Transportation Alternatives in Hampton Roads (Dec08)


Published on

Transportation Sub-Committee Meeting of 10 Dec 08 reports on alternatives and their ramifications to improving road congestion in Hampton Roads and the need to be ready to claim infrastructure stimulus money from the Obama administration.

Published in: Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Transportation Alternatives in Hampton Roads (Dec08)

    1. 2. HRMPO Proposed Alternatives <ul><li>3 rd Crossing from Southside to the Northern Peninsula. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 1: Widen I-664 from Bowers Hill to Hampton. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 2: Add a bridge-tunnel between the existing MMMBT and I-564 in Norfolk and a connector across Craney Island from new bridge-tunnel and the Western Freeway. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Southeastern Parkway/Dominion Boulevard from Virginia Beach to Chesapeake. </li></ul><ul><li>Widen Midtown Tunnel and extend MLK Freeway to I-264. </li></ul><ul><li>Improving Route 460 (eventual construction of a parallel roadway) </li></ul><ul><li>Widen I-64 on the Northern Peninsula as far west as Route 199. </li></ul><ul><li>Widen I-64 on the Southside (including the High Rise Bridge) from Battlefield Boulevard in Chesapeake to Bowers Hill in Suffolk </li></ul>
    2. 3. HRMPO Proposed Alternatives
    3. 4. Key Sections of Study <ul><li>Macroscopic transportation model (regional traffic demand model) </li></ul><ul><li>Freight Modeling </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adds impact of cargo transfer and large trucks to the traffic demand model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Congestion analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mesoscopic transportation simulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability of selected sections of network assessed for ability to clear congestion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accidents and Incidents </li></ul><ul><li>Potential economic model </li></ul>
    4. 5. Assistance Provided Study <ul><li>Virginia Department of Transportation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Statewide traffic demand model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hampton Roads regional traffic demand model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Global Insight, Inc. Transearch Database (nationwide database of freight traffic flow) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accident and incident data compiled by Virginia State Police (restricted to events with injury or property damage exceeding $1000) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hampton Roads Traffic Operations Center </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hampton Roads accident and incident data based on Safety Service Patrols reports </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hourly traffic flow data for 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis suggestions, reviews, and comments </li></ul></ul>
    5. 6. Metrics Used in Analysis <ul><li>Vehicle Volume : The number of vehicles assigned to the analyzed road section. </li></ul><ul><li>Level of Service Indicator (Volume/Capacity) : Road segment volume is the maximum demand (number of vehicles) using the segment. Capacity is the maximum that can be handled before additional traffic is diverted to other routes. V/C = 1 means a road is operating at its maximum capability. V/C>1 means congestion will occur due to high volume. </li></ul><ul><li>Speed Decay : Free-flow speed (FFS) is the vehicle speed for vehicles experiencing no congestion. Congestion forces vehicles to slow. Speed decay is the ratio of free-flow speed to modeled speed. Speed decay values of >1.0 indicate speeds are reduced due to congestion. </li></ul>
    6. 7. Freight Traffic Modeling <ul><li>Integrates freight traffic with passenger traffic in the traffic demand model. </li></ul><ul><li>Commonwealth does not have a Cube Cargo freight model. </li></ul><ul><li>Commonwealth provided the Global Insight Transearch Database, which was used to extract anticipated 2030 truck volumes. </li></ul>
    7. 8. Freight Modeling Metrics <ul><li>Four metrics have been selected to describe the performance of the road transportation system. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Truck volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total vehicle volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of service (volume/Capacity) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed decay (Free-flow to congested speed ratio) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tables summarizing these performance indicators for 27 selected locations in the road network are provided for each scenario </li></ul>
    8. 9. Year 2000 Level of Service Significant sections around region are already congested or extremely congested
    9. 10. 2030 No-build Level of Service Majority of principal roads throughout region are congested or extremely congested
    10. 11. Year 2030 All Build Level of Service Congestion improves compared to no-build scenario, especially on MMMBT and JRB.
    11. 12. 3 rd Crossing (Ph. 2) Level of Service Significant improvement at MMMBT and some improvement to HRBT with new lanes on I-664 .
    12. 13. Six-lane HRBT Level of Service Improved service on JRB and MMMBT as traffic shifts to expanded HRBT, which remains highly congested with increased volume.
    13. 14. Year 2000 Speed Decay Lower than free flow speeds in large portions of Peninsula, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and all bridges and tunnels
    14. 15. Year 2030 No-build Speed Decay Severe speed reductions much more extensive on highways and on selected local roads.
    15. 16. Year 2030 All Build Speed Decay Compared to no-build scenario, vehicle movements will be faster, but roads remain congested.
    16. 17. 3 rd Crossing (Ph. 2) Speed Decay I-664 is less congested, but congestion on other roads remains
    17. 18. Six Lane HRBT Speed Decay Widespread low congested speeds remain, but are improved on HRBT, MMBT, and JRB
    18. 19. Macroscopic Modeling <ul><li>“ Big Picture” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot model individual vehicles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All vehicles modeled as passenger cars </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assesses over 5 million trips/day and over 1000 origin and destination zones </li></ul><ul><li>Fourteen total scenarios analyzed </li></ul><ul><li>All alternatives assumed to be assigned tolls with rates as indicated in the VDOT provided model </li></ul><ul><li>Cube Voyager (Citilabs ® , Inc.) </li></ul>
    19. 20. Scenarios Analyzed <ul><li>Fourteen total Scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>Four main sections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No build scenario </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All build scenario (includes completion of the six alternatives proposed by the HRMPO) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual alternatives analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HRBT analyses </li></ul></ul>
    20. 21. HRBT Traffic Demand and V/C
    21. 22. Peak Hour V/C Ratios of Road Segments Where Each Project is Built
    22. 23. Peak Hour V/C Ratios: Impacts of “All Build” and HRBT Expansion on Third Crossing and Midtown Tunnel
    23. 24. Peak Hour Speeds (mph) on Road Segments Where Each Project is Built
    24. 25. Incident-Induced Congestion Analysis <ul><li>Mesoscopic simulation: Citilabs ® Cube Avenue </li></ul><ul><li>Selected sections of network tested </li></ul><ul><li>Testing assumed rush hour conditions and three incident scenarios: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shoulder blocked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One lane blocked </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two lanes blocked (selected sections) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For simplicity of comparison, all incidents assumed to have 15 minute duration </li></ul>
    25. 26. Incident-Reduced Capacity Values taken from HCM 2000 Exhibit 28-6
    26. 27. Critical Segment Daily Traffic Flow <ul><li>Note variances in flow during the day and variances between segments </li></ul><ul><li>Rush hour volumes simulated during incident </li></ul>
    27. 28. Congestion Analysis Results
    28. 29. Congestion Analysis Videos Video Simulation Unavailable at this time [email_address] For more information
    29. 30. Congestion Analysis Videos <ul><li>Simulations Videos show: </li></ul><ul><li>A 15-minute incident at HRBT and its effects on length </li></ul><ul><li>of back-up, traffic flow and time to clear traffic as follows: </li></ul><ul><li>Current status </li></ul><ul><li>Status with 1 additional HRBT lane both east and west </li></ul><ul><li>Status with “3 rd crossing” diverting traffic through MMBT </li></ul>
    30. 31. Study Conclusions <ul><li>Failure to take action should not be an option . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All major road ways will be very congested. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peak hour demand will exceed capacity by more than 50% on most critical roads. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All alternatives significantly improve local recurrent and incident induced congestion. </li></ul><ul><li>Of 6 proposed alternatives, only the 3rd Crossing appreciably improves conditions at the HRBT. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Even with the building of the 3 rd Crossing and a significant shift of traffic to this route, volume at the HRBT will still exceed capacity. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Only expanding the HRBT can relieve both recurrent and incident-induced congestion at the HRBT. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expanding the HRBT to 6 lanes (or more) and imposition of tolls will relieve some, but not all, of the recurrent congestion. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Combining an expanded HRBT and the 3 rd Crossing (Phase 2) greatly improves congestion. </li></ul></ul>
    31. 32. Questions?
    32. 34. Backup Slides
    33. 35. Year 2000 Total Daily Volume <ul><li>Heaviest traffic is near I-264/I-64 interchange </li></ul><ul><li>Other high traffic areas on I-64 and I-564 </li></ul>
    34. 36. Year 2030 No-build Total Volume Traffic volumes increase significantly on all major freeways, on US17 and west on US58
    35. 37. Year 2030 All Build Total Volume Moderate shift in volumes compared to no-build scenario
    36. 38. 3 rd Crossing Phase 2 Total Volume Significant shift in traffic from HRBT to 3 rd Crossing
    37. 39. Six-lane HRBT Total Volume Traffic volume on HRBT increases with addition of six lanes with some traffic shifting from MMMBT
    38. 40. HRBT Traffic Demand and V/C p. B-7
    39. 41. Project Traffic Demand, V/C, and Speed p. B-11
    40. 42. Project Traffic Demand, V/C, and Speed p. B-12