SR 710 Environmental Study

Transcription

1 SR 710 Environmental Study Alternatives Analysis s Technical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 5 May 9,

2 Agenda > Recap of TAC Meeting No. 4 > Recommended alternative concepts for conceptual engineering > Conceptual design approach > Performance measures for screening > Forecasting methodology and assumptions 2

3 Recap of TAC Meeting No. 4 > Alternative concepts considered for Initial Screening > Results of Initial Evaluation > Identification of Alternative Concepts for Conceptual Engineering > Overview of Transportation ti System Analyses 3

4 Feedback Received During TAC No. 4 > Quantify travel time for screening > How were the measures used for evaluation? > Did we consider City of LA resolution regarding the portal to be south of Valley Boulevard? > Consider removing the SR 710 stub north of I-10 > City of LA resolution against tunnels in Zones 1 and 2 > La Cañada Flintridge plans to submit new alternative concepts for consideration > Consider connectivity > Truck volume 4

5 2012 Truck Data Collection Locations 5 5

6 Recommended Alternative Concepts > No Build > Transportation System Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) > Bus Rapid Transit (BRT-1 and BRT-6) > Light Rail Transit (LRT- 4 and BRT-6 as LRT) > Freeway > 3 Tunnel alternative concepts (F-2, F-5, and F-7) > 1 surface/depressed d alternative ti concept (F-6) > Highway Alternative Concepts (H-2 and H-6) > Arterial Improvements and Advanced Transportation Technologies 6

7 Approach to Conceptual Engineering g > Further develop the alternative concepts to allow for more refined screening > Better define the engineering requirements > Review resulting traffic and environmental effects > Develop conceptual cost estimates 7

8 Approach to Conceptual Engineering g > Alternative concept shown on 36 x60 strip maps at a scale of 1 =200 using aerial photography will include the following: 1. Plan, profile & superelevation 2. Typical sections 3. Retaining wall, bridge & tunnel limits 4. Portal locations 5. Station locations 6. Overhead signs, pavement delineation 7. Cut/Fill lines 8. Disturbance Limit Line 9. Major utilities 10.Enlarged areas such as portals for clarity 8

9 Development of Conceptual Cost Estimates 1. Roadway and transit items 2. Drainage 3. Retaining walls, soundwalls, barriers, landscaping 4. Traffic items 5. Bid Bridges, tunnels & stations ti 6. Mobilization 7. Right of Way 8. Utilities 9. Operations and Maintenance 9

10 Environmental Technical Memoranda - Purpose > Identify baseline conditions > Identify regulatory framework > Assess potential effects of each alternative concept > Summarize in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) document > Provide as attachments to the AA 10

11 Environmental Technical Memoranda - List > Property Acquisition > Community and Neighborhoods > Parkland/Community Facilities > Cultural Resources > Paleontological Resources > Biological/Jurisdictional Resources > Noise > Air Quality > Visual Resources > Geotechnical > Hazardous Waste > Traffic 11

12 Evaluation of Alternative Concepts Overall Approach hfor Conceptual lengineering i > Develop quantitative evaluation criteria > Develop conceptual designs for each alternative concept > Apply evaluation criteria > Data gathering > Apply models or conduct analysis > Report findings and scale results > Enhance alternative concepts as needed 12

13 Characteristics of Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures > Relevant to the project Purpose and Need Statement > Responsive to agency, stakeholder, and public concerns > Independent to avoid duplication or double counting > Measurable wherever feasible using quantitative performance measures, or clearly established qualitative performance measures > Well defined and easily understood by all study participants 13

14 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Differences with Conceptual Engineering g More performance measures (38 vs. 23) Measures are much more quantitative (often relying on modeled ed data) a) Allow for comparison across modes (transit and highway) h 14

15 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Objectives Differences Minimize travel with times Level 2 Improve connectivity and mobility Reduce congestion on the freeway More R d performance ti th f measures system (38 vs. 23) Reduce congestion on the local Measures are much more street system quantitative Increase transit (often ridershiprelying on Minimize modeled environmental data) and community impacts related to Allow transportation for comparison across Assure consistency modes (transit with regional vs. plans and strategies highway) Maximize cost-efficiency of public investments. 15

16 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Differences with Conceptual Engineering g More performance measures (38 vs. 23) Measures are much more quantitative (often relying on modeled ed data) a) Allow for comparison across modes (transit and highway) h 16

17 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Differences Examples of with engineering Level 2 More and environmental performance measures(38 vs. 23) Measures Travel timeare much more quantitative Travel patterns (often relying on Transit modeled usage data) Right-of-way Allow for comparison Air quality effects across modes (transit vs. Construction cost highway) 17

18 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Differences with Conceptual Engineering g More performance measures (38 vs. 23) Measures are much more quantitative (often relying on modeled ed data) a) Allow for comparison across modes (transit and highway) h 18

19 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Examples of Quantitative Similarities Measures Organized Percentage around of study the area same population/employment objective statements Distinguish within 1/4 mile among of transit alternatives stop with high to frequency allow comparison, service especially for similar Change modes in regional GHG emissions based on Based on engineering and regional VHT/VMT environmental measures Daily VMT for all vehicles on arterials in the study area Differences with Conceptual Engineering g More performance measures (38 vs. 23) Measures are much more quantitative (often relying on modeled ed data) a) Allow for comparison across modes (transit and highway) h 19

20 Comparison of Initial and Conceptual Engineering Screening Similarities Organized around the same objective statements Distinguish among alternative concepts to allow comparison, especially for similar modes Based on engineering and environmental measures Differences with Conceptual Engineering g More performance measures (38 vs. 23) Measures are much more quantitative (often relying on modeled ed data) a) Allow for comparison across modes (transit and highway) h 20

21 Objective 1: Minimize Travel Time Evaluation Criterion Trip travel time Total travel time Travel time reliability Performance Measure Point-to-point to travel times for a set of 9 trip pairs. in each of two types of O-D pairs regional (e.g., Long Beach to Stevenson Ranch) and study area (e.g., Union Station to La Cañada Flintridge). Peak period travel times are calculated for highway (SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+) and transit. Total person hours of travel for all trips in the SCAG region. Calculated separately for AM and PM peaks, and for vehicular and transit trips. Percent of travel on facilities in study area with dedicated or managed operations, weighted by volume/use. 21

22 Performance Measure Trip Travel Time Regional lo/dp Pairs Evaluation Criterion Trip travel time Total travel time Travel time reliability Performance Measure Point-to-point to travel times for a set of 9 trip pairs. in each of two types of O-D pairs regional (e.g., Long Beach to Stevenson Ranch) and study area (e.g., Union Station to La Cañada Flintridge). Peak period travel times are calculated for highway (SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+) and transit. Total person hours of travel for all trips in the SCAG region. Calculated separately for AM and PM peaks, and for vehicular and transit trips. Percent of travel on facilities in study area with dedicated or managed operations, weighted by volume/use. 22

23 Performance Measure Trip Travel Time Study Area O/DPairs Evaluation Criterion Trip travel time Total travel time Travel time reliability Performance Measure Point-to-point to travel times for a set of 9 trip pairs. in each of two types of O-D pairs regional (e.g., Long Beach to Stevenson Ranch) and study area (e.g., Union Station to La Cañada Flintridge). Peak period travel times are calculated for highway (SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+) and transit. Total person hours of travel for all trips in the SCAG region. Calculated separately for AM and PM peaks, and for vehicular and transit trips. Percent of travel on facilities in study area with dedicated or managed operations, weighted by volume/use. 23

24 Objective 1: Minimize Travel Time Evaluation Criterion Trip travel time Total travel time Travel time reliability Performance Measure Point-to-point to travel times for a set of 9 trip pairs. in each of two types of O-D pairs regional (e.g., Long Beach to Stevenson Ranch) and study area (e.g., Union Station to La Cañada Flintridge). Peak period travel times are calculated for highway (SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+) and transit. Total person hours of travel for all trips in the SCAG region. Calculated separately for AM and PM peaks, and for vehicular and transit trips. Percent of travel on facilities in study area with dedicated or managed operations, weighted by volume/use. 24

25 Objective 2: Improve Connectivity and Mobility Evaluation Criterion Access to regional freeway system Performance Measure Number of new interchanges connecting to existing highway facilities. Extensions of existing highways also will be considered a new connection if the functional class of the roadway is changing. Employment accessibility Number of jobs reachable within 45 minutes in peak periods, for selected origins in the study area. Number of transfer points between a new transit facility, operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes, and an existing transit facility, also operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes. Total north/south travel served (daily person trips on highways and transit) crossing an east-west t screenline from US 101 to I-605. The screenline is approximately in the middle of South Pasadena. Access to N b f t f i t b t t it f ilit ti regional transit system North-south throughput 25

26 Performance Measure 2.2.2: Employment Accessibility Evaluation Criterion Access to regional freeway system Performance Measure Number of new interchanges connecting to existing highway facilities. Extensions of existing highways also will be considered a new connection if the functional class of the roadway is changing. Employment accessibility Number of jobs reachable within 45 minutes in peak periods, for selected origins in the study area Number of transfer points between a new transit facility, operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes, and an existing transit facility, also operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes. Total north/south travel served (daily person trips on highways and transit) crossing an east-west t screenline from US 101 to I-605. The screenline is approximately in the middle of South Pasadena. Access to N b f t f i t b t t it f ilit ti regional transit system North-south throughput 26

27 Objective 2: Improve Connectivity and Mobility Evaluation Criterion Access to regional freeway system Performance Measure Number of new interchanges connecting to existing highway facilities. Extensions of existing highways also will be considered a new connection if the functional class of the roadway is changing. Employment accessibility Number of jobs reachable within 45 minutes in peak periods, for selected origins in the study area Number of transfer points between a new transit facility, operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes, and an existing transit facility, also operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes. Total north/south travel served (daily person trips on highways and transit) crossing an east-west t screenline from US 101 to I-605. The screenline is approximately in the middle of South Pasadena. Access to N b f t f i t b t t it f ilit ti regional transit system North-south throughput 27

28 Performance Measure North-South Throughput Screenline Evaluation Criterion Access to regional freeway system Employment accessibility Access to regional transit system North-south throughput Performance Measure Number of new interchanges connecting to existing highway facilities. Extensions of existing highways also will be considered a new connection if the functional class of the roadway is changing. Number of jobs reachable within 45 minutes in peak periods, for selected origins in the study area. Jobs include education and health care, among others. Number of transfer points between a new transit facility, operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes, and an existing transit facility, also operating in exclusive ROW or dedicated lanes. Total north/south travel served (daily person trips on highways and transit) crossing an east-west screenline from US 101 to I-605. The screenline is approximately in the middle of South Pasadena. 28

29 Objective 3: Reduce Congestion on Freeway System Evaluation Criterion Level of congestion on study area freeways Performance Measure Total centerline miles at LOS F in the study area 29

30 Objective 4: Reduce Congestion on Local Street System Evaluation Criterion Local arterials traffic operations Performance Measure Number of intersections in the study area with congested approaches (v/c > 1.0) Traffic diversion to local arterials Use of local arterials for long trips Average v/c ratio on north-south arterials at screenline within the study area Arterial VMT in the study area - daily for all vehicle trips Percent trips on arterials with both an origin and destination outside the study area 30

31 Performance Measure Local Arterials V/C Ratio at Screenline Evaluation Criterion Local arterials traffic operations Performance Measure Number of intersections in the study area with congested approaches (v/c > 1.0) Traffic diversion to local arterials Use of local arterials for long trips Average v/c ratio on north-south arterials at screenlines within the study area Arterial VMT in the study area - daily for all vehicle trips Percent trips on arterials with an O/D outside of study area (separate for autos and trucks if the model is sufficiently validated for truck evaluations) 31

32 Objective 4: Reduce Congestion on Local Street System Evaluation Criterion Local arterials traffic operations Performance Measure Number of intersections in the study area with congested approaches (v/c > 1.0) Traffic diversion to local arterials Use of local arterials for long trips Average v/c ratio on north-south arterials at screenline within the study area Arterial VMT in the study area - daily for all vehicle trips Percent trips on arterials with both an origin and destination outside the study area 32

33 Objective 5: Increase Transit Ridership Evaluation Criterion New transit ridership Performance Measure Increase in transit ridership Transit Percentage of study area population/employment l t within accessibility 1/4 mile of transit stop with high frequency service Transit mode Transit percentage of total trips split 33

34 Objective 6: Minimize Environmental and Community Impacts Related to Transportation Evaluation Criterion Displacements of people and businesses Performance Measure Estimated number of residences and businesses displaced Right-of-way footprint for projects Potential for effects to recreational resources Potential for effects to known cultural/historic resources Acres of right-of-way (broken down by land use type) Number of recreational sites affected Number of known archeological sites affected Number of known historical districts or buildings affected Paleontological resources impacts Paleontological sensitivity (acres per level high/medium/low) 34

35 Objective 6: Minimize Environmental and Community Impacts Related to Transportation Evaluation Criterion Subsurface soil conditions Performance Measure Percentage of presence/absence of adverse soil conditions Potential to affect biological resources/waters Number of sensitive habitats affected Number of drainages directly affected Potential for noise/vibration effects Potential for air quality effects Estimated number of sensitive receptors exceeding noise abatement criteria Change in regional Mobile Source Air Toxins (MSAT) emissions i based on regional VHT/VMT Change in regional criteria pollutants based on regional VHT/VMT Change in regional Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions based on regional VHT/VMT+H50 35

36 Objective 6: Minimize Environmental and Community Impacts Related to Transportation Evaluation Criterion Potential to affect known hazardous waste sites Performance Measure Number of known hazardous waste sites affected Potential for visual effects to communities Potential for effects on Environmental Justice populations Visual intrusion into communities Linear feet of alternative through designated scenic corridors and/or vistas Environmental Justice areas/populations directly affected 36

37 Objective 7: Assure Consistency with Regional Plans and Strategies Evaluation Criterion Consistency with adopted SCAG RTP/SCS regarding corridor Performance Measure Implements one or more of the RTP/SCS goals/objectives Consistency with Measure R intent t for Expands Metro Rail and busway systems corridor Increase transit services along major corridors Metro LRTP intent for by implementing bus signal priority and corridor expanding Metro and municipal operator services in the subregion 37

38 Objective 8: Maximize Cost-Efficiency of Public Investments Evaluation Criterion Costeffectiveness Performance Measure Relative capital and operation/maintenance costs versus benefits Financial i Available funding plus potential ti for generated revenue, feasibility relative to total cost Technical Demonstrated to be technically feasible feasibility 38

39 Next Steps > Continue alternative concept development and evaluation > Test and validate performance measure assessments > Prepare summaries of evaluation comparisons for review 39

40 Transportation System Analyses > Model = Travel forecasting software > 2008 SCAG RTP Model (2035 Horizon Year) and Metro Model > TransCAD software > Validation = Compare model output to field data > Traffic volumes in multi-hour periods > Statistical measures > SCAG validates for the region > Refined Model = More detail/accuracy in the study area > Needs additional validation 40

41 Validation Metrics > R 2 (goodness of fit) tests > Volume comparisons > Screenlines 41

42 Validation Metrics > R 2 (goodness of fit) tests > Volume comparisons > Screenlines 42

43 Validation Metrics > R 2 (goodness of fit) tests > Volume comparisons > Screenlines 43

44 Future Year Modeling > Convert validated existing conditions model > Import future baseline no-build projects > Import future trip (origin- destination volume) tables > Code build alternative concepts > Run models and extract output > Each run takes multiple loops > Run times depend on number of loops (iterations) > One loop takes 18 to 24 hours > Approximately 10 runs during highway validation > Expect 20 to 25 runs during Part 1 evaluation 44

45 Open Discussion 45 45