; and Wejo trajectory data. Wejo data
is obtained from the company, Wejo, which provides cleaned vehicle trajectories from GPS units
in vehicles on the roadway a 3-second frequency and a 4-5% penetration rate.
A majority of vehicles on Midtown Virginia St use it as an origin or destination rather than a
throughput, as shown in the Wejo data. The daily through traffic is significantly higher in the
southern region near Plumb Ln where two multilane arterials intersect. Ingress accessibility
primarily comes from the arterials at Liberty, California, Regency, and Plumb. For egress the
minor side streets are utilized slightly more, but Wells and Plumb are used the most. For bus
route 1, the unloading events occur more at Liberty, Thoma, and Wells and the loading events
occur at Thoma, La Rue, and Taylor. In general, this corresponds with the business densities. For
bus route 100 (Virginia Line), more unloading events occur at Liberty St and on Center St near
the roundabout; whereas, more loading events take place at Liberty St, Walts, and on Center St
near the roundabout. Greater vehicle parking events occurred around Thoma at durations less
than an hour which corresponds with business density. Parking spaces in the southern half have
less vehicle parking frequencies. Vehicle speeds along Midtown Virginia are generally lower
than the speed limits. There is no significant difference between larger vehicles such as buses
and passenger vehicles. The roundabout at Center Street provides traffic calming by reducing
speeds up to 15 MPH.
Bicycle and pedestrian activity on sidewalks and side street crosswalks are generally greater in
areas with greater densities of businesses, such as Moran, St. Lawrence, and Cheney. Pedestrian
crossing events also occurred in these areas, but Moran and Cheney do not have marked
crosswalks. Bicycles on the roadway had steady volumes throughout, with greater volumes at
Cheney, Mt Rose, and Wells. At one/two-way stop-controlled intersections, the pedestrian
crosswalk LOS is F at each except for St. Lawrence and Taylor, which both have pedestrian
refuge islands. However, the delays for these LOS F intersections are within reason. At
signalized intersections, the pedestrian crossing LOS is C or greater, with most being B.
Vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts occurred the most at Regency, but most of these conflicts were less
severe. The other sites did not show any major conflict data. Vehicle-to-pedestrian conflicts
occurred more frequently in areas in which there is no crosswalk, particularly at Moran and to a
lesser extent Cheney. Most of these occurred from more aggressive pedestrian crossing events.
There are also more vehicle-to-pedestrian conflicts at the east leg of the roundabout where
vehicles are exiting and need to yield for pedestrians.
As a result of restricted access in the northern half of the study area with raised medians, there
are greater number of U-turn events and side street lefts. However, the higher number of U-turns
occurring at the roundabout indicates that the presence of a roundabout reduces the impact of
63 | P a g e
restricted access. Many wrong way driving events occurred at the west leg of the roundabout at
Mary St. At the St. Lawrence left turn pocket, there were many you used it in the wrong
direction to access the businesses to the east of St. Lawrence. California St saw many illegal
eastbound through and southbound lefts to access the businesses on the east side of the
intersection and to a lesser extent illegal westbound throughs and lefts.
The following bullets direct the conclusions based on the project objectives outlined in the
Project Objectives section:
1) Traffic mobility performance, including volumes, delays, and level of service (LOS) of
multimodal traffic.
The traffic mobility performance along Midtown Virginia serves multi-modal activity. Reduction
in vehicle lane and restricted access for vehicle mobility is counteracted by the roundabout to
improve circulation. As a result of lane reductions, sidewalks were widened to provide greater
pedestrian mobility. Additionally, shorter crossing lengths with the help of curb extensions
improve pedestrian mobility to cross Virginia St. Refuge islands greatly improve the LOS of
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian LOS at signalized intersections is also adequate. Overall,
mobility for other road users in improved with minimal impact to vehicles.
2) Traffic safety performance, including historical crash data, speeds, and conflict analysis.
Traffic safety along the corridor is greatly improved from the new roadway elements. Narrow
lanes, raised medians, and traffic calming particularly at the roundabout reduce the free flow
speed greatly. The restricted access reduces the number of conflict points, particularly those with
angles 90 degrees or greater. Based on conflict data, there is little concern for vehicle-to-vehicle
traffic safety. Based on newer crash records, however, there are concerns for traffic safety at the
roundabout, particularly for impaired drivers. Vehicle-to-pedestrian conflicts are higher in areas
where there are no crosswalks, but is primarily a result of more aggressive crossing behavior.
The lower vehicle speeds along Virginia mitigates the concern to vulnerable road users.
3) Transit BRT performance, including BRT travel time, ridership, and station/stop access.
Transit speeds generally match passenger vehicle speeds along the corridor. The improved transit
stops provide greater service. Ons and offs at each transit stop shows higher number in more
dense areas in the northern half of the study area.
4) Business access including traffic circulation, parking, transit, and walking routes for
business access.
The roundabout provides access to businesses by allowing vehicles to make U-turns to navigate
to and from their destination. The restricted access does encourage non-compliance issues of U-
turns, side street lefts, and entering the left turn pockets in the wrong direction. Parking turnover
is within the 2-hour limit in areas of greater business density and appears to be adequately
serving businesses. Transit ons and offs are generally higher in the more business dense area.
The higher crossing events and overall pedestrian volumes is greater in the business dense areas
where there is also a greater frequency of crosswalks.
64 | P a g e
5) Identification of roadway elements positively or negatively impacting mobility, safety,

and business access for recommendations to future projects.
Overall, the raised medians do reduce the number of more severe angle conflicts and potential
crashes. Additionally, they slow vehicles down more than in the southern half. While the
restricted limits access limits left turns in the northern study area, the roundabout and existence
of other left turn pockets mitigates the effect. The roundabout also reduces traffic speed and
eliminates more severe angle conflict points between vehicles. The roundabout’s impact to
pedestrians appears minimal because these lower speeds. Parking appears to be adequately
serving businesses, with minimal non-compliance issues of vehicles parking for longer than is
allows. The extended sidewalks invite greater multimodal activity especially around the
business-dense areas around St. Lawrence. The restrictions placed on vehicles in turn improves
mobility for other road users, particularly pedestrians. In conclusion, the infrastructure
improvements appear to improve safety while minimally impacting the circulation and mobility.
Recommendations for future projects to improve safety and operations are as follows:
• Roundabout
o Place a wrong-way sign on Mary St
o Place dynamic or passive signs at the approaches of the roundabout on Virginia St
to alert drivers of speed reduction (15 MPH recommended speed)
• Crosswalks
o Consider adding crosswalks at Moran and/or Cheney
o Note: refuge islands and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) improve the
LOS at unsignalized crosswalks
• Left turn pocket
o Extend raised median to reduce wrong-way driving and U-turns, particularly at St.
Lawrence
• California St:
o Restrict or allow movement to and from parking lot
65 | P a g e
Virginia Street/Center Street
Technical Memorandum
December 23, 2022

To: Jeff Wilbrecht, PE, RTC Project Manager
From: Chad Anson, PE, CA Group
Background
The Virgina Street and Center Street roundabout was constructed as part of the Regional
Transportation Commission’s (RTC) Virginia Street BRT Extension project. The roundabout
replaced an existing signalized intersection to aid in controlling vehicular speeds.
Roundabouts are also a FHWA Proven Effective Safety Countermeasure on providing a
safer intersection. Since opening of the roundabout, there has been concern raised by an
adjacent property due to several accidents resulting in building damage. Discussions
between the City of Reno, RTC, and CA Group have been conducted reviewing the
concerns, evaluation of crash data, and overall roundabout design. This memo
summarizes these evaluation and discussions.
Roundabout Design
The roundabout was designed in accordance with guidance from the NCHRP’s Report 672
“Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”. The roundabout utilized an inscribed diameter of
100’. This was the maximum diameter that could be provided given right-of-way
constraints within the corridor and falls within the inscribed diameter recommendation
range for single lane roundabout per Exhibit 6-9 of NCHRP Report 672. A fastest path
analysis was also conducted on a vehicle’s potential speed based on the roundabout
geometry in the northbound and southbound directions. For both directions, the geometry
produced a 15-16 mph fastest path through the roundabout. This would be 10 mph lower
than the mainline posted speed of Virginia which is acceptable per NCHRP’s
recommendation of minimizing maximum speed differentials between movements to no
more than approximately 10 to 15 mph (Section 6.7.1.3). NCHRP also recommends a 12
mph maximum difference between approach speed and entry speed which the Center
Street roundabout design meets (Section 6.4.5). Curved roadway geometry and splitter
islands have also been provided as much as possible given right-of-way constraints to aid
in controlling entry speeds and encouraging drivers to slow down prior to entering the
roundabout.
1
Crash Data
Crash data from March 2021 to present was provided by the City of Reno to see if any
trends could be identified. The following is a summary of the crash data.
 14 total crashes happened within the roundabout from 3/2021 to present
 6 crashes resulted in a DUI citation
 3 crashes were hit and run
 1 crash was a medical event with driver losing consciousness
 2 crashes resulted from large trailers clipping the roundabout median or parked
cars
 1 failure to yield
 1 crash was from a car going over the median and striking another vehicle
Based on this data over 70% of crashes were a result of DUI, hit and run, or a medical
event. It is common for hit and run crashes to have intoxication involved since drivers do
not want to have law enforcement contact. Only 4 of the 14 crashes, or less than 29%
were from coherent drivers and resulted in minimal property damage.
The concern has arisen from the DUI crashes resulting in vehicles traveling at higher
speeds and losing control. This has resulted in vehicles striking the building in the
southwest corner of the roundabout. The building is approximately 30’ from the curb line
of the roundabout. Other minor damage caused includes damage to light poles, signs,
and landscaping.
Conclusion
The roundabout is designed appropriately given the project constraints and standard
practice guidelines. There is a concern though of the number of crashes resulting from
impaired drivers. While standard engineering practice does not specifically consider
impaired drivers, there is a concern of potential severe damage that could occur to
adjacent buildings or pedestrians from impaired drivers or higher speed vehicles losing
control within the roundabout Several additional layers of notification and protection
could be added given this concern. The following is a list of recommendations to address
the concerns from both agency and property owner perspective.
Recommendation #1 – It is important that behavioral change be addressed as part of
the overall recommendations and to address the primary cause. With a high number of
DUI and potential DUI related crashes in this area it is recommended that additional DUI
and speed enforcement occur within this corridor. Enforcement including DUI
checkpoints near the roundabout and overall police presence during the evening hours
to create awareness of impaired driver enforcement. Law enforcement resources are
limited; however, the crash data is indicating a need for enforcement and awareness
within this corridor.
2
Recommendation #2 – Since law enforcement cannot stop every driver not adhering
to driving laws including speeding and driving impaired additional measure should be
taken to raise additional awareness. Speed feedback signs along Virgnia Street prior to
entry into the roundabout will help inform drivers of their speed along with the showing
the recommended speed of 15 miles per hour. These digital feedback signs can also
help attract the driver’s attention during the nighttime hours due to digitally lighted
feedback speed. In addition, static speed advisory signs can be added in advance of the
roundabout for driver’s unfamiliar with roundabouts and the need to slow down prior to
entry. Sign placement will be critical ensuring signs can be seen and not create too
much signing in the corridor.
Recommendation #3 - A higher level of protection will help protect the building on
the southwest corner and potential pedestrians in the area. Concrete bollards placed
approximately 5-10’ north of the existing building will be a final layer of protection for
the building and vulnerable users from errant vehicles. These bollards would be outside
the clear zone distance recommend by the AASHTO Road Design Guide criteria. These
bollards should have a 5’ spacing to provide an “escape area” for pedestrians between
the bollards and roundabout should an errant vehicle enter this area. While concrete
bollards will provide an abrupt stop of the errant vehicle, it is important to provide safety
for innocent bystanders along the sidewalk and avoid potential damaging adjacent
buildings’ structural integrity. Pedestrian bollard protection adjacent to a roadway has
been used in various locations across the country to protect pedestrians from errant
vehicles. Clark County, Nevada has extensively utilized closely spaced bollards to protect
pedestrians along Las Vegas Boulevard.
The three recommendations above are considered a layered approach to addressing
vehicles unsuccessfully navigating the Center Street roundabout by starting with
addressing driver behavior with Recommendation #1 to protecting innocent bystanders
and property with Recommendation #3 when drivers still choose on their own to violate
driving laws. Recommendations #1 and #2 need to be implemented in an effort to
change driver behavior while Recommendation #3 is a final protective effort.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [email protected]
or at 775-283-8394.
Sincerely,
Chad Anson, P.E.

UNR Midtown Post Condition Traffic Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNR Midtown Post Condition Traffic Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 20, 2023

Kerrie Koski, P.E.

Dear Ms. Koski,

Recommendation #3: The installation of pedestrian bollard protection at the southwest

Recommendation #4: The installation of a pedestrian crossing at or near the intersection of

Recommendation #5: The consideration of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) at

Dale Keller, P.E.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.3 PROJECT DATA

1.3.1 Roadside LiDAR Trajectory Data

Figure 1 Study area and intersections

Table 1 LiDAR sensor installation locations and duration

Site Start Day End Day

Figure 2 Stages of roadside LiDAR data processing

1.3.2 Wejo Data

Figure 3 Sample of Wejo data in Washoe County, NV

2 MIDTOWN VIRGINIA ST CORRIDOR INFORMATION

Site Control Type Restricted Movements

Figure 4 Roadway classification and adjacent businesses

Figure 5 Midtown Virginia St 2013 to 2017 crash heat map

4.1 VIRGINIA THROUGH VOLUMES

Station Route Location 2021 AADT LiDAR

Figure 6 Site-by-site daily through volumes by direction and total

Figure 7 Daily through volumes

4.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

Journey Type Count

Distance Traveled on Midtown Virginia St

Figure 8 Distance Traveled on Midtown Virginia

Figure 9 Journey distance distribution by journey type

Figure 10 Wejo Virginia access from side street heat map

Entering Virgina St Midtown

Figure 12 Wejo Virginia exits from side street heat map

Exiting Virginia Midtown

Figure 13 Daily side street exit volumes

Figure 14 Daily average offs from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1

Figure 15 Daily average ons from 12/18/2021 to 2/8/2022 for Route 1

4.4.2 Virginia Line

Figure 18 Average daily vehicles parked along Midtown Virginia

Figure 19 Average parking duration in minutes along Midtown Virginia

4.6 VEHICLE SPEEDS

Figure 20 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday

Figure 21 Distribution of northbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend

Figure 22 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekday

Figure 23 Distribution of southbound vehicle speeds through Virginia St on a weekend

5 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES

5.1 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUMES

Figure 25 Mapped daily pedestrian volumes along Virginia St

Figure 27 Mapped daily bicycle volumes along Virginia St

5.2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSING

Figure 29 Mapped daily pedestrian crossings along Virginia St

Figure 31 Mapped daily bicycle crossings along Virginia St

5.3 BICYCLE ON ROADWAY

Figure 32 Mapped daily bicycle on the roadway along Virginia St

5.4 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE

5.4.1 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections

5.4.2 Signalized Intersections

Crosswalk Average Delay LOS LOS

(s) Score Grade

6 CONFLICTS AND INTERACTIONS

Figure 34 Vehicle-to-vehicle conflict heat map

Figure 35 Vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict heat map

7 BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND COMPLIANCE