I 15 Corridor System Characteristics: Highways June 211
Technical Memorandum I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Corridor System Characteristics: Highways Prepared for: I-15 Mobility Alliance June 211 Prepared by: Jennifer Daigre, PE Contributors: Candice Hein Dan Andersen Loren Bloomberg, PE Bardia Nezhati, PE, PTOE Barry Banks- WSA David Hurst- WSA Alex Barnum- WSA
Table of Contents I-15 Corridor... 1 I-15 Mobility Alliance and Corridor System Master Plan... 2 Study Area... 2 Corridor System Characteristics Technical Memoranda... 4 Highways 5 Highway Maintenance... 5 Nationwide Congestion... 6 Existing Conditions of the I-15 Corridor... 8 Future Conditions... 21 Major Connections and Regionally Significant Bottlenecks... 24 Appendix A... 27 List of Acronyms... 48 Works Cited... 52 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Corridors of the Future... 1 Exhibit 2: Study Area... 3 Exhibit 3: Congested Urban Areas... 6 Exhibit 4: Peak-Period Congestion on the National Highway System - 27... 7 Exhibit 5: Peak-Period Congestion on the National Highway System 24... 7 Exhibit 6: Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes... 1 Exhibit 7: Average Truck Traffic on I-15 by State... 11 Exhibit 8: Primary Truck Corridors within California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah... 12 Exhibit 9: Existing Levels of Service... 13 Exhibit 1: Annual Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter in Urban Areas... 15 Exhibit 11: Total Annual Cost of Congestion in Urban Areas... 15 Exhibit 12: Annual Cost of Congestion per Auto Commuter in Urban Areas... 16 Exhibit 13: Top Ranked Truck Bottleneck Locations... 17 Exhibit 14: Fatalities by County for 29... 19 Exhibit 15: Crash Hot Spots... 2 Exhibit 16: Future 24 AADT... 22 Exhibit 17: Future 24 Levels of Service... 23 List of Tables Table 1: I-15 Corridor Statistics by State... 8 Table 2: Congestion Effects on the Average Commuter (29)... 14 Table 3: I-15 Crash Statistics by State... 18
I-15 Corridor Interstate 15 (I-15) is a major transcontinental north-south highway in the western United States that extends more than 1,47 miles through the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. It is the principal artery linking coastal ports to inland population centers and connects with the nation s three transcontinental east-west highways: I-1, I-8, and I-9. The I-15 transportation corridor links the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos Metropolitan area with the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan area, and several other suburban communities between them. Due to rapid population growth in recent years in the California Mojave Desert region, I-15 has become a heavily traveled commuter route between metropolitan Southern California and the communities of Victorville, Barstow, Hesperia, Apple Valley and Adelanto. It is also the primary access route between Southern California and Las Vegas with more than 8 million people driving this corridor annually. In Nevada, I-15 is the single most important tourism corridor and is essential for southern Nevada s economy. More than 8 percent of southern Nevada s goods movement is served by I-15. In Utah, I-15 is the primary transportation corridor, connecting the major population centers and serving the majority of the residents. I-15 was designated a Corridor of the Future in 27 between the southern terminus in San Diego, California to Northern Utah because of its regional significance for transportation of goods and people (see Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1: Corridors of the Future Source: FHWA, US Department of Transportation - Corridors of the Future Program I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 1
I-15 Mobility Alliance and Corridor System Master Plan The Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah have formed a cooperative alliance (I-15 Mobility Alliance) to develop a long-range multimodal transportation system master plan that will address current and future mobility needs along the I-15 corridor from Southern California to Northern Utah. This is an alliance of public and private agencies and users of the I-15 corridor working together to enhance the movement of people, freight and other commodities for decades to come. The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) contains multimodal solutions to mobility challenges within the corridor including moving more people and goods via rail, air, and transit in addition to potential highway and local/regional road network improvements. This Master Plan will also consider sustainable transportation solutions that integrate energy, data, and communications within the corridor. Study Area The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan study includes involvement from the DOTs in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah as well as key stakeholders along the corridor. The study area includes the I-15 corridor from the southern terminus in San Diego, California to the Utah/Idaho border. This portion of the facility covers approximately 84 miles: 29 miles in California, 12 miles in Nevada, 3 miles in Arizona, and 4 miles in Utah. The route segment runs through several major metropolitan areas including San Diego, the Inland Empire, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City, and connects with I-5, I-8, I-1, and I-4 in California, and I-7, I-8, and I-84 in Utah all major interstates. Exhibit 2 is a map of the study area. Vision Statement I-15 Mobility Alliance is a strategic partnership that brings together government, business and community stakeholders in a shared vision to plan, develop, finance, construct and manage a safer, more efficient and reliable multimodal transportation corridor. Mission Statement The I-15 Mobility Alliance transcends traditional transportation thinking by advancing innovation, longrange planning, investment and implementation of multimodal systems; including not only increased mobility of people and goods through highways, freight rail, transit and high speed passenger rail, but also forward-looking technologies for the transport of energy, data and communications. The I-15 Corridor is a vital linkage in the economy not only of the western US but of the entire nation. Projected increases in commodity flows from the western US and Mexican ports and population growth will result in expanded segments of I-15 experiencing severe congestion thus impeding commerce, hindering mobility, and degrading the quality-of-life of the people served by the corridor. The mission of the Alliance and its members is to develop, in partnership with public and private sectors, a comprehensive, multimodal Master Plan for the I-15 Corridor, to prioritize projects and policies of interregional significance, to seek financial and other resources necessary for the implementation of the Master Plan, and to devise appropriate governance mechanisms for the on-going efficient and effective construction, operations, and maintenance of the Corridor on a more sustainable basis. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 2
Exhibit 2: Study Area I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 3
Corridor System Characteristics Technical Memoranda These technical memoranda provide an overview of the regional and corridor characteristics, including details of the mega-regions along the corridor (San Diego, Southern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Salt Lake) and how they are interconnected. They also provide descriptions of the existing and future conditions of various modes along the corridor. There are six sections including: Socioeconomic Characteristics provides a detailed discussion of the population and employment growth for each mega-region. Highways includes a description of existing and future I-15 corridor characteristics such as average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, number of lanes, posted speeds, major interchanges, safety and ITS elements. Passenger Rail provides a description of existing and future passenger rail systems including information on future high speed rail projects. Aviation - contains information on the airports affecting I-15 in each mega-region along the corridor. ITS provides an overview of existing ITS elements and potential future highway technologies applicable to the I-15 corridor. Bicycling provides an overview of existing and future bicycle route systems including the United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS). I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 4
Highways Infrastructure networks provide important connections that join together urban areas, but the west region has an underdeveloped Interstate network. For example, an Interstate link between Phoenix and Las Vegas is missing which makes them the largest proximate metropolitan areas in the United States (US) not directly linked by an Interstate. (Brookings 28) Improving and maintaining existing infrastructure is an important national priority as the US seeks more trade and exports. Failure to establish adequate infrastructure to move people and goods around the country could significantly constrain future economic growth. (Lang, forthcoming) This technical memorandum discusses roadway and traffic conditions along the I-15 Corridor. It provides an overview of highway maintenance costs, nationwide congestion and the current and projected safety and operations along I-15 in terms of moving both people and goods. Highway Maintenance The nation s Interstate Highway System is over fifty years old and much of it is need of repair or replacement. According to the 27 AASHTO report Future Needs of the U.S. Surface Transportation System, several existing bridges, pavement on highways and interchanges are not up to current standards: Bridges. The Interstate System has more than 55, bridges, many of which are reaching 4 to 5 years of age. Bridges and other structures of this age usually require substantial rehabilitation, and in another 2 to 3 years, they will require replacement. Pavement. The Interstates have approximately 21, lane-miles of pavement. As these pavement structures reach 4 to 5 years of life, major portions will need to have their foundations completely reconstructed. Interchanges. The Interstate System has almost 15, interchanges, many of which do not meet current operational standards and create bottlenecks or safety problems. Some of the most significant congestion on the system is at major interchanges that were not designed to carry the volumes of traffic that currently use them. Higher projected future traffic volumes will exacerbate these problems. Adequate maintenance is vital to keep the highways operating in good condition. However, most public officials are not aware of the magnitude of this responsibility and the level of investment required for preserving the Interstate System. Capital investment in system preservation for both highways and bridges for the Interstate System totaled $9.1 billion in 22. According to AASHTO, the level of investments needed through 23 is nearly $273.8 billion. (AASHTO 27) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 5
Nationwide Congestion In 1982, only Los Angeles experienced over 4 hours of delay per peak traveler. By 25, 28 cities across the United States exceeded that threshold as shown in Exhibit 3 (NSTPRC, 27). Exhibit 3: Congested Urban Areas Source: National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission: Transportation for Tomorrow 27 The effects of congestion are greatest in the largest communities (over 3 million people), but other urban areas are also experiencing congestion delays. The average traveler in an urban community spent 35 hours in traffic in 29, compared to 14 hours in 1982. According to the Texas Transportation Institute s 21 Urban Mobility Report, drivers in metropolitan areas in 29 experienced 4.8 billion hours of delay and purchased an extra 3.9 billion gallons of fuel. The combined congestion cost of delay, based on the yearly value of delay time and extra purchased fuel, was $115 billion. The average cost per auto commuter in all urban areas was $88 in 29, ranging from $1,166 in areas over 3 million people to $436 in areas less than 5, people. The economic recession from 27 to 29 and slow recovery has slowed the expected increase in congestion; however, it is still a severe problem in US urban areas. Congestion levels rose every year from 1982 to 27. These conditions are expected to return with a strengthening economy (TTI 21). Exhibit 4 shows the congestion on the national highway system in 27 during the peak period based on data from Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Exhibit 5 shows the projected congestion on the national highway system in 24 during the peak period. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 6
Exhibit 4: Peak Period Congestion on the National Highway System 27 Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Exhibit 5: Peak Period Congestion on the National Highway System 24 Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 7
Existing Conditions of the I-15 Corridor Table 1 provides a summary of general highway data, from HPMS, for I-15 by state. The HPMS dataset is the most continuous dataset available, is annually maintained, and covers all four states along the I-15 corridor. The dataset is a state submitted and FHWA approved source of information that is the basis for allocation of Federal Aid Funds. HPMS allows a consistent comparison of all points along the corridor. A more detailed explanation of the use of HPMS data for this document is provided in Appendix A. The I-15 Corridor is predominately an eight-lane freeway at the south end in San Diego, California. In northeast San Diego, I-15 includes eight miles of high-occupancy vehicle/toll (HOV)/ (HOT) lanes on a cross-section of 1 and 12 lanes. Between Escondido and I-4 in Barstow, a distance of 156 miles, the corridor is a six to eight-lane freeway. North from Barstow, I-15 is primarily a rural four-lane freeway that continues into Nevada. Table 1: I 15 Corridor Statistics by State California Nevada Arizona Utah Center Line Miles 295.2 123.8 29.4 4.6 Number of Lanes 4 to 12 4 to 1 4 4 to 12 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,35 2,73 221 6,293 Maximum Annual Average Daily Traffic 294, 246, 23,818 244,525 Minimum Annual Average Daily Traffic 3, 17, 19,181 9,4 Speed Limit 45 to 7 65 to 75 55 to 75 65 to 75* Rest Areas 4 5 6 * Utah has test sections along I-15 with 8 mph posted speed limit, spanning a total of 77miles Source: 29 HPMS submittals from California, Nevada, and Utah, Arizona (28); Caltrans, ADOT, NDOT, UDOT. (HPMS data and results are useful for interstate comparisons, and in no way supplant the use of urban or statewide models. See Appendix A.) The majority of the I-15 Corridor through Nevada is a six-lane freeway from Primm to the I- 215 Beltway around Las Vegas. Between the Southern Beltway (I-215) and the I-15/US 93 (Spaghetti Bowl) interchange, the freeway widens from 6 to 1 lanes. After the I-15/ I-515/US 93 (Spaghetti Bowl) interchange at the north end of the Las Vegas urban area, I-15 becomes four lanes. The freeway enters the Moapa Indian Reservation and continues to the northeast towards Arizona. I-15 cuts through the northeast corner of Arizona in Mohave County for less than 3 miles. The four-lane section travels through the Virgin River Gorge to the southern Utah border. As I-15 enters southern Utah, it continues as a four-lane freeway through the greater St. George area in Washington County. North of State Route (SR) 2, the corridor is rural until reaching Utah County, the southern end of the Wasatch Front urbanized corridor. I-15 becomes a six-lane facility at US 6 in Spanish Fork, adds express HOT lanes at University Parkway in Orem (38 miles total to 23 North), then becomes a 1-lane facility with auxiliary lanes between Sandy and Salt Lake City. North of the I-8 interchange in Salt Lake City, the cross section reverts back to eight lanes, and then to six lanes in Ogden. North of Ogden, I-15 is a rural four-lane freeway that continues into Idaho. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 8
Daily Traffic The I-15 Corridor extends 84 miles through the four-state region, with approximately 32 miles through urban areas. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes for the I-15 corridor were obtained from HPMS since it is the most continuous dataset and annually maintained source available for the I-15 corridor. Currently, the average daily traffic throughout the entire corridor is over 6, vehicles per day, with a maximum of over 29, vehicles per day. Average daily truck traffic along the corridor is over 1, trucks per day with a maximum over 29, trucks per day. Daily traffic volumes on I-15 range from approximately 9,4 vehicles per day near the Idaho/Utah border to 294, vehicles per day in San Diego County. Exhibit 6 shows existing AADT volumes along I-15 from HPMS. San Diego, portions of San Bernardino County, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City all have AADTs over 2,. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 9
Exhibit 6: Existing Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes Source: National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) based on HPMS (HPMS data and results are useful for interstate comparisons, and in no way supplant the use of urban or statewide models. See Appendix A.) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 1
Truck Volumes Truck traffic in urban areas accounts for a smaller percentage of total traffic than in rural areas. The highest level of truck trips on the I-15 corridor was recorded near State Route 13 in Utah near Ogden, with approximately 29,5 trucks per day. Trucks represent a significant percentage of total traffic in rural areas. Daily truck traffic accounted for 45 percent of total daily traffic near State Route 13 in northern Utah near the Idaho border, which was the highest percentage on the corridor. High truck percentages (over 2%) are also experienced near Barstow (California), Primm (Nevada), and through the Virgin River Gorge in Arizona. The lowest daily truck volumes reported are in Arizona with approximately 4,2 trucks per day. Exhibit 7 presents the average percentage of trucks on I-15 in each state. Exhibit 7: Average Truck Traffic on I 15 by State 25% 2% 2% 21% 22% 15% 1% 11% 5% % California Nevada Arizona Utah State Average Source: Caltrans, NDOT, ADOT and UDOT Based on FHWA data, the segments of I-15 with the highest long distance truck volumes are those locations where I-15 overlaps with major east-west corridors, such as I-1 or I-4. I-15 is a gateway to transferring freight from Southern California to the rest of the country (see Exhibit 8). I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 11
Exhibit 8: Primary Truck Corridors within California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah Source: FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) 3.1, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ESRI and WSA Note: This exhibit does not include local truck traffic that is not part of the FAF 3.1 O/D database. Appendix A of the Freight Tech Memos describes the FAF 3.1 database in more detail. Congestion Exhibit 9 shows the existing congestion in the four-state region. I-15 is currently congested through major urban areas and near connections with other major highways. Other segments in the Salt Lake region and throughout Southern California and into Las Vegas are approaching capacity. The capacity assumptions used to create Exhibit 9 are based on the capacity reported for each highway segment in each state s HPMS submittal. The HPMS capacity calculations utilize procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The capacity coded in HPMS is used for system planning analysis, not project level analysis. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 12
Exhibit 9: Existing Levels of Service Source: FAF Network based on HPMS (HPMS data and results are useful for interstate comparisons, and in no way supplant the use of urban or statewide models. See Appendix A.) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 13
Congestion has multiple effects on both commuters and trucks, impacting businesses, suppliers, manufacturers and the economy as a whole. For example, if congestion affects truck productivity and delivery times, the congestion costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices affecting areas far away from the region where the congestion occurs. Table 2 summarizes the congestion effects on the average commuter for the metropolitan areas in the I-15 Corridor. The table includes: Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Extra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who commute in private vehicles in the urban area. Travel Time The ratio of travel time in the peak period to the travel time at free-flow conditions. A value of 1.25 indicates a 2-minute free-flow trip takes 25 minutes in the peak period. Excess Fuel Consumed Increased fuel consumption due to travel in congested conditions rather than free-flow conditions. Congestion Cost Value of travel time delay (estimated at $16 per hour of person travel and $16 per hour of truck time) and excess fuel consumption (estimated using state average cost per gallon). Urban Area Table 2: Congestion Effects on the Average Commuter (29) Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (Hours) Travel Time Excess Fuel per Auto Commuter (Gallons) Congestion Cost per Auto Commuter (Dollars) San Diego, CA 37 1.18 31 848 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 3 1.16 25 741 Las Vegas, NV 32 1.26 26 78 Provo, UT 14 1.6 12 36 Salt Lake City, UT 28 1.12 22 67 Source: Texas Transportation Institute: 21 Urban Mobility Report The 29 numbers show a decline in yearly delay per auto commuter compared to the 25 numbers (shown in Exhibit 3). The economic recession from 27 to 29 and slow recovery has slowed the expected increase in congestion; however, it is still a severe problem in US urban areas. Congestion levels rose every year from 1982 to 27. These conditions are expected to return with a strengthening economy. (TTI 21) Exhibit 1 graphically illustrates the annual hours of delay in each metropolitan area in the I- 15 Corridor. Commuters in San Diego and Las Vegas were estimated to experience over 3 hours of delay per year in 29. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 14
Exhibit 1: Annual Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter in Urban Areas 4 3 Hours 2 1 San Diego Riverside/San Bernardino Las Vegas Provo Salt Lake 1989 1999 29 Source: Texas Transportation Institute: 21 Urban Mobility Report The total cost of congestion for the metropolitan areas in the I-15 Corridor is shown in Exhibit 11. These costs account for the amount of lost time and fuel due to traffic congestion. The total cost of congestion is divided by the number of peak period travelers to determine the effect of congestion on an individual, as shown in Exhibit 12. The total cost of congestion in these urban areas was $3.8 billion in 29 or an average of $735 per auto commuter. The average cost of congestion per auto commuter in the I-15 Corridor urban areas ranged from $848 in San Diego, California to $36 in the Provo, Utah in 29. 2 175 Exhibit 11: Total Annual Cost of Congestion in Urban Areas Annual Cost (million $) 15 125 1 75 5 25 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2 23 26 29 San Diego Riverside/San Bernardino Las Vegas Provo Salt Lake Source: Texas Transportation Institute: 21 Urban Mobility Report I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 15
Exhibit 12: Annual Cost of Congestion per Auto Commuter in Urban Areas Cost per Auto Commuter ($) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 San Diego Riverside/San Bernardino Las Vegas Provo Salt Lake 1989 1999 29 Source: Texas Transportation Institute: 21 Urban Mobility Report According to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), five of the top 1 freight bottlenecks in the nation in 29 were along the I-15 Corridor. The majority of the locations that are currently monitored are urban interstate interchanges (ATRI 29): I-15 at I-515 in Las Vegas, Nevada (Ranked 12) I-15 at I-1 in Ontario, California (Ranked 23) I-15 at SR 91 in Corona, California (Ranked 47) I-15 at I-215 (South) in Salt Lake City, Utah (Ranked 82) I-15 at I-215 (North) in Salt Lake City, Utah (Ranked 95) Exhibit 13 shows the location of the top 1 freight bottleneck locations in California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 16
Exhibit 13: Top Ranked Truck Bottleneck Locations Source: American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 17
Safety Traffic incidents contribute to significant delays for both passenger and freight travel as well as costs to the public. Information regarding fatality rates and crash types can be used to analyze roadway conditions and driver performance. The most recent three consecutive years of data available for review from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) are for the period 26-28. Table 3 summarizes the traffic safety performance measures for each I-15 Corridor state, with a comparison to the entire US. All four states showed a decrease each year in the number of fatalities, except Utah between 26 and 27. Utah reported 862 fatalities over the three year period and had the lowest overall fatality rate. California and Utah were well below the national rate all three years. The I-15 fatality rates reported for Nevada and Arizona for the three years were consistently higher than the national fatality rate. Table 3: I 15 Crash Statistics by State State Fatality Rate per 1 MVMT Fatalities 26 27 28 26 27 28 Total Fatal Accidents California 1.29 1.21 1.5 4,24 3,995 3,434 11,669 Nevada 1.97 1.68 1.56 431 373 324 1,128 Arizona 2.7 1.7 1.52 1,293 1,71 938 3,32 Utah 1.11 1.11 1.6 287 299 276 862 US 1.42 1.36 1.26 42,78 41,259 37,423 121,39 Source: NHTSA FARS Exhibit 14 shows the total fatalities in each state by county for 29. The counties circled in each state are in the I-15 Corridor. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 18
Exhibit 14: Fatalities by County for 29 Source: NHTSA FARS Exhibit 15 shows the locations on I-15 within the four-state region with a high number of fatal crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. This number identifies the highway segments that have high fatal crash numbers compared to the amount of traffic flowing on that segment and helps locate problem areas. The rural 113-mile segment in Southern California between Barstow and the California/Nevada border has the highest fatality rate, specifically at the I-4 junction. Other hot spots are near Las Vegas, St. George and in Salt Lake City near the I-8 junction. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 19
Exhibit 15: Crash Hot Spots Source: NHTSA FARS I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 2
Future Conditions Daily Traffic The projected 24 average daily traffic throughout the entire corridor is over 19, vehicles per day with a maximum of over 6, vehicles per day. Average daily truck traffic along the corridor is over 24, trucks per day with a maximum of over 89, trucks per day. The 24 AADT data is from the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) network which is based on HPMS. The FAF network assumes a no-build network that includes all the foreseeable growth in the corridor, which is why there are ADT volumes over 6,. Some of this future growth would be accommodated by future improvements or parallel facilities. Daily traffic volumes on I-15 in 24 are projected to range from approximately 22,4 vehicles per day near the Idaho/Utah border to 69, vehicles per day in Salt Lake City. Exhibit 16 shows the projected 24 AADT volumes along I-15. San Diego, San Bernardino, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City are all expected to have AADTs over 3, vehicles per day by 24. Other segments between San Diego and San Bernardino Counties are projected to carry volumes over 2, vehicles per day. AADTs between 5, and 1, vehicles per day are estimated in rural areas between Southern California and Las Vegas and through Southern Utah near Washington County (St. George area). Truck Volumes The highest number of truck trips is projected on I-15 in Salt Lake City with approximately 89,2 trucks per day. Trucks will continue to represent a significant percentage of total traffic in rural areas. Daily truck traffic will account for 39 percent of total daily traffic on I-15 in Arizona through the Virgin River Gorge, the highest projected percentage on the corridor. The lowest daily truck volumes are projected near the Idaho/Utah border with approximately 5,4 trucks per day. Congestion Exhibit 17shows the projected congestion in the four-state region in 24. I-15 is expected to be highly congested throughout Southern California and into Las Vegas as well as through the majority of Utah. The only uncongested segments will be between Las Vegas and the Arizona border and some rural areas in Utah. More detailed exhibits including existing and future (24) AADT, average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT), congestion, safety hot spots and bottlenecks along the I-15 corridor is provided in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a discussion about the differences in data from HPMS versus travel demand models and a detailed explanation of the use of HPMS data for this document. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 21
Exhibit 16: Future 24 AADT Source: FAF 3 Network based on HPMS (HPMS data and results are useful for interstate comparisons, and in no way supplant the use of urban or statewide models. See Appendix A) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 22
Exhibit 17: Future 24 Levels of Service Source: FAF 3 Network based on HPMS (HPMS data and results are useful for interstate comparisons, and in no way supplant the use of urban or statewide models. See Appendix A.) I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 23
Major Connections and Regionally Significant Bottlenecks Areas with congestion, high truck traffic, and safety problems are focus points when looking to improve regional mobility along I-15. The following section discusses the major interstate and highway connections along I-15 and regionally significant bottlenecks. Major Connections in Southern California I-15 begins in San Diego County and connects with Interstate 8 which runs along the US- Mexico border and connects San Diego to I-1 near Casa Grande, Arizona. Continuing north through Riverside County, I-15 connects with SR 91 in Corona and SR 6 near Ontario serving Orange and Los Angeles Counties as well as the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. In San Bernardino County, I-15 connects with I-1 in Ontario, connecting Southern California with Arizona and points east. In Fontana, I-15 connects with SR 21 a high volume commuter route. In Devore, I-215 merges with I-15 just south of Cajon Pass. In Barstow, I-15 connects with SR 58 which is a westerly extension of I-4 from Barstow to California s Central Valley and carries large volumes of agricultural truck traffic, and I-4, which continues to the east across eight states. I-15 connects with US 395 in Hesperia which accesses the eastern Sierra Nevada area. I-15/I-215 Devore Interchange in San Bernardino, California According to Caltrans and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the junction of I-15 and I-215, known as the Devore interchange, is the worst bottleneck on I-15 in San Bernardino County. More than one million vehicles travel through this interchange each week. Currently the interchange experiences 1,2 daily vehicle hours of delay at an annual cost of $3.75 million. These numbers are expected to increase by the year 24 to 25, daily vehicle hours of delay at an annual cost of more than $8 million. The heavy growth in the suburban areas in Victor Valley is also a contributing factor to the congestion at the Devore Interchange. Traffic queues extend south for more than three miles during the afternoon peak hour. Friday evening delays are much longer, due to recreational drivers bound for Las Vegas and Laughlin (SANBAG 29). Conflicts occur between trucks carrying freight through the area and recreational traffic traveling to the Mojave Desert, Death Valley, the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains, and Las Vegas. A combination of factors such as higher than average truck volumes, sustained steep grades, roadway design limitations, heavy traffic demand on both weekends and weekdays, as well as a lack of alternative travel options contribute to the bottleneck. Southern California to Las Vegas I-15 is the main connection between Southern California and Las Vegas. The 25 ridership study estimated that one-third of the 38 million annual Las Vegas visitors and business travelers come from Southern California, and an estimated 72 percent of them drive to Las Vegas on I-15. In 25, there were an estimated 56,7 person trips on Fridays to Las Vegas from California, which translates to an estimated annual volume of 11.77 million passenger trips by automobile on I-15. Congestion delay during peak days (Friday to Sunday) on I-15 between Southern California and Las Vegas is projected to grow from 1.25 hours per vehicle to 3.19 hours per vehicle in 212, to 7.3 hours in 222, even with planned improvements in place (FRA 29). I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 24
Major Connections in Nevada In October 21, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) officially opened the new segment of US 93 connecting Arizona and Nevada over the Colorado River. The increasing congestion near the Hoover Dam and the restrictions of commercial trucks at the dam crossing led to the development of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project. The Hoover Dam Bypass Project is a 3.5-mile corridor beginning in Clark County, Nevada and crossing the Colorado River approximately 1,5 feet downstream of the Hoover Dam, then terminating in Mohave County, Arizona on US 93. The opening of the Hoover Dam Bypass allows a larger percentage of trucks to travel to I-15 from Phoenix on US 93 instead of traveling through Laughlin, Nevada or Page, Arizona and Kanab, Utah, along I-17, US 89, and Utah SR 2, due to prohibitions of commercial 18-wheel semitrucks over the Hoover Dam. I-15/US 95/I-515 Spaghetti Bowl Interchange in Las Vegas, Nevada I-15 through the Las Vegas Resort Corridor, between the Southern Beltway (I-215) and the I- 15/US 95 (Spaghetti Bowl) interchange, accommodates residents and millions of Las Vegas visitors. Of the 36 million people who visited Las Vegas in 29, about 58 percent of them arrived by ground transportation. In 29, Spaghetti Bowl ramps handled an average of 195, vehicles per day. I-15 south of the Spaghetti Bowl had 221, AADT, and US 95 north of the Spaghetti Bowl had 212, AADT. By 23, these numbers are expected to increase to 44, vehicles per day on Spaghetti Bowl ramps, with over 5, vehicles per day on I-15 south of the Spaghetti Bowl and over 48, vehicles per day on US 95 north of the Spaghetti Bowl. (CH2M HILL 21) The Spaghetti Bowl interchange is ranked the 12 th worst freight bottleneck location in the nation according to ATRI. Major Connections in Utah As the only north-south interstate highway in Utah, I-15 has significant connections with eastwest routes serving the Midwest, Mountain West, and East Coast. I-15 joins I-8 in Salt Lake City, providing westbound connections to Reno, Sacramento, and the San Francisco Bay Area, along with eastbound connections to urban centers in the Midwest and the East Coast. I-15 connects with I-84 south of Ogden, serving Portland, Oregon and the seaport facilities there, and with I-7 at Cove Fort, which connects southern California and Nevada with Denver and points east. Another noteworthy connection is with US 6, which carries traffic and freight from the Salt Lake region to points east via its connection with I-7 near Green River. I-15 also passes through the greater St. George area in Washington County, one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. Congestion on I-15 is increasing on this four-lane freeway section and is projected to extend northward as far as Utah SR 2, north of Cedar City, within the next 2 years. The steep grades south of Cedar City along with the very high truck percentage (3%) cause significant speed reductions in both directions. I-15 currently experiences significant delays during peak periods in Utah, Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties. According to average daily traffic data from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), I-15 currently carries 43 percent of all traffic in the southern portion of Salt Lake City where there are no parallel freeway routes. Based on projected growth in population and vehicle miles traveled, it is expected that by 23, the majority of the mainline I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 25
I-15 segments and interchanges will be over capacity and heavily congested through these areas with an existing plus funded transportation system (MAG, WFRC 27). I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 26
Appendix A HPMS Data Discussion and I-15 Corridor Characteristics Exhibits I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 27
Comparing HPMS data and Travel Demand Model outputs The HPMS dataset is the most continuous dataset available, is annually maintained, and covers all four states along the I-15 corridor. The dataset is a state submitted and Federal FHWA approved source of information that is the basis for allocation of Federal Aid Funds. The HPMS allows consistent comparison of all points along the corridor. This is important when prioritizing the projects for the Alliance. While some points along I-15 may come into question when compared to travel demand model volumes, the order of magnitude of traffic level changes between different areas is generally accepted to be comparable. The main difference between the HPMS dataset and Travel Demand Model (TDM) outputs is the AADT (HPMS) and the peak period of peak hour traffic (most urban TDM). While the peak hour traffic produces a good overview of strained and congested areas during the morning and afternoon peak periods, the time and probability to produce or piece together such a network for the I-15 project was infeasible. In addition, the Alliance would need to determine the degree of traffic in rural areas outside of the urbanized areas. This is an aspect of analysis that is contained only within the HPMS dataset. TDMs also account for the inclusion of future projects and the diversion of traffic due to congestion and new routes. However, the projections based on HPMS assume linear traffic growth using the future AADT field as a point of reference. HPMS also does not contain committed system improvements. Roadway capacity assumptions vary between different TDMs and for HPMS. This variable will also influence the levels/threshold each agency is using for the level of service categories. While the HPMS dataset is not as detailed as the output from urban and statewide models, the intent was to use urban and statewide models for a more refined analysis within specific areas. This will occur later, during the specific project development process, and has less effect at this stage during the high-level analysis of needs. An additional benefit to the future analysis of I-15 is the new 21 data model for the HPMS. This makes the data source a more comprehensive and robust data set for future use by the states individually and Alliance partners as a whole. Disclaimer: The use of HPMS data and results reported within this document does not supplant the use of urban models or statewide models along the corridor. Variables within the models and this analysis are not intended to be comparable as they measure different aspects of traffic growth and network demand. While the HPMS data set has the unique advantage of providing comparable data across jurisdictional and state boundaries, it will generally understate the severity and timing of congestion when compared to the peak hour congestion data produced by more detailed regional traffic models. I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 28
Detailed Corridor Sections: Legend Each page represents approximately 5 miles of the I-15 corridor, starting in San Diego and moving north to the Utah-Idaho border. This legend shows the page number associated with each section of the corridor. Page 17 is the only section that is less than 5 miles, because the study area of the corridor ends before completing another full 5 miles. 45, 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, San Diego County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Bernardino County Clark County Mohave Washington County County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45, 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Washington County Iron County Beaver County Millard County Juab County Utah County Salt Lake County Davis County Weber County Box Elder County 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Not to geographic scale
There are four main sources for the data provided in this appendix the latest HPMS submittals provided directly by each of the DOTs in the four-state study area, the FAF network, the FARS database, and ATRI research. Values for AADT, AADTT, and the number of through lanes are based on the latest HPMS submittals from each state (29 for Caltrans, UDOT, and NDOT and 28 for ADOT). The future and existing congestion indices are based on data from the FAF network. The FAF network, which is published by FHWA, provides a volume-tocapacity ratio for the years 27 and 24. These two years represent the existing and future time periods, respectively. A road segment with a volume-tocapacity ratio of.75 or less has been classified as having little or no congestion. A segment with a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than.75 but less than or equal to.95 has been classified as having congestion. A segment with a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than.95 has been classified as having extreme congestion. The volume-to-capacity ratios provided in the FAF network were calculated using HPMS data as inputs. Road segments with high rates of fatal crashes are those segments where the number of crashes per million vehicle miles of travel is in the top 2 percent of all the segments on I-15. Freight bottleneck points are interchanges that ATRI has identified as being bottlenecks for freight movement. Disclaimer: The use of HPMS data and results reported within this document does not supplant the use of urban models or statewide models along the corridor. Variables within the models and this analysis are not intended to be comparable as they measure different aspects of traffic growth and network demand. While the HPMS data set has the unique advantage of providing comparable data across jurisdictional and state boundaries, it will generally understate the severity and timing of congestion when compared to the peak hour congestion data produced by more detailed regional traffic models. The legend on the preceding page and the following corridor sections are not to exact geographic scale. Each section along the corridor is approximately 5 miles long. The legend shows all the sections in relation to each other along the corridor. The legend also displays numbers that each match with the detailed sections shown on the following pages. Within each section, the various series of data are not to exact geographic scale. The data series are tied to data points, which are presented as being equally spaced within the corridor sections. These data points, however, represent corridor segments of varying length, thus the data points are not shown at their exact geographic location. This fact also causes each section to not be exactly 5 miles, but the sections are generally within a mile or two of having a 5-mile length. The four bars of information at the top of each detailed section page were produced in association with the segments. Thus, if a bar were to cover half of section of the corridor, it would not necessarily be 25 miles in length. Rather it applies to the first half of the data points. The locations listed along the bottom of the corridor also do not always occur exactly at the specified data point. In some cases, the location is tied to the nearest data point. The purpose of these corridor sections is to provide many pieces of data in a single view while still maintaining sufficient locational accuracy to allow comparison on a corridor-wide perspective. The information provides sufficiently-localized data points that can be compared to other sufficiently-localized data points. This information, while very useful for high-level analysis covering multiple states, may not be suitable for analyses which occur at different levels of scale.
SR-94 I-85 I-8 SR-52 SR-163 SR-56 SR-78 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck 45, San Diego County 491,8 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 1, 4 5, 2 1 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
I-215 SR-91 SR-6 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Riverside County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 1 3, 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 2 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Congestion Extreme Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
I-1 SR-21 I-215 US-395 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck San Bernardino County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 3 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
SR-58 I-4 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck San Bernardino County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 4 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
Baker Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck San Bernardino County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 5 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
CA/NV Line Jean Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck San Bernardino County Clark County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 6 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
SR-146 SR-16 I-215 I-515/US-95 Craig Rd. CC 215 SR-64 US-93 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Clark County 45, 456,3 14 4, 35, 3, 12 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 1, 4 5, 2 7 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
US-93 Glendale SR-169 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Clark County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 8 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
Mesquite Blv NV/AZ Line AZ/UT Line SR-18 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Clark County Mohave County Washington County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 9 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
SR-9 SR-17 SR-56 SR-13 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Washington County Iron County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 1 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
SR-2 Beaver Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Iron County Beaver County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 11 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
I-7 Fillmore Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Beaver County Millard County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 12 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
US-5 W US-5 E Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Millard County Juab County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 13 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
Nephi US-6 W US-6 E Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Juab County Utah County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 14 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
US 189 SR-265 SR-154 I-215 S I-8 SR-21 I-8 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Utah County Salt Lake County 45, 526,6 14 4, 35, 3, 12 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 1, 4 5, 2 15 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
I-215 N US-89 I-84 US-91 Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Davis County Weber County Box Elder County 45, 453,2 14 4, 35, 3, 12 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 1, 4 5, 2 16 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
US-91 I-84 ID Future Congestion Existing Congestion High Fatal Crash Rate Freight Bottleneck Box Elder County 45, 14 4, 12 35, 3, 1 25, 8 2, 6 15, 4 1, 5, 2 17 24 AADT 29 AADT 24 AADTT 29 AADTT Through Lanes Extreme Congestion Congestion Little or no congestion Not to geographic scale
List of Acronyms AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AADTT Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic AAR American Association of Railroads AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI Airports Council International ADT Average Daily Traffic ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation AFB Air Force Base ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ATM Active Traffic Management ATRI American Transportation Research Institute AVC Automated Vehicle Classification AVI Automated Vehicle Identification AZ Arizona BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics BUR Bob Hope/ Burbank Airport C2C Center to Center CA California CAD Computer Aided Dispatch CALNEV Pipeline from Los Angeles to Las Vegas Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBER Center for Business and Economic Research CCDOA Clark County Department of Aviation CCTV Closed Circuit Television CHP California Highway Patrol CNSSTC California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission COG Council of Governments CSX Class I Railroad Corporation CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks CVO Commercial Vehicle Operations I-15CSMP_CORRCHAR_HIGHWAYS 48