Long Range Transportation Plan Project Status Update

Transcription

1 HEPMPO Webinar Meeting Long Range Transportation Plan Project Status Update Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning December 4,

2 Meeting Agenda 1. Project Overview 2. Addressing MAP Recent Technical Efforts Existing Traffic Performance Measures Demographic Forecasts / Travel Modeling Bike/Pedestrian / Transit / Freight 4. Project List Development 5. Financial Constraint Process 6. Project Prioritization Criteria 7. Next Steps 2

3 Project Overview Phase I Stakeholder Outreach Goals and Objectives Data Collection Existing Conditions Phase II Future Conditions Multimodal Plan Elements Transit Bike/Ped Freight Safety Phase III Fiscal Constraint Project Prioritization Conformity Public Meetings Implementation Plan Current Tasks and Completed Efforts 3

4 MAP-21 4

5 HEPMPO Performance Based Planning 1. Goals and Objectives Illustrate how they relate to national goal areas under MAP-21 No specific targets but document future activities 2. Integrate Performance Measures Highway Performance Monitoring Trends (HPMS) TomTom Travel Time GPS data National Performance Management Research Data Set (HPMRDS) Analysis of DOT traffic count data (regional reports) Travel demand model 3. Prioritize Projects Using Measures Prioritize projects by multiple criteria (Quantitative/Qualitative) Utilize select performance measures to help make decisions (e.g. TomTom GPS data) 4. Document Future Endeavors Continue monitoring and evaluation Possible scenario analysis Utilize latest technical data resources Historic VMT Travel Time Ratio Travel Time Travel Time Index Forecast VMT 5

6 Recent Technical Efforts Existing Traffic Performance Measures 6

7 Sources of Information for Existing Traffic GPS Data Primary input for existing needs assessment and prioritization MetroQuest Input Consistent with GPS data Project ideas for congested locations incorporated DOT Traffic Databases Additional regional-level performance measures Capacity deficiencies 7

8 How Congested Are We? Calculated Values from MDOT and WVDOT Traffic Data High Congestion 1.27 Population > 3 million Travel Time Index (TTI)* million 250k-1million Washington: 1.15 Berkeley: 1.12 Low Congestion 1.11 <250k Jefferson: 1.06 * Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, February

9 Regional Assessment of Current Traffic Data County Road Type % Congestion* by Road Type PM Peak % Congestion* by Road Type Daily Freeway 33 % 16 % Washington Arterial 42 % 27 % Collector/Local 12 % 5 % Freeway** 45 % 31 % Berkeley Arterial 15 % 7 % Collector/Local 1 % 1 % Freeway Jefferson Arterial 8 % 4 % Collector/Local 0 % 0 % * Percent Congestion defined as relative portion of roadway type VMT operating at Level of Service (LOS) D-F ** DOT data does not reflect recent capacity increases completed in

10 Existing Congestion vs. Project Locations 10

11 Demographic Forecasts 11

12 Demographic Growth How are demographics used in LRTP? Report trends / Travel model inputs / Prioritization Top-down approach based on: County Growth Scenario Annual Growth Rate Population Households Employment Washington MDP % 1.0% 0.8% Berkeley WP % 1.0% 1.2% Jefferson WP % 1.5% 1.2% Allocate to areas within county County/EDC input Assumptions from last LRTP 12

13 Household Growth ( ) Low Growth in Households High 13

14 Employment Growth ( ) Low Low Growth in in Households Employment High High 14

15 Travel Model Forecasting 15

16 Integration of Modeling for LRTP Estimates traffic volume growth due to demographic forecast Provides analytic input to plan development but has its limitations Role in HEPMPO LRTP: Evaluate growth in traffic volumes Evaluate future needs Provide data for prioritization process Primary tool for Air Quality conformity 16

17 Regional Modeling Results E+C 2040 E+C Vehicle Miles of Travel +27% +36% Scenarios Modeled: Base E+C (includes all existing and committed projects) Vehicle Hours of Travel +45% +41% +53% +54% 17

18 Growth in Trips and Traffic Volumes ( ) US11: +9,000 Edgewood: +7,000 US40: +14,000 WV 9: +8,000 WV 901: +9,000 I70: +15,000 US11: +7,000 I81: +18,000 Low Growth in Zonal Trips High Summit Pt: +7,000 US340: +15,000 Growth in Daily Traffic Volume Low High 18

19 Locations of Future Traffic Congestion Congestion Level (2040 E-C Model Run) LOS D LOS E LOS F 19

20 Bike/Pedestrian 20

21 Bike/Pedestrian What data, plans, or studies did we look at? Previous LRTP (2010) Public input (MetroQuest) Coordination with jurisdictions City of Hagerstown GIS files (existing and proposed projects) City of Hagerstown Bicycle Master Plan (2010) City of Hagerstown Proposed Budget ( ) Town of Boonsboro Comprehensive Plan (2009) Maryland Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (2002)* West Virginia Statewide Bicycle Route Connectivity Plan (ongoing) North Martinsburg Area Pedestrian Plan (2012) Martinsburg Comprehensive Plan (2007) City of Ranson Comprehensive Plan (2002) East Gateway Land Use Vision Study (2012) * Update expected in early

22 Bike/Pedestrian: Proposed Projects 22

23 Transit 23

24 Transit Needs Areas of high transit need include: Hagerstown, Funkstown, Halfway & Robinwood Martinsburg, Ranson and Charles Town High need areas without service include: US-11 corridor north and south of Martinsburg Jefferson County south of Charles Town 24

25 County Commuter Route Recommendations Consolidate urban fixed routes 8 routes with simplified alignments New retail connector route- Premium Outlets to Valley Mall/Hopewell Premium Outlets route extension to Hagerstown Park & Ride 25

26 County Commuter Route Recommendations Implement two new rural routes Smithsburg Boonsboro/ Sharpsburg 26

27 County Commuter Service Recommendations 30-minute peak headways 60-minute off-peak headways Expanded evening and weekend service Five transfer centers: Downtown Hagerstown Park & Ride Williamsport US-11/Halfway Blvd US-40/ North Edgewood Dr 27

28 PanTran Recommendations Two new routes to fill gaps: South Martinsburg Berkeley Business Center- Boydsville-MARC 10 trips per day, weekdays Martinsburg-Williamsport MARC-Spring Mills-Falling Waters-Marlowe-Williamsport 10 trips per day, weekdays Add Saturday service to Orange Route 60-minute peak headways on all routes 28

29 Other Recommendations Relocate Duffield MARC Station North Port Station development US-9 and First Street in Kearneysville Increase MARC service 3 additional peak roundtrips by 2015, including one reverse commute trip 3 additional roundtrips between 2030 and 2050, including off-peak and reverse commute service Common Fare Instruments-County Commuter & PanTran Coordination strategies: joint marketing, joint call center, joint training and joint contracts between County Commuter and PanTran 29

30 Freight 30

31 FHWA Primary Freight Network (PFN) Draft designations public comment period MAP-21 requirement to assist States Strategically direct resources Improve system performance Maximize freight efficiency Integrate multi-modal linkages Maryland I-70 and I-81 West Virginia I-81 What does this mean? Additional funding resources? Additional facilities? 31

32 FAF Projected Daily Truck Growth (to 2040) +11,450 +6, , , Hagerstown +2,790 Martinsburg +7, ,130 +2,050 Frederick, MD Ranson +2,630 32

33 Project List Development 33

34 Washington County 34

35 Berkeley County 35

36 Jefferson County 36

37 Financial Constraint Process 37

38 Sources of Project Costs Maryland Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) Local Comprehensive Plans Capital Improvement Plans Maryland Highway Needs Inventory (HNI) Corridor Studies 2035 LRTP Project Costs Other Planning-level Cost Estimates 38

39 Project Cost Estimates (2013 Dollars) Post TIP projects Year Washington County Berkeley County Jefferson County 2013 LRTP Unconstrained 2013 LRTP Recent Plans 2013 LRTP Totals $4,012.3M $1,117.3M $662.9M $120.1M $90.3M $81.9M $4,132.4M $1,207.6M $744.8M 2010 LRTP $3,142.3M $913.8M $597.9M % Change 32% 32% 25% 39

40 LRTP Financial Forecast System Expansion Funding Only State average annual growth rate assumptions WV 4.31% MD 3.89% Year West Virginia Maryland Washington Co. Hagerstown Maryland Total 2019 $12.4M $10.8M $5.4M $0.6M $16.8M $98.6M $78.3M $46.8M $4.6M $129.7M $202.4M $145.0M $94.1M $9.1M $248.2M $138.1M $98.9M $62.4M $6.0M $167.3M TOTALS $439.1M $322.2M $203.3M $19.7M $545.2M 40

41 Comparison to 2010 LRTP Forecast State Revenue Forecast updated in 2013 Year West Virginia Maryland Washington Co. Hagerstown Maryland Total 2013 LRTP 2010 LRTP $439.1M $322.2M $203.3M $19.7M $545.2M $354.3M $205.8M $271.2M $19.4M $496.3M % Change +24% +56% -25% +2% +10% 41

42 Project Prioritization Criteria 42

43 Project Prioritization Process Unfunded Priorities Identify Criteria Weight Criteria Analysis Review Analytic Results Identify Project Priorities Financial Constrained Project List Process to prioritize highway capacity projects only Use multi-modal criteria that relate to LRTP goals Analytic prioritization process includes quantitative and qualitative assessments Analytic process is not intended to provide final results input for key stakeholders to make decisions 43

44 Proposed Highway Prioritization Criteria Traffic Criteria # Criteria Scoring Method (0-1 Scale) Data Sources 1 Existing Congestion % of project length with congestion (e.g..25 = 25%) TomTom GPS Travel Time Ratio DOT Traffic Count Analysis MetroQuest Input 2 Future Traffic Traffic volume growth (1=highest volume growth) Travel Model 3 Project Impact Impact of project on Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) (1= highest reduction) Travel Model Qualitative Assessment 44

45 Proposed Highway Prioritization Criteria Multi-Modal Criteria # Criteria Scoring Method (0-1 Scale) Data Sources 4 Transit Projects that improve transit travel times and/or provide supporting infrastructure (0=No, 1=Yes) Existing Transit Routes (GIS) Project information 5 Bike & Pedestrian Projects that support or include development of bike and/or pedestrian infrastructure (0=No, 1=Yes) Project information 6 Freight Forecast growth in roadway truck volume (1 = highest truck volume growth) FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) 45

46 Proposed Highway Prioritization Criteria Other Criteria # Criteria Scoring Method (0-1 Scale) 7 Safety Crash locations (1=highest crash rate for project area) 8 Regional Growth Areas 9 Environment Public Input Project Cost Projects in vicinity of employment and housing growth (using trip growth surrogate) (1=highest trip growth locations) Proximity to environmental features (e.g. floodplains, historic, parks, other); Other input on concerns. (-1= if environmental concerns) Public/stakeholder support for project. (1 = highest supported project) Estimated project cost (-1 = for high cost projects) Data Sources MD, WV State Crash data NHTSA Fatalities Demographic Forecasts Travel Model Environmental GIS data Public Input Stakeholder Identified Concerns MetroQuest Project Rankings Project Costs 46

47 Criteria Weighting # Criteria MD Weight? WV Weight? Criteria Score 1 Existing Congestion 2 Future Traffic 3 Project Impact 4 Transit 5 Bike/Pedestrian 6 Freight 7 Safety 8 Regional Growth Areas 9 Environment 10 Public Input 11 Project Cost Total Score 47

48 Next Steps 48

49 Project Overview Phase I Stakeholder Outreach Goals and Objectives Data Collection Existing Conditions Phase II Future Conditions Multimodal Plan Elements Transit Bike/Ped Freight Safety Phase III Fiscal Constraint Project Prioritization Conformity Public Meetings Implementation Plan Dec 13 Jan 14 49

50 Next Project Steps Fiscal Constraint / Prioritization Webinar scheduled for Jan 8 th Conformity Analysis Draft Plan End of Jan ISC Comments Mid Feb Public Meetings Feb Mar 14 Public Comment Responses ISC Approval Apr

51 Contacts Matt Mullenax, HEP Project Manager Jim Frazier, Baker Project Manager Dan Szekeres, Baker Deputy PM