4^64 DRAFT / NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM CHARLESTOWN NAVY YARD RELOCATION TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS prepared for NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM February 15, 1989 by TAMS Consultants Inc. 38 Chauncy St. Boston, MA 02111 DRAFT NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM CHARLESTOWN NAVY YARD RELOCATION TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Prepared for: The New England Aquarium By: TAMS Consultants, Inc. February 15, 1989 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This report presents an analysis of the transportation Impacts of a new Aquarium facility located at Drydock #2 in the Charlestown Navy Yard. Figure 1 Illustrates the general location of the current New England Aquarium on Central Wharf in downtown Boston and the proposed new facility at Drydock #2 In the Charlestown Navy Yard. The conclusion of the transportation analysis, under the assumptions summarized below, is that the proposed Aquarium at Drydock «2 in the Charlestown Navy Yard can be accommodated from a traffic and parking standpoint In the 1994 design year with a projected visitation level of 2.1 million per year and 300 employees. This conclusion, however, requires that parking be developed for visitors to the site; that a number of traffic Improvements be made at key locations, depending on the slte(s) ultimately chosen for parking facilities; and that pedestrian and transit access to the Charlestown Navy Yard be Improved. Assumpt Ions A number of alternative scenarios related to Aquarium visitation levels and the travel characteristics of Aquarium visitors were evaluated to determine the possible range of transportation Impacts. These results were then used to define a working scenario for further analysis. Actions required to assure that the transportation network In and around the Navy Yard will function with the Aquarium In place were Identified. The following assumptions are being used to define the working scenario for an opening year of 1994: o There will be 1.9 to 2.0 million annual visitors to the Aquarium In 1994 (compared to 1.3 ml I I Ion annua I visitors to the existing facility In 1987). To be conservative, an annual visitation of 2.1 million was used in the analysis. o There will be 300 persons employed at the Aquarium during the peak season. o Forty-five percent (45%) of aquarium employees will commute to work by means other than private automobile. This assumption Is the same as that used for the balance of the Navy Yard employees. o Twenty-five percent (25X) of visitors will arrive at the Navy Yard Aquarium by means other than private automobile. Including water transportation, surface public transportation, tour bus, taxi and wa I k I ng . o The average visitor length of stay will be two and one-half hours. o The average vehicle occupancy for Aquarium visitors will be 2.5 people per vehicle. o The percentage of total annual visitors In July and August will rise from the current level of 26.8% to 32. 4X. o On peak days during the summer 25X of total visitors to the Navy Yard will go to both the Aquarium and the USS Const I tut Ion. Figure 1 NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM Present and Proposed Site Locations In conducting the transportation analysis an additional set of assumptions were made regarding background development and traffic conditions. These Include: o The Central Artery North Area Project (i-93/Route 1 interchange) will be completed as planned by the 1994 design year, and the City Square Intersection will be Improved as per the proposal of the Boston Transportation Department. o The balance of development In the Navy Yard will be completed In accordance with the plan proposed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), dated May 10, 1988. o The Navy Yard will contain a total of 3,600 to 4,300 parking spaces after full development, not Including any parking built expressly for the Aquar ium. o The Gate 5 exit from the Yard to Chelsea Street will be widened to two outbound lanes. o Access through Gate 1 will be provided to allow buses to reach the Aquarium and avoid the difficult right turn from Chelsea Street to the Gate 4 entrance. o Forty-five percent (45%) of the Navy Yard employees will use public transportation to travel to and from work In the 1994 design year. o Other traffic generating activities In the area, such as the USS Const I tut ion, will grow In line with the forecasts developed by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS), used in the planning work for the Central Artery North Area Project. o Tudor Wharf will be redeveloped as per the proposal described in the Draft Environmental Report of October, 1988. In reviewing the results of the transportation analysis. It Is important to keep In mind that a range of reasonable assumptions can be made, and that the results can vary greatly as different assumptions are used. In this analysis, reasonable upper and lower limits were tested for key assumptions, such as the percentage of visitors using public transportation to reach the Navy Yard Aquarium site. Other assumptions such as the development level of other uses in the Navy Yard and the level of transit utilization by Navy Yard employees can be influenced by policy and were not varied. However, If the BRA's development plan were to change this could alter the conclusions of the analysis. The assumption that 45X of Navy Yard employees will use public transportation Is supported by current experience. Transit use by employees of the three major tenants currently In the Yard (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston Redevelopment Authority and Massachusetts General Hospital) currently exceeds 50%. This success Is a result of strong ridesharing and shuttle bus programs which will be continued and supplemented In the future with additional MBTA service to the Yard. In addition, the BRA is committed, as a matter of policy, to achieving a 45% transit mode split by Navy Yard employees. In conducting the analysis generally conservative assumptions were used with regard to the transportation characteristics of the Aquarium. For example, the assumpt Ion that 25X of total USS Const I tut ion and Navy Yard Aquar I urn visl tors will overlap Is conservative, since this Is the current visitor overlap with the USS Const I tut Ion and the Aquarium located on separate sites. When the two attractions are located beside each other , this over lap wl I I I Ikely Increase. As a result , any failures In the assumptions to predict future unforeseen changes should predict worse conditions than those likely to occur In the design year. Parking Analysis Findings Parking demand on weekdays for Aquarium visitors and employees will average approximately 700 spaces throughout most of the year. However, because of the high peak summer visitation up to 1200 spaces will be needed during some weekdays In August, and on a peak Saturday In August over 1800 spaces will be needed. This parking demand can be met In a number of ways. Since the balance of parking In the Navy Yard will be filled on weekdays, an additional supply of 700 spaces must be developed to meet average conditions and a total of 1200 spaces found to meet peak August weekday conditions. On summer Saturdays when the workforce In the balance of the Navy Yard Is small, significant excess parking will be available for Aquarium visitors. The additional demand of 600 spaces compared to peak weekday conditions, therefore, can be accommodated In other facilities In the Navy Yard. It Is anticipated that some of this Saturday "overflow" parking will be provided In the existing parking garage, located near Gate 5. In addition to parking for automobiles. It will also be Important to provide sufficient storage for tour and school buses In a location away from the Aquarium and the Charlestown community. Several parking locations are being considered to meet the Aquarium's weekday needs. These sites are shown In Figures 2 and 3. In total, five generalized parking locations were assessed In this Impact analysis. These sites Include the Hoosac Stores area along Water Street near Gate 1, the northwest corner and tennis courts of the National Park Service (NPS) property near the Intersection of Water Street and Chelsea Street, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) site at Hayes Square, the property north of Hayes Square beneath the Tobin Bridge approaches between Decatur and Chelsea Streets, and the Tennis Courts on the NPS property across from Drydock #2. In addition, a site across the Little Mystic River was considered for the storage of school and tour buses. Because of Its limited size and high development costs, Hoosac Stores was not considered further. All other sites are still under study, and represent only an Initial set of locations for Aquarium parking. Other sites may be considered In the future. In developing a strategy for meeting the Aquarium's parking needs consideration should also be given to the fact that many visitors will be unfamiliar with the Charlestown area. Thus, to avoid confusion and the possibility of traffic circulating on local Charlestown Streets, parking access should be made as simple as possible from the City Square area either as a result of location or good signage. From this perspective a large, centralized facility Is preferable over multiple, smaller locations. Finally, sites providing quick and easy pedestrian access between parking and Drydock »2 are preferable to those sites requiring a shuttle bus connection. To 1-93 and Rouie I ^ From 1-93 and floula I To Downtown Boston Figure 2 NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM Potential Aquarium Parking Sites Figure 3 NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM Potential Aquarium Parking Sites The selection of a preferred site or sites for Aquarium parking will depend In part on the traffic Impacts of alternative parking access locations. These are discussed In the following section related to traffic circulation Impacts. Traffic Circulation and Access Analysis Findings While a new Aquarium facility In the Charlestown Navy Yard will generate Increases in traffic, the majority of trips to and from the site will occur on weekends and during weekdays in the middle of the day in the months of July and August. These are both time periods when other background traffic Is relatively low. While these weekend and midday peaks were assessed, the overall analysis Indicates that the weekday evening rush hour will be the most critical time. This occurs since background traffic Is highest during the PM peak hour and the Aquarium traffic, although small by comparison. Is added to key Intersections In the area. Figure 4 Illustrates the relative contribution of Aquarium traffic to the total approach volumes at two of the key intersections. Figure 5 illustrates the general pattern of regional access to the site. As can be seen most of the traffic from the major approaches will have to pass through the City Square area, whether it is approaching from Washington Street, 1-93 or the Tobin Bridge. Figure 6 shows the location of the most critical Intersections from a traffic operations standpoint. The Intersection at City Square created by the Central Artery North Area (CANA) Project, with the changes as proposed by the Boston Transportation Department, will continue to function at an acceptable level of service, 'D', during the 1994 PM peak hour. While some additional traffic delay will occur as a result of the Aquarium traffic, City Square will remain at an overall satisfactory level of service. (Details on the impact of Aquarium traffic on Individual turning movements and the concept of Intersection level of service are explained In greater detail in the body of the report.) The other Important intersection from a traffic flow standpoint is at the Gate 4 Navy Yard entrance and Chelsea Street. Traffic flow Impacts here will be a result of the location chosen for Aquarium parking; as follows: o Parking sites west of Gate 4 and accessed both from Chelsea and Water Streets (Hoosac Stores, the northwest NPS property, and the NPS Tennis Courts) will add very little traffic to this Intersection and will result In acceptable levels of service. o If parking sites east of the Gate 4/Chelsea Street Intersection are chosen (Hayes Square or the property beneath the TobIn Bridge), or If access to the NPS Tennis Court or northwest corner property Is provided through the Navy Yard, traffic improvements will be required In the area of the Gate 4/Chelsea Street intersection. Traffic access to these parking sites will operate at a satisfactory level of service If the following improvements are made: To serve Aquarium parking within the Navy Yard, an additional lane must be added at the Gate 4 exit (Fifth Street) between Chelsea Street and First Avenue. This will provide two exit lanes for traffic from Gate 4 to Chelsea Street during the PM peak. Based on a concept level assessment this widening appears to be feasible from an engineering standpoint. To provide access to parking sites north of Chelsea Street (either under the Tobin Bridge or at Hayes Square), Chelsea Street must be widened on the north side to provide an additional lane for right turns on the westbound approach and on the south side to provide an additional lane for left turns on the eastbound approach. Since the turning lanes require widening on the approach but not the departure sides of the Intersection, the resulting five-lane section would be offset at the garage entrance. The widening of Fifth Street at Gate 4 as previously described Is also necessary. Based on a concept level assessment both of these Improvements appear to be feasible from an engineering standpoint. Transit and Pedestrian Access Analysis Findings The goal of having 25% of Aquarium visitors reach the Charlestown site via means other than automobile Is achievable with Improvements In pedestrian facilities from downtown, an attractive water shuttle link to the central waterfront and Improved bus connections to nearby MBTA rapid transit lines. The use of water shutt le serv Ice f I ts wel I with the theme of the Aquar lum and would not be subject to the variation of downtown Boston traffic. The analysis shows that two boats, with capacity of 150 passengers, would be required during peak summer periods to reach the 25% goal. Service would be provided every 15 minutes. It Is also Important to note that the walking environment between downtown and the Navy Yard will be greatly Improved as a result of both the CANA project and the depression of the Central Artery. Although It Is a relatively long distance, a good signing system could encourage more visitors to walk from North Station or the Haymarket/Faneul I Hall area. Additional efforts to encourage publ Ic transportat Ion should Involve shuttles between nearby MBTA stations (North Station, Community College and Kendall) and the Navy Yard. Special Events On days when major events occur In Charlestown, such as Bunker HIM Day or the arrival of tall ships, special transportation management measures will be required to handle large crowds. The Impact of Aquarium traffic during these periods and possible transportation management actions that can be taken by the Aquarium to mitigate these Impacts will be addressed as additional, more detailed environmental studies are completed. The remainder of this report provides documentation of the findings described above, along with more detailed descriptions of the transportation services required for the proposed new Aquarium site. The remaining sections Include: o Background data, o Transportation access assumptions, o Traffic analysis results, o Parking analysis results, and o Transit analysis results. (•puosnoiii) Figure 5 NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM Access to Aquarium Site Possible Transit Shuttle Possible Water Shuttle ^n Existing MBTA Stations 60. ,0 Level of Service A B C 0 E F Tables 7 and 8 summarize the level of service for a summer peak season weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour for an assumed annual visitation level of 2.1 million. For all levels It Is assumed that July/August visitation Increases to 32.4% of the annual total, that 25% of Aquarium visitors travel by means other than the automobile and that 45% of Navy Yard and Aquarium employees use public transportation. It Is also assumed that parking would be either In the Navy Yard or east of the Gate 4/Chelsea Street Intersection and that Gate 1 would not be available for vehicular access to the Navy Yard. Level of service data are provided for City Square, the Gate 4/Chelsea Street intersection and for a Gate 4/Cheisea Street/parking garage entrance Intersection. The latter intersection would exist only If parking Is provided under Tobin Bridge or at the BHA Hayes Square site. This would result In a new four way intersection at Gate 4 and Chelsea Street. The left column In the table Indicates the level of service under the current geometry of the Chelsea Street/Gate 4 Intersection. The right column shows the level of service for a Gate 4/Cheisea Street Intersection which would be Improved as described In the previous section. The tables show that with the 22 Improvement, Aquarium parking and traffic can be accommodated either In the Navy Yard, under the Tobin Bridge or at Hayes Square. The other key Intersection Involved In the analysis Is the City Square Intersection, which Is being reconstructed as part of the CANA project. in evaluating City Square, a PM peak hour of 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM was used. Background volumes were factored to account for the fact that overall PM peak hour traffic Is approximately 9X lower In August than In an average month. August, however. Is the peak month for Aquarium visitation. The City Square Intersection will connect Rutherford Avenue, the Charlestown Bridge to Boston, the ramps to and from 1-93 and Chelsea Street. It Is anticipated that most of the traffic travelling to and from the Navy Yard will pass through this Intersection. Under other project designs the Intersection was projected to operate at level of service 'F', according to an analysis conducted for the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) . As a result, the BTD has proposed a redesign which would operate at level of service 'D', although three Individual moves would operate at 'E' or 'F'. This design, which Involves minor widenlngs, addition of turning lanes and removal of some parking on Chelsea Street, has not yet been accepted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. The amount of peak traffic added to City Square from the Aquarium would be rough ly the same, regardless of parking facility iocat ion. At 2.1 million visitors per year the overall level of service at City Square will remain at level of service 'D' although three additional moves will decline from level of service 'D' to level of service 'E'. This makes a total of five moves at level of service 'E'. It Is important to note, however, that this analysis Is based on conservative assumptions. Including one related to the analysis technique itself. The level of service analysis assumes a "saturation flow rate" of 1800 vehicles per hour per lane. This is a nationally recognized standard, but there Is evidence that the actual rate in the Boston area is higher at some locations. This means that more vehicles may actually get through an Intersection than is being assumed In the analysis. If a higher saturation flow rate Is used, the delays shown for City Square In Table 7 would be lower. Table 8 summarizes the level of service for a summer Saturday peak hour. Aquarium traffic Is highest on Saturday, although background traffic is considerably lower than during the weekday peak hour. A set of traffic counts was taken on a Saturday in July of 1988 to provide a basis for estimation of Saturday background traffic. This base was then factored up to account for the proposed build-out of the Navy Yard and Tudor Wharf. The analysis shows that the location of a garage In the Navy Yard or under the Tobin Bridge would result in unacceptable congestion at Gate 4/Chelsea Street on Saturdays. If the Fifth Street approach and the Intersection Itself are Improved, however, a sat Isfactory level of service will be achieved. Vanasse Hangen Brustlln, Central Artery North Area Local intersection Ana lysis, prepared for Boston Transportation Department, November, 1987. 23 Table 7 DELAY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE 45X Background Translt/25X Aquarium Transit 32.4% of Visitors In July and August Weekday PM Peak Hour EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES City Square Gate 4/Cheisea St . Ex 1st Ing Gate 4 Geometry Delay LOS 32.2 D* 12.7 B Improved Gate 4 Geometry Delay LOS 32.2 D* N/A 1994 WITH AQUARIUM (2.1 Ml I I Ion Visitors) City Square Gate 4/Chelsea St. (1) Gate 4/Garage/Chelsea St. (2) 37.0 D* F F 37.0 D* 8.9 B 12.7 B (3) * Intersection overall operates at level of service D or better, but at least one approach operates at level of service E or F. ~ Demand Is so much greater than capacity that meaningful results cannot be attained. (1) Aquarium parking In Navy Yard. (2) Aquarium parking east of Gate 4/Chelsea St. Intersection. (3) Chelsea St. widened to 5 lane section. 24 Table 8 DELAY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE 45% Background Translt/25X Aquarium Transit 32.4% of Visitors In July and August Saturday Peak Hour EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Gate 4/Chelsea St . Ex 1st Ing Gate 4 Geometry Delay LOS 8.9 Improved Gate 4 Geometry Delay LOS N/A 1994 WITH AQUARIUM (2.1 Ml I I ion Visitors) Gate 4/Cheisea St. (1) Gate 4/Garage/Cheisea St. (2) 73.7 66.7 7.5 11.0 B B (3) * Intersection overall operates at level of service D or better, but at least one approach operates at level of service E or F. (1) Aquarium parking In Navy Yard. (2) Aquarium parking east of Gate 4/Chelsea St. Intersection. (3) Chelsea St. widened to 5 lane section. 25 V. PARKING ANALYSIS FINDINGS Parking demand associated with Aquarium visitors and employees was estimated for botli average and peak summer weekday conditions and average and peak summer Saturday afternoon conditions in the month of August, in both cases, a sensitivity analysis of transit mode splits ranging from 15X to 25% was tested, and It was assumed that 32.4% of visitation would occur in July and August. Estimated levels of parking demand are shown in Table 9. Under a scenario of 2.1 million visitors, approximately 700 spaces would be required during a typical weekday throughout the year and nearly 1200 weekday spaces would be required In August at a 25% transit mode split. Although Aquarium parking demand will be highest on Saturdays, the weekday demand will determine the size of any needed parking facility. Because significant amounts of the parking in the Navy Yard wi I I be dedicated to employees, there will be excess space In the Yard to absorb the additional Aquarium related parking demand on Saturday. The most likely location for providing overflow parking within the Yard Is the existing Garage near Gate 5. Locations outside the Navy Yard, including proposed new garages at North Station and Community College, will also be evaluated. TABLE 9 1994 AQUARIUM PEAK VISITOR AND EI^^PLOYEE PARKING DEMAND 2.1 MILLION ViSiTORS/25% TRANSIT (32.4% OF VISITORS IN JULY AND AUGUST) Weekday Saturday September-June 683 1029 July-August 1171 1819 The overall parking supply in the Yard will be in the range of 3600-4300 spaces depending on the amount of employee transit use and the amount of Joint use between office and residential uses. (Joint use means that a parking space can be used by both a daytime employee and a resident who drives his or her car to work during the day and returns in the evening.) While up to 40% of the spaces could be Joint iy used, there will st I I I be adequate overf low park Ing for the Aquar lum on Saturday. During the week no excess parking will be available in the Navy Yard, and the development of an Aquarium facility will require the provision of an average 700 spaces with up to 1200 parking spaces needed during the peak months of July and August. The decision on parking facility sizing is an Important one for the Aquarium. The construction of a smaller facility will require the Aquarium to develop an extensive transit system if projected visitation levels are to be accommodated. If a larger parking facility is constructed, it will, by Its very existence, make higher levels of transit ridership harder to achieve. Therefore, the Aquarium must decide on a marketing strategy before proceeding with a parking faci I Ity. 26 It Is Important to note that the peak parking demand will occur only during July and August. At other times, a smaller facility wi i i be adequate. Therefore, the use of smaller facilities may be appropriate, one of which would be located further from the Aquarium and service overflow during the peak months only. A final consideration Is whether a garage might be designed to accommodate other needs, such as parking for National Park visitors, new development In City Square, or Chariestown residents. The Boston Redevelopment Authority Is currently examining the feas ib i I i ty of four sites for Aquarium parking. Although this analysis Is not yet complete, estimates of capacities have been developed: o National Park Service Tennis Courts (subsurface) - 500 spaces (could be expanded with waterproofing) o Hoosac Stores - 108 spaces (not currently under consideration due to small capacity and high cost) o BHA Hayes Square - 500 to 600 spaces o Under Tobin Bridge - 300 (surface only)/ 900 (three-level structure) A variety of options are available for meeting Aquarium parking demand. Including some combination of the above sites and remote parking. Another potential parking site is CANA Parcel 1, located Just outside the Gate 1 entrance. Parcel 1. bounded by Water and Chelsea Streets will be created at the completion of the CANA project, and does have the capacity to meet much of the Aquarium parking demand. The disposition of this parcel, however. Is currently unresolved and will be decided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 27 VI . TRANSIT ANALYSIS Potential levels of transit use by visitors to the Aquarium could be as high as 1140 trips per hour during pealc summer Saturday afternoon conditions with total dally Saturday ridership reaching 7320 In peak conditions. Table 10 shows the number of total dally and peak hour transit users travelling to and from the Aquarium on both weekdays and Saturdays. The table shows the number of riders to and from the Aquarium during the hour of highest ridership. Table 11 shows the hourly breakdown of transit ridership for peak weekdays and peak Saturdays. TABLE 10 1994 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP BY NAVY YARD AQUARIUM VISITORS (25% TRANSIT) Weekday Saturday Dal ly Total 4492 7320 Peak Hour Total 715 1139 PM Peak Hour Total 473 N/A Transit access to the site can be accomplished in a number of ways. Possible scenarios Include: o Operation of a water shuttle between Central Wharf on the Downtown waterfront and Drydock #2 In the Navy Yard. Under this scenario, Aquar lum visl tors would be encouraged to reach the Char iestown faci 1 i ty by first travelling to downtown and then boarding a water shuttle. A marketing concept which ties the boat ride to the Aquarium and other Char Iestown attractions such as the USS Const I tut Ion and Bunker Hill would be very important In attracting tourists to the service. o Operation of a shuttle bus or van system between the downtown waterfront and Drydock #2 In the Navy Yard. This would serve the same function as the water shuttle in the above scenario. o Operation of shuttle bus or van system to connect the Navy Yard to nearby MBTA rapid transit and commuter rail stations. The most logical points to connect would be Sullivan Square and/or Community College (Orange Line North), North Station (Green Line, Orange Line South, and Commuter Rail), and either Charles or Kendall on the Red Line. Given the origins of visitors to the Aquarium, 25X visitor arrival by means other than automobile Is likely to be achieved only If both water and land based 28 transit services are provided. A water shuttle designed to meet peak demand will be far more attractive to visitors than a bus service and could tap the large market of tourists who will combine a visit to the Aquarium and the USS Const I tut Ion with a visit to downtown sites such as Faneul I Hall Marketplace. In addition, a water shuttle can be operated reliably without worrying about the variability of downtown traffic. The use of water shuttle service could reduce the need for surface transit service, although Improved transit service Is clearly needed to serve other future demands In the Navy Yard. The ridership data indicate that two boats are required during peak periods to serve demand. This would allow service to be provided with 15-minute headways, a level which would result In minimal waiting for passengers. While the water shuttle is somewhat more expensive than a ground transportation system. It would have a number of qualitative advantages in terms of comfort and relationship with the Aquarium experience and Is probably essential to reach the goal of having 25% of Aquarium visitors reach the Navy Yard by means other than automob lie. 29 BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 06550 927 3 TABLE 11 1994 TRANSIT USE BY AQUARIUM VISITORS WEEKDAY TRANSIT USE Total Visitors Visitors Using Transit (25X) TIME IN OUT IN OUT 9:30-10:30 386 97 0:30-11:30 1122 281 1:30-12:30 1623 193 406 48 12:30-1 :30 1347 754 337 189 1 : 30-2: 30 1486 1373 372 343 2:30-3:30 1276 1485 319 371 3:30-4:30 828 1417 207 354 4:30-5:30 513 1381 128 345 5 : 30-6 : 30 291 1052 73 263 6:30-7:30 97 671 24 168 7:30-8:30 20 665 5 166 SATURDAY TRANSIT USE Total Visitors Visitors Using Transit (25%) TIME IN OUT IN OUT 9:30-10:30 355 89 10:30-11:30 1413 353 11:30-12:30 2027 178 507 44 12:30-1:30 2291 884 573 221 1 : 30-2: 30 2336 1720 584 430 2:30-3:30 2061 2159 515 540 3:30-4:30 2245 2314 561 578 4:30-5:30 1413 2199 353 550 5 : 30-6 : 30 470 2153 118 538 6:30-7:00 32 3038 8 759 30