AGENDA ITEM #17: VIRGINIA S 2025 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND HB2: OIPI CONSULTANT

Save this PDF as:
Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "AGENDA ITEM #17: VIRGINIA S 2025 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND HB2: OIPI CONSULTANT"

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #17: VIRGINIA S 2025 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND HB2: OIPI CONSULTANT The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI) is leading the effort to develop and implement the Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment process as part of the VTrans Multimodal Transportation Plan (VMTP). One of the key purposes of the Needs Assessment is to serve as a screen for projects submitted for consideration under the HB2 prioritization process. The Transportation Needs Assessment will assess Virginia s transportation needs with regard to: Corridors of Statewide Significance (Interregional travel market) Regional Networks (Intraregional travel market) Urban Development Areas (Local activity center market) Statewide Safety Need The VMTP draft 2025 Needs Assessment was made available for review and comment from August 3, 2015 through August 17, HRTPO staff submitted comments on the draft (attached). Ms. Lorna Parkins of Michael Baker International, the OIPI consultant on this project, will brief the TTAC on the Needs Assessment, the HB2 project screening process, and how applicants might relate their project proposals to the VMTP needs. Attachment 17 RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion and informational purposes. HRTPO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 2, 2015

2 Draft 2025 Needs Assessments, VTrans2040 Multimodal Transportation Plan (OIPI, from Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Staff Comments Submitted via to A. Safety 1. Page 3 In the 2014 snapshot, the number of people that were killed in crashes that were not wearing their safety belt would be good information to include, since that is as big of factor as speeding and alcohol use. 2. Page 5 The final sentence mentions that 71% of pedestrian crash fatalities occurred in dark conditions. It s not clear whether this reflects all pedestrian crash fatalities in the state, or just those on roadways where sidewalks were not present. 3. Appendix A Although the intersection number is shown, it s not clear to those outside of VDOT where these intersections are. It would be helpful to list the intersection name in addition to the intersection number. 4. Appendix A The AADT is listed in each table. Is this the intersection entering AADT? Or the AADT on the Route ID listed? B. UDAs No comments. 1 of 8 Attachment 17

3 C. Regional Network 1. Hampton Roads TPO Region Needs Summary on the regional map: a. The route numbers (shields) are too small to read and do not increase much in size when you zoom into the map. b. The Park and Ride 2014 symbol is too faint (did not even show up when printed). c. The symbols for Urban or County Roads and Secondary Roads look exactly the same. d. Cannot distinguish the MPO area from the City/County Boundary. Recommend using a different color, thicker line for the MPO boundary. e. Two problems with the label Hampton Roads MPO : i. Cannot tell to what the label applies. Recommend enlarging it and using a font color to match the color of the MPO boundary line. ii. The label should read Hampton Roads TPO. 2. Recommend adding a Need for the I 64/I 264 Interchange in Norfolk/Virginia Beach. This interchange of two interstate highways has long been a point of congestion for commuter, freight, and through traffic in the vicinity of the Norfolk/Virginia Beach city line. This connection serves multiple knowledge based and local serving activity centers, as well as several targeted future growth areas along the Route 58/I 264 Corridor, as well as tourist traffic destined for the Virginia Beach Oceanfront or Downtown Norfolk. 3. Recommend adding a Need for the section of I 64 between I 464 and I 664 at Bowers Hill. This section ties into Need I (US 58/US 13/US 460, I 664/I 264 Corridor Bowers Hill). The section is vital to military mobility, the movement of goods and services, the movement of passengers, and hurricane evacuation. The section exhibits severe congestion on a regular basis, particularly during morning and afternoon peak travel hours and especially in the vicinity of the High Rise Bridge. The High Rise Bridge carries a significant volume of truck traffic 49% of all truck traffic crossing the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, compared to 27% at the Downtown Tunnel and 11% at the Midtown Tunnel. In addition, the Hampton Roads Regional Freight Study (HRTPO, Sept. 2012) indicated that congestion in this section is the second highest source of truck delay in Hampton Roads. 2 of 8 Attachment 17

4 D. Corridors of Statewide Significance (COSS) 5 corridors in Hampton Roads Corridor A: Coastal Corridor (including US 17) Concerning Segment A1, running from North Carolina through Hampton Roads to Saluda on the Middle Peninsula: Page 9: Instead of Greater Hampton Roads Transit use simply Hampton Roads Transit. It is difficult to distinguish between the brown colors depicting 5 6 lanes and 7 8 lanes. Page 10: We ask that you provide the source of the travel figures provided on this page, e.g. Travel between the Hampton Roads region and North Carolina accounts for more than four percent of the intercity passenger traffic in the Commonwealth. Page 11: Likewise, we ask that you provide the source of the freight figures provided on this page, e.g. By truck, Segment A1 carried 3M tons of freight worth $8B in for13 appears to be a typo. Much of the freight traveling in traveling to and from these ports appears to be a typo. Page 12: We ask that you provide the source of the traffic volume projections, e.g. The highest projected increases occur along U.S. 17 north of Route 171 and range from 7,000 to 9,000 additional vehicles per day. Given that this page is dedicated to Segment A1, On most sections of Segment A2 appears to be a typo. It is difficult to distinguish between the earth tones used on volume maps. The usage of a reddish color to indicate a slight increase in traffic (0 5000), combined with a reddish color to indicate decreased traffic, is confusing. Given a) the current and planned widening of US 17 from Great Bridge Blvd to the Dome of Canaan Baptist Church (including the current construction of the Veterans Bridge), and b) the increase in intensity of land use along and south of this to bewidened segment, it appears that the 0 5,000 increase ( ) in traffic shown for this segment is too low. Page 13: Please indicate the location of the data in the charts, particularly the Monthly charts. If the data comes from one count station, please indicate the location of that station. 3 of 8 Attachment 17

5 Page 15: Instead of In Portsmouth, closer to the Port of Virginia,, consider using In Portsmouth, where two of the Port of Virginia facilities are located,. Page 17: Instead of Overall freight delays per mile along Segment A1 are in the bottom 10 th percentile among the corridor s Segments of Statewide Significance,, did you mean Overall freight delays per mile along Segment A1 are in the bottom 10 th percentile of all Corridor A segments,, or did you mean Overall freight delays per mile along Segment A1 are in the bottom 10 th percentile of all CoSS segments,? Please indicate the source of the congestion data shown on the maps. Page 18: Please explain the reliability index used on this page. Page 19: Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists at the US 17 Business 2 lane bridge crossing the Dismal Swamp Canal in Deep Creek (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pg. 35). Thank you for showing a safety need on the segment just south of I 64 on the Peninsula, an area with high potential for safety improvement (PSI) according to HR Regional Safety Study (HRTPO, July 2014, pg. 32). Please add to the map an icon indicating the unreliability that exists along US 17 in Chesapeake between Canal Rd and the Deep Creek Bridge (see HR Regional Travel Time Reliability Study, HRTPO, July 2013, pg. 18). Please add to the map an icon indicating the unreliability that exists along the James River Bridge (see HR Regional Travel Time Reliability Study, HRTPO, July 2013, pg. 18). 4 of 8 Attachment 17

6 Corridor C: East West Corridor Concerning Segment C5, running from New Kent / James City line through Hampton Roads to Bowers Hill: Pages 60 through 70 See comments above for Corridor A. Page 61: Instead of Norfolk County, use City of Norfolk. Given that the HR Third Crossing has been recommended to HRTAC by the HRTPO Board, we request that you include it as a Future Project (map) and list it under major planned and future projects include. Page 64: For the Traffic Volume 2014 map, the colors in the key do not appear to match the colors on the map. Page 71: Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists on I 64 between exits 256 and 234, i.e. your segment O (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pg. 36). Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists on I 64 between Wards Corner and I 264, i.e. your segments B and C (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pg. 37). Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists on I 64 between Bowers Hill and Deep Creek, i.e. your segment Q (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pg. 35). Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists in the vicinity of the I 464/I 64/US17 interchange, i.e. your segment V (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pg. 37). Please add to the map an icon indicating the potential for safety improvement (PSI) that exists for the HRBT and the MMMBT (see HR Regional Safety Study, HRTPO, July 2014, pg. 26). 5 of 8 Attachment 17

7 Corridor D: Eastern Shore Corridor Concerning Segment D1, running from the North Carolina line through Hampton Roads to the Eastern Shore: Pages 8 through 18 See comments above for Corridor A. Page 9: Please indicate that the entire Suffolk Bypass has 4 lanes. Under Freight and Port Facilities, please indicate that the US 13/58/460 Connector serves the US 13, US 58, US 258, and US 460 Regional Gateways, which themselves serve a total of 38% of all trucks passing through HR gateways (HR Regional Freight Study, HRTPO, Sept. 2012, pg. 89). Given that the US 13/58/460 Connector project (upgrade to interstate standards including construction of two interchanges) has been recommended to HRTAC by the HRTPO Board, we request that you include it as a Future Project ( Reconstruction with added capacity, map) and list it under major planned and future projects include. Instead of Norfolk County, use City of Norfolk. The Gilmerton Bridge project (shown on Future Projects map) is finished. Page 19: Thank you for including on the map an icon indicating the inherently unsafe condition that exists at the SPSA and HR Executive Airport intersections of the US13/58/460 Connector (turning left across three lanes of 60mph traffic). Please add to the map an icon indicating the severe congestion that exists on Northampton Blvd between I 64 and Diamond Springs Rd (see HR Congestion Management Process, HRTPO, Oct. 2014, pages 35 and 37). Perhaps this is what. your segment E was intended to indicate (but it was accidentally placed on the airport). 6 of 8 Attachment 17

8 Corridor E: Heartland Corridor Map Page 3: legend shows Railroad but nothing is highlighted in map Map Page 4: boundary color for Planning District Area in the legend and the map do not appear consistent. Icons overlap and are hard to distinguish when zoomed in. Page 6: some state labels are cut off in maps Page 7: GDP by Sector graphics not sure what Knowledge represents. Suggest adding a description/explanation. Page 60: map does not show Newport News/Williamsburg airport, yet airport is listed in side legend Page 60: make sure map and legend icons match (there are legend icons that are not in map) Page 61: Title of legend in top graphic/map is misaligned. Scale bars are too large in maps Page 61: Future Projects: list rehabilitation of Downtown Tunnel; show planned improvements to US 460 Page 64: suggest adding the term Forecasted to Traffic Volume 2025 (AADT) and Change in Traffic Volume (AADT) graphics (should do for all graphics regarding future traffic volumes for other segments as well). Scale bar seems large. Map Page 70: scale bars seem large Corridor J: Southside Corridor Map Page 3: legend shows Railroad but nothing is highlighted in map Page 3, 5 th paragraph: Passenger rail via Amtrak can be accessed in Danville. Add Norfolk. Map Page 4: icons are hard to distinguish when one zooms into map (too much overlap with icons) Page 7: GDP by Sector graphics not sure what Knowledge represents. Suggest adding a description/explanation Page 34: map does not show Newport News/Williamsburg airport, yet airport is listed in side legend Page 34: make sure map and legend icons match (there are legend icons that are not in map) Page 35: Major planned and future projects section should be City of Virginia Beach (not County). Witchduck should be one word. o HRTAC projects along this corridor should be listed (US 460/58/13 Connector, I 64 Southside Widening, I 64/I 264 Interchange) 7 of 8 Attachment 17

9 o Map of Future Projects appears to have more projects in Virginia Beach than text section lists Page 38: suggest adding the term Forecasted to Traffic Volume 2025 (AADT) and Change in Traffic Volume (AADT) graphics (should do for all graphics regarding future traffic volumes for other segments as well) Page 40: map legend depicts two types of Park and Ride Facilities, yet only one type is shown on map 8 of 8 Attachment 17