CARTS Freeway Systems Engineering Analysis and LRMTP Impact of the CA0602 Corridor CAP Improvements Phase I Policy Oriented

Transcription

1 CARTS Freeway Systems Engineering Analysis and LRMTP Impact of the CA0602 Corridor CAP Improvements Phase I Policy Oriented CA0602 Systems Analysis Casey R. Covington, PE, AICP Metroplan February 15, 2017

2 Phase I Systems Analysis 1. Gauge the regional mobility impacts of various improvement alternatives considered within the I-30 Central Corridor, 2. Identify freeway system bottlenecks resulting from or worsening as a result of the project, 3. Determine financial implications of the proposed improvements and any policy changes to the Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that will be required to accommodate the project and the other system improvements that will logically result from it, and 4. Identify needs for additional systems analysis or unanswered questions.

3 Phase I Systems Analysis Gauge the regional mobility impacts of various improvement alternatives considered within the I-30 Central Corridor, 2. Identify freeway system bottlenecks resulting from or worsening as a result of the project, 3. Determine financial implications of the proposed improvements and any policy changes to the Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that will be required to accommodate the project and the other system improvements that will logically result from it, and 4. Identify needs for additional systems analysis or unanswered questions.

4 Phase I Systems Analysis Gauge the regional mobility impacts of various improvement alternatives considered within the I-30 Central Corridor, Identify freeway system bottlenecks resulting from or worsening as a result of the project, 3. Determine financial implications of the proposed improvements and any policy changes to the Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that will be required to accommodate the project and the other system improvements that will logically result from it, and 4. Identify needs for additional systems analysis or unanswered questions.

5 Phase I Systems Analysis Gauge the regional mobility impacts of various improvement alternatives considered within the I-30 Central Corridor, Identify freeway system bottlenecks resulting from or worsening as a result of the project, Determine financial implications of the proposed improvements and any policy changes to the Long- Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that will be required to accommodate the project and the other system improvements that will logically result from it, and 4. Identify needs for additional systems analysis or unanswered questions.

6 Phase I Systems Analysis Gauge the regional mobility impacts of various improvement alternatives considered within the I-30 Central Corridor, Identify freeway system bottlenecks resulting from or worsening as a result of the project, Determine financial implications of the proposed improvements and any policy changes to the Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan that will be required to accommodate the project and the other system improvements that will logically result from it, and Identify needs for additional systems analysis or unanswered questions.

7 Level of Service LOS D The level at which speeds begin to decline and maneuverability within the main street is noticeably limited. Cars spaced 8 car lengths I-430 South of Big Rock Interchange LOS E At its highest level describes operations at capacity. Operations are volatile but speeds may remain high. Cars spaced 6 car lengths I-430 North of the Big Rock Interchange

8 Area Wide Freeway Study Time Horizon (LOS D)

9 CARTS System Analysis CA Time Horizon (LOS E)

10 2040 Peak Period Congestion Without Project

11 Take-aways Regional traffic improves nominally (avg daily speed)

12 Take-aways Regional traffic improves nominally (avg daily speed) Before 2040 congestion outside the immediate corridor will impact operations within the project area

13 Findings Regional traffic improves nominally (avg daily speed) Before congestion outside the immediate corridor will impact operations within the project area. Significant expenditures would be required to achieve a LOS D or E standard system wide

14 Findings Regional traffic improves nominally (avg daily speed) Congestion outside the immediate corridor will impact operations within the project area Significant expenditures would be required to achieve a LOS D or E standard system wide Limitations of Models Used

15 CARTS Freeway Systems Engineering Analysis and LRMTP Impact of the CA0602 Corridor CAP Improvements Phase Two LRMTP Amendment CA0602 Systems Analysis Casey R. Covington, PE, AICP Metroplan February 15, 2017

16 The Plan Existing and proposed transportation facilities that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system Because it Makes Sense

17 Two Questions What is in the plan amendment? Should the amendment be approved?

18 Systems Engineering Analysis Focus areas for Phase II 1. What is happening outside the corridor? 2. Should additional improvements be considered for the project to function as intended? Acceptable level of congestion? What is the timeframe for those outside improvements? 3. How do you manage congestion?

19 CARTS System Analysis CA Time Horizon (LOS E)

20 What has AHTD Assumed in their PEL & NEPA Modeling? Widening of I-30 between the South Terminal and 65 th Street PEL Only (dropped from NEPA) Widening of I-630 west of I-30

21 Phase II Analysis Volumes in Existing Corridor o Max 1950 Vehicle/Lane/Hour o River Bridge 1700 to 1850 Vehicles/Lane/Hour Hourly Demand Volume Daily Volume Limited Maneuverability 1,400 to 1,600 12,000 to 14,000 Near Capacity 1,600 to 1,800 14,000 to 16,000 At Capacity (Intermittent Congestion) 1,800 to 2,000 16,000 to 18,000 Over Capacity (Moderate Congestion) 2,000 to 2,200 18,000 to 20,000 Over Capacity (Severe Congestion) >2,200 >20,000 *Volumes are per vehicle (not PCE)

22 Peak

23

24

25

26

27

28 Main Take-aways At opening or shortly after congestions is expected to occur on I-630 and I-30 leaving the corridor By 2040 this congestion is expected to reach several miles Impact is different with 8 lane vs 10 lane Longer term concerns on I-40 near Levy

29 What is next for the RPAC? Review new modeling results from AHTD. Discuss public outreach engagement. Consider impacts to financially constrained plan. Recommend to board.

30 Consider I-30