Development of Congestion Management Process Using A Travel Demand Forecasting Model

1
Development of Congestion Management Process
Using A Travel Demand Forecasting Model
Huey P. Dugas
TRB Planning Applications Conference Reno,
Nevada May 11, 2011
2
Causes of Congestion
3
(No Transcript)
4
Causes of Congestion
5
MO in Context of Metropolitan Transportation
Planning Requirements
6
MPO Part of Capital Region Planning Commission
7
(No Transcript)
8
384Text Pages 65 Maps (Graphics) 449 Total
Pages
www.crpc-la.org
9
Model Trips by Purpose
n
10
Model Trips by Purpose
11
Model Trips by Purpose
HBW NHBW Trips in 2009 26.3
12
Federal Regulations Congestion Management
Process (CMP)
13
(No Transcript)
14
http//crpc-la.org/crpc_new/Documents/CMP/CMP_2010
.pdf
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Congested Segments by Functional Class
18
(No Transcript)
19
VC Ratio Map Dataview (Partial)
20
CMP Corridor Map
21
Segment Rankings and Prioritization Process
22
Congestion Management Process Corridor Map
Dataview (Partial)
23
(No Transcript)
24
Geo
25
Crash Rate Estimation
Crash Rate (Rse) Formula Rse (A)(1,000,000)
/ (365)(T)(V)(L) where Rse Crash Rate of
Section of Exposure in accidents per million
vehicle miles of travel (ACC/MVM) A
Total number of accidents on the roadway section
for the analysis period T Time period of
the study (in years or fraction of years) V
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) during the
study period L Length of section in miles
26
Thematic Map of Volumes with 2008 Crash Data
27
CMP Criteria for Implementation

• Criteria Selecting Prioritizing Congested
  Segments
• Congestion/Delay in Time (Daily Delay Vehicle
  Hour per Mile of Segment)
• Transit, e.g., Does Identified segment have
  transit service?
• Safety (Number of Crashes in 2008 on a Segment)
• Projects Planned in TIP
• Projects in Long Range Transportation Plan
• Local Priorities

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Local Input Priorities Strategies Ascension
Parish
31
Example of Local Input - East Baton Rouge Parish
32
Example of Local Input - East Baton Rouge Parish
33
(No Transcript)
34
Introduction to and Update on Unconventional
Intersections and Interchanges

• Joseph E. Hummer, Ph.D., P.E.
• Professor of Civil Engineering
• Raleigh, NC
• Telephone [phone]
• Email hummer_at_ncsu.edu
• For LA Planning Council, March 30, 2010

35
Superstreet
36
(No Transcript)
37
Advantages of Superstreet (Conceptual)

• Referred to as Michigan Left, since used in
  Detroit for decades
• Used on Arterials w/ Heavy Traffic Compared to
  Cross Streets
• Cross Street Traffic Takes Right Turn at
  Intersection, Then U-Turn and Right Turn
• Cross Traffic Choosing Left on Sherwood, Follows
  Same Path but Remains on Sherwood
• Traffic Signal Phasing Reduced to 2 Phases (1 for
  Protected Left/Right Movements) at U-turn
  Crossovers and Cross Street Intersections, and 1
  for Thru Movement

38
Advantages of Superstreet (Benefits)

• Superstreet eliminates cross-traffic on Principal
  Arterial
• Allows longer Green Times for Thru Traffic on
  Principal Arterial
• So Higher Volumes Get Through During Each Cycle
• Appears Counter Intuitive but Reduces Congestion
• Some Commute Times have shown reductions by 50
• Increases safety by reducing the number of
  conflict points from 32 (conventional
  intersection) to 14 (super street).
• http//www.texashighwayman.com/us281ss.shtml

39
Superstreet Advantages
Advantage Urban? Rural?
Safety Maybe v
Progression v
Capacity v
Pedestrians v
40
Superstreet Advantages

• Perfect two-way progression at any speed with any
  signal spacing!
• Install signals anywhere
• You set progression speed

41
Pedestrians

• Safe, controlled
• Slow, two-stage
• Could offset vehicles to align pedestrians
• Could place midblock ped signals almost anywhere
• Could easily prohibit RTOR

42
Vicinity Maps of Priority A Segments
43
Next Steps

• Priority A Segments Eligible for Stage 0
  Studies
• Incorporate Priority Segments in Next Long Range
  Plan Update
• Monitor Strategy Effectiveness
• Re-evaluate CMP Process (Objectives, Network,
  Segments and Strategies

44
Process Limitations Proposed ProjectsLA
1/I-10 Connector
45
LA 1/I-10 Connector

• LA 1 Hwy 4 Lane Divided North South Direction
• Connects Mississippi River Bridge on Interstate
  10 to Chemical Plants South
• Large Commute Pattern for Work Trips
• Intracoastal Canal Bridge Near I-10 Bridge
  Problems of Age, Capacity, Repairs, Maintenance
  and Accidents (No Detour)
• 3 Mile New Route Designed as Toll Road
• Use Private-Public Partnership as Revenue Source
• Design Build Proposal
• Completing Investment Grade Study
• Approved Environmental Study
• Modeling Shows 4 Lanes Justified

46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
No. Year Gross Toll Cumulative ADT
0 2012 1,373,700 1,373,700 7,045
1 2013 1,646,200 3,019,900 8,442
2 2014 1,941,200 4,961,100 9,955 Need 4 Lanes before 11,000 (after 2.35 yrs) Need 4 Lanes before 11,000 (after 2.35 yrs) Need 4 Lanes before 11,000 (after 2.35 yrs) Need 4 Lanes before 11,000 (after 2.35 yrs) Need 4 Lanes before 11,000 (after 2.35 yrs)
3 2015 2,254,900 7,216,000 11,564
4 2016 2,605,300 9,821,300 13,361
5 2017 2,969,400 12,790,700 15,228
6 2018 3,169,900 15,960,600 16,256
7 2019 3,371,900 19,332,500 17,292
8 2020 3,575,400 22,907,900 18,335
9 2021 3,780,400 26,688,300 19,387
10 2022 3,987,100 30,675,400 20,447
11 2023 4,126,600 34,802,000 21,162
12 2024 4,266,000 39,068,000 21,877
13 2025 4,405,500 43,473,500 22,592
14 2026 4,545,000 48,018,500 23,308
15 2027 4,684,500 52,703,000 24,023
16 2028 4,823,900 57,526,900 24,738
17 2029 4,963,400 62,490,300 25,453
18 2030 5,102,900 67,593,200 26,169
19 2031 5,242,400 72,835,600 26,884 Need 6 Lanes before 27,000 (after 19 years) Need 6 Lanes before 27,000 (after 19 years) Need 6 Lanes before 27,000 (after 19 years) Need 6 Lanes before 27,000 (after 19 years) Need 6 Lanes before 27,000 (after 19 years)
20 2032 5,381,800 78,217,400 27,599
  Total 78,217,400    
50
LA 1 Connector Toll Facility

• 2001 WBR Conducted Feasibility Study to Build New
  Road to Connect LA 415 at I-10 and LA 1
• DOTD Contracted to Conduct Alignment Analysis and
  Environmental Study
• Environmental Study Concluded with FONSI
• Immediately Contacted by Private Investors for
  Concession to Build as Tolled Project

51
Project Description

• Need Driven by Detour and Evacuation Route for
  Traffic South of I-10
• Alternative Route for Local and Regional
  Traffic During Peak Periods
• Detour Traffic for Maintenance/Repairs/Accidents
  Existing LA 1 Intracoastal Bridge
• Serves Demand for Trucks to Intermodal
  Facilities at Baton Rouge Port and Operations on
  Northline Road

52
Current Status

• Decision to Build Toll Facility Through Public
  Private Partnership
• Local Toll Authority (TA) Created
• Articles of Incorporation Adopted and Filed w/
  Secretary of State
• Bylaws Adopted at TAs Organizational Meeting
• TA Receiving 5mil from State Legislature to
  Prepare Prelim Design
• Prelim Design Plans Used to Purchase
  Right-of-Way on Three Parcels
• TA Advertise and Select Private Investor on
  Completion of Preliminary Design
• Private Investors To Contract for Preparation
  Final Design and Construction
• TA and PP to Contract for Operation and
  Maintenance of Road and Toll Operations

53
Development of Congestion Management Process
Using A Travel Demand Forecasting Model
Huey P. Dugas
TRB Planning Applications Conference Reno,
Nevada May 11, 2011