Technical Advisory Committee / Policy Advisory Committee. Moving from Needs to Solutions 1/31/2017. Photo: City of Richmond COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 1

Transcription

1 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY Technical Advisory Committee / Policy Advisory Committee Moving from Needs to Solutions 1/31/2017 Photo: City of Richmond COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 1

2 Agenda Welcome and Introductions Barbara Nelson, RRTPO Workshop objectives Paul Prideaux, P.E., Michael Baker International Review of progress since last meeting Development of Growth Scenarios Paul Bingham, EDRG Multimodal travel forecasting and impact analysis Paul Prideaux & Zach Harris Review & discussion of preliminary needs & potential solutions - All A look forward to next steps Wrap Up Paul Prideaux / Barbara Nelson 2 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 2

3 Development of Growth Scenarios Methodology and Process COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 3

4 Customized Approach: Process and Key Resources Key TAC/PAC Input Future demand on the system Development Scenarios (2040) Baseline: Anticipated future Alternative 1 & 2: Instructive site-specific alternatives (incremental to baseline) Resources: Prior studies, zoning, economic data/forecasts Transportation-Economic Connection Trip making/mode share from scenario economic activity (emphasis: freight) Resources: TREDIS vfreight, Regional Travel Model Transportation Stress Test Forecast changes in transportation system performance, network capacity Resources: Regional Travel Demand Model off-line tools for rail System performance Future levels of development, industry mix We are here Future Transportation Needs Deficiencies under baseline & 2 alternatives, holding transportation system constant Solutions Alternative transportation system Assessment of Solutions Resources: Regional Travel Model, TREDIS vfreight 4 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 4

5 Targeted Development Sites COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 5

6 Recap: 4 Sites COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY ( 27 6 )

7 Site 1 Quick Facts: Philip Morris Site, includes DuPont parcel Approximately 207 acres in total (highlighted) Four parcels Current use: Vacant or partly improved Highway travel time to I-95 = 3 min Highway travel time to RMT = 6 min Current zoning = M2 CSX Bellwood Sub line immediately adjacent CSX Spurs and Leads adjacent RMT on other side of I-95 Site included in model TAZ 219, shown in red TAZ 219 Richmond Marine Terminal 7 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 7

8 Single Family Residential Phillip Morris USA Site 2 Quick Facts: Alleghany Warehouse Site Approximately 110 acres (highlighted area only) Current use: Low-ceiling warehouses Highway travel time to I-95 = 4-5 min Highway travel time to RMT = 5-6 min Outparcels / carve-outs exist Current asking price approximately $11.75M Current zoning = M1 CSX Bellwood Sub line immediately adjacent CSX Deepwater Term IT line on other side of I-95 Site included in model TAZ 216, shown in red TAZ 216 Richmond Marine Terminal 8 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 8

9 TAZ 416 TAZ 403 TAZ 404 M1C Zoning TAZ 405 TAZ 395 TAZ 417 TAZ 415 TAZ 418 White Oak Industrial Park area Speculative development less than 50% built out TAZ 406 TAZ 408 TAZ 425 TAZ 407 Site #2 Site 3 Quick Facts: RIC / White Oak area Numerous parcels Current use: Vacant or improved (Lumber Liquidators) Highway travel time to RMT = minutes Nearby access to I-64, I-295 & Route 895 (via toll) Current zoning = Various 9 Norfolk Southern West Point line just north of area CSX Peninsula Sub just south of area RMT on other side of James River Includes model TAZs as shown in red COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY ( 9 )

10 Site 4 Quick Facts: Meadowville Technology Park area Numerous parcels Current use: Some vacant, some improved (Amazon) Highway travel time to RMT = minutes Nearby access to I-295 and thus I-95 Current zoning = Various Area served by CSX Bermuda Hundred Lead Includes model TAZs as shown in red TAZ 773 TAZ 935 TAZ 934 TAZ COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 10

11 Target Development Site Characteristics Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Name Philip Morris Alleghany Warehouse RIC / White Oak Meadowville Technology Park Acres 179 acres (excluding water/wetland) 110 acres 1,598 acres + 261,057 sf vacant in buildings 984 acres Current Use Development assumptions Zoned Use Vacant or partially improved Assume Operations Center building not reused (suboptimal configuration) Heavy industrial (Most permissive, allows a broad range of manufacturing & wholesale/ distribution) Low-ceiling warehouses Assume all tenants vacated & demolition of existing warehouses Light industrial (Allows lighter manufacturing, & wholesale/ distribution) In area: RIC airport, Lumber Liquidators, High-Tech Manufacturing Development of vacant sites + securing of tenants for vacant buildings Majority of the land is General & Light Industrial; Other Agricultural district, Airport adjacent special zoning In area: Amazon Distribution Center, Capital One Data Processing Center, VA Information Tech Agency Development of vacant sites General & heavy industrial (Manufacturing and similar activities) Desired manufacturing and logistics-oriented industry is generally compatible with the spirit and intent of existing land use regulations 11 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 11

12 Alternative Development Futures COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 12

13 Defining the Baseline Richmond/Tri-cities travel model: future economic and demographic data To isolate effect of site development: hold current site vacancies in 2040 baseline 13 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 13

14 Alternative 1 Forecast Future Industry Mix Assumes that future development on the target sites will mimic the forecast target industry mix for the region as a whole in 2040 Dominant activity attracted to the target sites is wholesale trade, followed by warehousing and storage, with some manufacturing as well. 14 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 14

15 Alternative 2 Port-Oriented Manufacturing Manufacturing only* Challenge: modelling a future unlike the present A process based on data & expert judgement: 1. Start with the forecast profile of manufacturing in the region for 2040, ranked by employment 2. Exclude sectors that are not strong facility growth prospects (e.g. paper manufacturing), are unlikely targets for industrial property expansion (e.g. primary metal manufacturing, which is heavy industry), or would not have prospects of relying on new containerized goods port movements 3. Maintain the relative distribution between remaining manufacturing sectors as expected in the region in 2040 *Except the Interport Business Center & QTS Data Center 15 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 15

16 Development Analysis Ingredients Employment: % by Industry Sq.ft/Employee, by Industry Floor-Area-Ratio Total Jobs on Each Site, By Industry Scenario definition (prior slides) U.S. Energy Information Administration Observed Typologies: Source: Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. An Industrial Market and Land Use Strategy for the City of Philadelphia COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 16

17 Final Industry Job Distribution, By Scenario 17 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 17

18 Demands on Transportation Network COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 18

19 KTons Development-Generated Rail Demand 50,000 45,000 Rail Tonnage Annual, in the Region 40,000 35,000 10% 29% 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Year Base Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Aggregate regional estimation of rail demand from new development alternatives, relative to baseline growth Tonnage forecast based on current pattern of commodities produced/consumed by each industry that use freight rail 19 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 19

20 Development-Generated Rail Demand Alt 1: Moderate industrial development at 4-sites mimicking regional patterns Alt 2: More intense industrial development at 4-sites reflecting port-oriented uses All four sites have nearby or immediately adjacent Class 1 Rail lines For each site, infrastructure investment will be needed to allow for rail access, depending on site layout and service requirements Due to the large area & multiple parcels reflected at Sites 3 & 4, not all parcels will be able to achieve practical & cost-effective rail access 20 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 20

21 Development-Generated Highway Demand Alt 1: Moderate industrial development at 4-sites mimicking regional patterns Alt 2: More intense industrial development at 4-sites reflecting port-oriented uses Daily highway trips includes both employee work trips as well as trucks generated by industrial activity From an acreage / development potential standpoint, sites 3 and 4 are able to generate significantly more demand than sites 1 and COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 21

22 Future Highway Volumes 22 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 22

23 Future Highway Volumes Two types of highway volume increases identified Medium Volume Increase 5% - 10% daily increase on major 1 roads 25% - 50% daily increase on minor 2 road Large Volume Increase 10% or greater daily increase on major 1 roads 50% or greater daily increase on minor 2 roads Traffic volume increases reflect the change from 2040 baseline to 2040 Alt 2* *Alt 2: More intense industrial development at 4-sites reflecting port-oriented uses 1 Major roads are defined at having higher volume and at least 2-lanes in each direction 2 Minor roads are defined as having lower volumes and typically 1-lane in each direction 23 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 23

24 Future Highway Volumes Six inset figures will be used to display information 24 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 24

25 Future Highway Volumes Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 25 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 25

26 Future Highway Volumes Proposed PE for new Bellemeade interchange in plan2040 CLRP Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 26 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 26

27 Future Highway Volumes Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 27 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 27

28 Future Highway Volumes Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 28 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 28

29 Future Highway Volumes Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 29 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 29

30 Future Highway Volumes Change in 2040 Daily Volume: Medium Increase Large Increase Comparing Baseline to Alternative 2 Yellow represents defined growth area 30 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 30

31 Future Highway Operations 31 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 31

32 Future Highway Operations Four types of highway operational impacts Highway links that DO NOT get impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE NOT congested in 2040 Highway links that DO NOT get impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE congested in 2040 Highway links that DO GET impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE NOT congested in Highway links that DO GET impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE congested in COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 32

33 Future Highway Operations Study investigated two types of impacts Highway links that DO NOT get impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE NOT congested in 2040 Highway links that DO NOT get impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE congested in 2040 Highway links that DO GET impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE NOT congested in 2040 Only those in close proximity to our growth sites were further investigated 4 Highway links that DO GET impacted by our growth scenarios and ARE congested in 2040 All of these locations were further investigated 33 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 33

34 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 34 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 34

35 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Proposed PE for new Bellemeade interchange in plan2040 CLRP Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 35 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 35

36 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 36 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 36

37 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 37 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 37

38 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 38 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 38

39 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Alt 2 Peak Period 2040 Congestion: Congested but not impacted by growth Congested and impacted by growth Yellow represents defined growth area Congestion defined as LOS D or worse 39 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 39

40 Future Transportation Impacts and Needs Intersection Analysis Intersection AM Peak Hour LOS** PM Peak Hour LOS** Street Cross Road Existing 2040 Baseline 2040 Alt 2 Existing 2040 Baseline 2040 Alt 2 Commerce Road Bells Road Access Rd B C C C F F 22% Deepwater Terminal Road Bells Road Access Rd A C C A A A 0% Bells Road Jefferson Davis Highway D E E D E E 0% Commerce Road Walmsley Road A F F A F F 110% Commerce Road Ruffin Road A F F A B D 176% Commerce Road Bellemeade Road A F F A F F 91% W Hundred Road (Route 10) Rivers Bend Blvd D F F E F F 24% Meadowville Road Meadowville Technology Pkwy A B F B F F 1330% E Williamsburg Road (Route 60) Technology Blvd B F F D F F 462% E Williamsburg Road (Route 60) Elko Road B F F C E F 654% E Williamsburg Road (Route 60) Airport Drive D F F D F F 167% * Largest increase for either peak hour from the 2040 baseline scenario to the 2040 Alternative 2 scenario **LOS A through C shaded in green, LOS D through F shaded in red Increase in Delay (%)* 40 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 40

41 Study team reviewed all of the above findings as well as information gathered from stakeholder interviews and developed draft needs and potential solutions. Meeting break at this time and then resume with a review of Needs handout. 41 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 41

42 Next Steps Prioritizing, Grouping & Assessment of Investment Packages Make revisions to today s material based on comments received Distribute revised Needs / Solutions table Hold Webinar in February (date T.B.D.) to discuss prioritization and bundling of solutions Assess transportation & economic impacts (anticipated improvements) based on bundled solutions 42 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 42

43 Next Steps Economic Modeling 1. Define baseline future network (existing + committed) 2. Define (incremental) alternative investment packages E.g. Mid-level versus aggressive investment Travel Demand Modelling Network performance under base and alternative investment packages: TRIPS VMT VHT % Congested (By Mode/Purpose) (Investigate changes in Labor/Delivery Market Access, Intermodal Access) Economic Modelling (TREDIS) Construction and O&M costs Economic impact of investment packages relative to baseline: Jobs Sales Income GRP (Including industry/occupation detail) 43 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 43

44 Next Steps Understanding Economic Impacts Industry & household responses to cost savings: Households: Businesses: Decrease in spending on transportation Decrease in spending on transportation Increase in spending on other consumer goods Retained as profit Passed on to customers (reduced prices) Invested in workers, equipment, and R&D Changes in industry sales (output) by sector Additional broader productivity effects: Effect of improved reliability on logistics costs and industry sales Effect of access/connectivity on productivity, by industry 44 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 44

45 Project Communication Meeting coordination and information sharing through RRTPO staff. Primary contact: Chris Wichman (804) Project website: 45 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 45

46 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY Technical Advisory Committee / Policy Advisory Committee Moving from Needs to Solutions 1/31/2017 Photo: City of Richmond COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 46

47 Extra slides beyond this point 47 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 47

48 Draft Future Needs & Solutions R3.1 R8.1 H2.5 See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z R1.2 Yellow represents defined growth area R3.2 Goodes St H COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 48

49 Draft Future Needs & Solutions R7 H2.7 H7.1 H2.4 H3.1 H8 R3.3 H5 H3.1 R2.1 H6 H4 R2.2 H1.2 See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z H7.2 R1.1 P1.2 P3 Yellow represents defined growth area H COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 49

50 Draft Future Needs & Solutions See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z H2.1 H2.2 Yellow represents defined growth area 50 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 50

51 Draft Future Needs & Solutions H2.6 See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z H2.3 Yellow represents defined growth area 51 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 51

52 Draft Future Needs & Solutions H10.1 H10.4 H10.2 H10.5 See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z H10.3 R5 Yellow represents defined growth area 52 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 52

53 Draft Future Needs & Solutions R6 H9.1 See separate table for details about individual needs and solutions XY.Z H9.2 R4 Yellow represents defined growth area 53 COMMERCE CORRIDOR STUDY 53