Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Beltway - PDF document

Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro Beltway Feasibility Study Beltway Feasibility Study MTMUG MTMUG March 19, 2009 March 19, 2009 Courtney S okol and Greg Youell Courtney S okol and Greg Youell Purpose of this Study Purpose of this Study � To determine the need for and � To determine the need for and feasibility of an outer loop freeway feasibility of an outer loop freeway AND AND � Determine if land use patterns or � Determine if land use patterns or other transportation network other transportation network options alter the answer options alter the answer 1

Study Sponsors Study Sponsors What is a Beltw ay & What is a Beltw ay & What Would it Do? What Would it Do? � A maj or, limited access roadway � A maj or, limited access roadway around a metropolitan area around a metropolitan area � Maintain a quality transportation � Maintain a quality transportation system system � History of the beltway concept in � History of the beltway concept in Omaha Omaha 2

Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model 730 Original TAZs + 730 Original TAZs + 132 Expanded TAZs 132 Expanded TAZs Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model � External S tat ions: � External S tat ions: – 15 moved – 15 moved outward outward – 2 remain the same – 2 remain the same – 11 new locations – 11 new locations 3

Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model � No Area Codes � No Area Codes Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model � Area Codes: � Area Codes: –Created to establish –Created to establish varying production varying production and attraction rates and attraction rates in the urban versus in the urban versus rural areas rural areas 4

Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model � With Area Codes � With Area Codes Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Expanded 2004 Base Year Model � Production Rates � Production Rates Production Rates � Rural TAZs (3) and Rural Enclave � Rural TAZs (3) and Rural Enclave New TAZs (4) have lower product ion TAZs (4) have lower product ion Income in Code New New Code MAPA HDR NCHRP rates 1000s 0, 1, 2 Code 3 4 Old Expanded 365 rates 5 (Minimum) 1 1 1 1.01 - 4 20 (Low) 6.5 4.5 3.5 6.63 - 6 50 (Mid) 11.5 7 5.5 12.89 7.89 8.9 70 (High) 14 10 8 15.4 10.4 11.5 100+ (Max) 15 11 10 16.82 11.82 13 � Attract ion rates by Area Code � Attract ion rates by Area Code helped reduce previous helped reduce previous � Attraction Rates � Attraction Rates imbalance between P’ s and A’ s. imbalance between P’ s and A’ s. Attraction Rates 0 (CBD) 1 (Urban Core) 2 (Non-Rural, Non-CBD/Core) 3 (Rural) 4 (Rural Enclaves) Trip Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Purpose Retail Retail HHs Retail Retail HHs Retail Retail Trip Purpose HHs Retail Retail HHs Retail Retail HHs HBW 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 HBW 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 HBNW 4 1 1.5 8 1 1.5 12 HBNW 1.25 1.5 11 0.9 1.25 10 0.8 1 NHB 1.5 1 0.6 2.5 1 0.6 3.5 NHB 1 0.6 3.25 0.8 0.6 3 0.6 0.5 5

Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Travel Demand Model Enhancements: Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Results Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Results Final Expanded 2004 Model Stats Total Area (MAPA Original + Expanded Beltway Area) RMSE R Squared % Flow/ Selection Observations RMSE GOAL Count R Sq. GOAL All Roads Counts 4027 29.77 29.71 -1.85 0.927 0.929 Freeways 178 13.42 13.87 -1.22 0.970 0.967 Arterials 2632 26.46 27.2 -1.96 0.915 0.908 Collectors Locals 1195 73.21 73.55 -1.84 0.596 0.604 Final Expanded 2004 Model Stats MAPA Original Area Only RMSE R Squared % Flow/ Selection Observations RMSE GOAL Count R Sq. GOAL All Roads Counts 3951 29.68 29.71 -1.9 0.926 0.929 Freeways 158 13.02 13.87 -1.13 0.966 0.967 Arterials 2576 26.28 27.2 -2.03 0.914 0.908 Collectors Locals 1195 73.21 73.55 -1.84 0.596 0.604 2004 High Volume or Free Flow Corridors 6

2030 High Volume or Free Flow Corridors 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan 7

2030 Over Capacity Links With Long Range Plan Built 2030 High Volume Corridors Over Capacity 8

What does this change from today? What does this change from today? By 2030, even with 2030 LRTP built: By 2030, even with 2030 LRTP built: � Delay will increase by more than 160% � Delay will increase by more than 160% � Miles of congested roads will increase 190% � Miles of congested roads will increase 190% � Delay on the freeways will increase 340% � Delay on the freeways will increase 340% � Congested freeway miles will increase 260% � Congested freeway miles will increase 260% What Other Metro Areas have Done What Other Metro Areas have Done � Review of 58 metro areas between � Review of 58 metro areas between 500,000 and 1.5 million population 500,000 and 1.5 million population – 22% No Beltway – 22% No Beltway – 74% Partial Beltway – 74% Partial Beltway – 4% Full Beltway – 4% Full Beltway � Of 26 cities between 1.0 & 1.5 � Of 26 cities between 1.0 & 1.5 million population all had partial or million population all had partial or full beltway systems in place full beltway systems in place 9

What Other Metro Areas have Done What Other Metro Areas have Done Transportation Netw ork Alternatives Transportation Netw ork Alternatives Future Base (LRTP only) Future Base (LRTP only) A. A. Outer Beltway Outer Beltway B. B. Inner Beltway Inner Beltway C. C. Radials Radials D. D. S uper Arterials S uper Arterials E. E. Transit Transit F. F. 10

Outer Beltw ay Outer Beltw ay Outer Beltw ay Travel Demand Outer Beltw ay Travel Demand 11

Outer Beltw ay Performance Outer Beltw ay Performance � Outer Beltway Compared to Base LRTP � Outer Beltway Compared to Base LRTP – VMT + 3.5% – VMT + 3.5% – Average Speed + 1.4% – Average Speed + 1.4% – VHT -0.9% – VHT -0.9% – Total Delay -8.1% – Total Delay -8.1% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -9.8% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -9.8% Inner Beltw ay Inner Beltw ay 12

Inner Beltw ay Travel Demand Inner Beltw ay Travel Demand Inner Beltw ay Performance Inner Beltw ay Performance � Inner Beltway Compared to Base LRTP � Inner Beltway Compared to Base LRTP – VMT + 3.8% – VMT + 3.8% – Average Speed + 1.4% – Average Speed + 1.4% – VHT -0.9% – VHT -0.9% – Total Delay -7.2% – Total Delay -7.2% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -13.7% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -13.7% 13

Other Options Other Options � Radial Freeways � Radial Freeways – South / northwest – South / northwest � S uper Arterials � S uper Arterials – Illustrative projects and additional arterials – Illustrative projects and additional arterials � Transit � Transit – Light rail system – Light rail system Radial Freew ays Radial Freew ays 14

Radials Performance Radials Performance � Radials Compared to LRTP Base � Radials Compared to LRTP Base – Total Delay -1.2% – Total Delay -1.2% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -3.5% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -3.5% – VMT + 1.0% – VMT + 1.0% – Average Speed + 0.8% – Average Speed + 0.8% – VHT -0.4% – VHT -0.4% Super Arterials Super Arterials 15

Super Arterials Performance Super Arterials Performance � S uper Arterials Compared to LRTP Base � S uper Arterials Compared to LRTP Base – Total Delay -10.0% – Total Delay -10.0% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -22.5% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -22.5% – VMT + 1.6% – VMT + 1.6% – Average Speed + 2.1% – Average Speed + 2.1% – VHT -1.4% – VHT -1.4% Transit System Transit System 16

Transit “Model” Transit “Model” � Goal = 5% Mode � Goal = 5% Mode S hare to Light Rail S hare to Light Rail – 3 Tiers – 3 Tiers – Reduced the – Reduced the HBW Trip Matrix HBW Trip Matrix to take trips off to take trips off the network the network before before assignment assignment HBW Reductions comparison Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 50% 40% 20% Tier 2 40% 40% 10% 20% 10% 10% Tier 3 Transit Performance Transit Performance � Transit Compared to LRTP Base � Transit Compared to LRTP Base – Total Delay -18.6% – Total Delay -18.6% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -26.3% – Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -26.3% – VMT -4.4% – VMT -4.4% – Average Speed + 1.8% – Average Speed + 1.8% – VHT -8.6% – VHT -8.6% � Assumptions � Assumptions – 5% ridership (0.5% today) – 5% ridership (0.5% today) – Any land use variations? – Any land use variations? 17