The I-81 Challenge: Study update and overview of travel demand model CNY Engineering Expo November 12, 2012

Transcription

1 The I-81 Challenge: Study update and overview of travel demand model CNY Engineering Expo November 12, 2012 Presented by: Meghan Vitale, SMTC Jason Deshaies, SMTC

2 Presentation overview Part 1: Overview of The I-81 Challenge What is The I-81 Challenge Process Current uses and concerns Case Studies Visions, strategies, and goals Part 2: Overview of the SMTC Travel Demand Model Goals of the I-81 modeling project Model overview Review and enhancement Outputs & examples Extensions to regional model Next steps Questions and Answers

3 Approach The I-81 Challenge is the official decision making process to determine the future of I-81 through the Syracuse region. Partnership between the NYSDOT and SMTC, at NYSDOT s request Began in fall of 2009 Three separate but integrated efforts: The I-81 Challenge I-81 Corridor Study NYSDOT Existing physical conditions analysis Inventory of existing land use, economic, social, environmental conditions Transit system review Identify viable improvement options Public Participation Project SMTC Inform public about process Engage in public dialogue Understand community s goals Facilitate public input into development and refinement of options Travel Demand Modeling SMTC Refine and upgrade SMTC s travel demand model Model alternatives

4 Committees SAC Study Advisory Committee SMTC member agencies Meets regularly Reviews and comments on materials Advises on approach MLC Municipal Liaison Committee Municipal supervisors/mayors Meets prior to major outreach Provides input on municipal concerns Disseminates project information CLC Community Liaison Committee Representatives of community organizations Meets prior to major outreach Provides input on community concerns Disseminates project information

5 Study Advisory Committee New York State Transportation Environmental Conservation Empire State Development Onondaga County Legislature Physical Services Transportation CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity NYS Thruway Authority Onondaga Nation City of Syracuse Mayor s office Common Council Neighborhood and Business Development Engineering Public Works Central NY Regional Planning & Development Board Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency Federal Highway Administration Central NY Regional Transportation Authority (Centro)

6 Project Area Entire I-81 corridor in the SMTC area Emphasis on the elevated portions in city

7 Process We are here

8 Major Accomplishments to Date Technical analysis Travel demand model update and refinement Physical Conditions Analysis Public outreach Products/publications Case study report Educational videos Fact Sheet FAQs Physical Conditions Highlights Public Workshops Summary Report White Papers 1&2 Events Focus groups Community group meetings May 2011 public workshops May 2012 public meeting On-going communication Website, blog, Facebook Newsletters blasts Questionnaires

9 Physical Conditions Analysis Transportation System Critical design elements Highway and bridge conditions Traffic volumes Regional Interstate Through Traffic Level of Service and Mobility Accident Analysis Pedestrians and Bicyclists Transit Land Use and Economic Conditions Social and environmental conditions

10 Safety, Congestion, and Design Significant portions of I-81 have nonstandard or non-conforming design features. Generally coincide with areas of: Increased congestion High accident rates 70% of bridges in primary study area classified as functionally obsolete or structurally deficient By 2050, more than 80% of bridges will have met or exceeded their expected service life I-81 through the I-690 interchange has sections where accident rates reach five times the statewide average

11 Traffic volumes Little if any growth since % heavy vehicles during peak hours AADT in primary study area: 43,000 to 99,000 About 45,000 vehicles per day get on/off I-81 at Adams/Harrison

12 Regional Interstate Through Traffic Used Automated License Plate Readers to collect data in April % overall capture rate 44,000 vpd on I-81 south of Exit 16A 5,400 vpd currently travel through the region without stopping (12% of the total volume south of Exit 16A) Only 6% of total traffic is currently using I-81 to travel through the region Diverting regional interstate through traffic to I-481 or other alternative route will have little impact on operations on I-81 in the primary study area.

13 Public outreach by the numbers Meeting attendance Small group community meetings: 20+ meetings, 200+ attendees Focus groups: 23 meetings, 176 participants May 2011 workshops: 700 people, 200 online participants May 2012 public meeting: 480 people, 250 online participants Questionnaires 2009/2010: 100 responses 2011: 990 responses 2012 Transit Survey: 229 responses (174 non/former riders, 55 riders) Communications 1,200+ contacts for e-blasts 3,000 contacts for mailed newsletters and meeting notices 250 Facebook likes Approx. 400 unique website visitors per month

14 Public involvement key findings I-81 is part of what defines the region Uses of the highway include: Commuting to work and school Leisure trips and errands Long-distance travel In addition to driving on I-81, people also experience I-81 by: Driving or parking under I-81 Walking and biking near I-81 Living near I-81 I-81 s negative impacts include: Perceived barrier and visually unappealing Source of pollution, promotes car-centric culture I-81 s positive impacts on our region include: Connections to key destinations Mobility and quick access Supports regional economy

15 Public involvement key findings From Spring 2011 Questionnaire: Current travel time in the Syracuse region Tolerable future travel time Less than 20 minutes 22% 20 to 29 minutes 37% 30 to 39 minutes 25% 40 to 59 minutes 10% 60 minutes or more 6% Tolerable change in travel time More Time Less Time

16 2011 Questionnaire key findings Respondents asked to prioritize a list of 20 potential benefits of an improved I-81 corridor Economic development benefits are important A revitalized downtown Syracuse economy Economic development with more businesses locating in the Syracuse region An improved roadway network that is clearer & easier for traveling in Syracuse region Safer roadway network with fewer traffic accidents Improved & safer highway interchanges/exits Improved roadway access & travel times for emergency services Less traffic congestion & more reliable travel Improved development policies & land use planning for the region Improved sense of community pride & optimism Improved connectivity & integration of the downtown & Univ. Hill Building/upgrading city sidewalks & bike paths Beautifying downtown & Univ. Hill More transportation options for young/ elderly/disabled/low-income populations Less air pollution or emissions coming from traffic Most Important Expanded transit service Shorter time to travel to/from work Increased efficiency for delivering commercial goods/services Shorter time to travel to/from the downtown & Univ. Hill Increased frequency & number of hours per day buses run to downtown & Univ. Hill Less noise from traffic in the downtown and on Univ. Hill Least Important

17 Case studies Common project outcomes Reconstruct Tunnel Depress Relocate Remove Lessons learned Traffic is adaptable focus on moving people Highways have positive and negative effects, design can mitigate negatives Involve stakeholders, respond to community goals

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 Feedback from May 2012 public meeting Common concerns from strategy comments: Safety Accessibility to regional destinations Support for alternative modes Physical/visual impact of viaduct Economic development Fiscal impact Neighborhood impacts Suggestions to consider as strategies are developed: Improve access to downtown and University Hill Improve safety Enhance physical environment around viaduct lighting, ped amenities I-81/I-690 interchange improve safety and connectivity Provide access to I-81 within the city south of downtown

32 Feedback from May 2012 public meeting Transit needs/enhancements, based on meeting comments and survey results: Reduce transit travel time Increase frequency and hours of operation Provide more real-time information Provide direct connections between major regional destinations Improve safety and public perception of transit Provide more suburban commuter options Improve on-time performance Maintain affordable fare Rider survey did not reach high number of daily or weekly riders or people without access to a car.

33 Travel Demand Modeling Part 2: Overview of the SMTC Travel Demand Model Goals of the I-81 modeling project Model overview Review and enhancement Outputs & examples Extensions to regional model Next steps

34 Project Goal Goal of Modeling Project: To ensure that the transportation modeling and analysis is defensible and usable for many years as this study proceeds through the project development process. It is critical that the analysis and ensuing decisions from this study fully integrate public comment and are defensible beyond this particular study. Minimum Requirements VMT Estimation Travel Speed Estimation Suggested Best Practices Validation against Observed Counts Latest Planning Assumptions Land Use Development Scenarios Assignment Methodology Travel Impedances Model Sensitivity

35 Goals and Objectives Review and Enhance the Model Objective: Produce an updated and enhanced travel demand model that is consistent with good practice and will function appropriately for the I-81 study. Understand Travel Demand on I-81 Objective: Understand the magnitude of the demand through the corridor and quantify the regional importance of I-81. Model Strategies for I-81 Objective: Measure the important transportation-related impacts of each strategy in a defensible way and with the appropriate level of detail at each stage of the study.

36 Model Overview Regional Travel Demand Model Model area = SMTC planning area 972 internal TAZs 51 external TAZs Road network includes all major and some local roads Transit network includes all Centro fixed routes Base year 2007 Horizon year is 2040

37 Model Overview 4-Step Model The SMTC model also includes a time of day split step, where trips are split into time periods, and a feedback loop so that trip distribution and mode choices reflect congested travel times

38 Model Review and Enhancement Model Refinement Housing and employment Highway network Special generators Characteristics of Demand e.g. Land Development Travel Demand Forecasting Characteristics of the Transportation System e.g. Road Network Model Validation Are model outputs reasonable? Amount of Travel, Mode Usage Transportation System Performance e.g. Volume, Operations

39 Model Review and Enhancement Refinement Review base year and forecast year land use assumptions Are updates required for current household and employment data? Are household and employment projections reasonable? Review network coding Are there connectivity problems or errors in coding (e.g. wrong number of lanes) Are intersection types and capacities coded correctly? Review special generators Do special generator trip distributions match with observed data or reasonable assumptions about likely trip distributions? Validation Review vehicle speeds & volumes Are vehicle speeds on key facilities reasonable? Do segment volumes match observed traffic count data?

40 Model Review and Enhancement Land use data refinement process Review existing data (2003 & 2027) Meet with local planners and development representatives Compile and review available socioeconomic datasets Refine 2003 data and disaggregate to refined TAZs Extrapolate data to 2007 Project 2007 data to 2040

41 Model Review and Enhancement Meetings with Local Representatives Central New York Regional Planning & Development Board Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency Onondaga County Office of Economic Development CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development Syracuse Industrial Development Agency Syracuse Bureau of Planning & Sustainability Empire State Development Corporation New York State Department of Labor Various Municipal Representatives

42 Model Review and Enhancement These are the questions we asked Identify areas of recent household & economic growth/decline Identify areas of projected household & employment growth/decline over next 30 years Several themes that emerged in regards to households Continued growth of households in northern half of county Rate of household decline in the City of Syracuse has slowed Several themes that emerged in regards to employment Reduction in job growth from previous projections Overall growth of about 1,000 jobs per year in Onondaga County Continued growth of healthcare jobs in Syracuse

43 Model Review and Enhancement Compile & Review Available Datasets Household Data U.S. Census Bureau Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics Woods and Poole Economics Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency Employment Data New York State Department of Transportation U.S. Census Bureau Woods and Poole Economics New York State Department of Labor Greater Syracuse Economic Growth Council Resource Center Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency Syracuse.com

44 Model Review and Enhancement Compile & Review Available Datasets Identify recent job growth/decline ( ) Source: (Feb. 2009)

45 Model Review and Enhancement Refine 2003 Data & Disaggregate TAZ geography refined (increase number of TAZs from 697 to 1023) RED = old TAZs GREEN = new TAZs

46 Model Review and Enhancement Extrapolate to 2007 & Project to 2040 Combine local knowledge and existing data Control totals were set at the town and county level Final household and employment numbers were shared and reviewed Change in Households Change in Employment Onondaga County 6.7% City of Syracuse -1.1% County (minus City) 10.9% Onondaga County 12.3% City of Syracuse 13.4% County (minus City) 11.6%

47 Model Review and Enhancement Change in household density Change in employment density

48 Model Review and Enhancement Network Coding Road segments coded correctly? Review # of lanes, functional classification, posted speed limits, etc. for all model links Aerial photography and field verification Intersections coded correctly? Review intersection types for entire model area Aerial photography and field verification

49 Hancock International Airport Special Generators The New York State Fairgrounds OnCenter Onondaga Community College Carrier Dome Community General Hospital/ Van Duyn Home and Hospital Alliance Bank Stadium Carousel Center St. Joseph s Hospital Le Moyne College Upstate Medical University Hospital Syracuse University Main Campus Syracuse University South Campus SMTC collected data from institutions Employee home ZIP codes Number of patients, enrolled students, air travelers, customers by ZIP code Available transportation related survey data Model updated using these data to replicate observed travel patterns Loretto

50 Model Review and Enhancement Validate with Traffic Counts Approximately 2400 traffic counts were used for model validation The new model exceeds FHWA guidelines and matches traffic counts in the study corridor FHWA Guideline Model Correlation Coefficient % Error Region-Wide + / - 5% -1.5% Sum of Differences Freeways + / - 7% -2.4% Principal Arterials + / - 10% 4.9% Minor Arterials + / - 15% 0.6% Collectors + / - 25% -0.9% 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 I-690 West Bound Stantec Count Model Volume W. Genesee I-90 West St. I-81 I-481

51 Model Review and Enhancement Conducted Speed Study Collect average speeds for major corridors Focus on facilities with no/limited count data Used stop watches and GPS units At least 3-4 runs in both directions for each time period (AM Peak, PM Peak and Off Peak)

52 Model Review and Enhancement Validate with Speed Data The new model improves estimated travel speeds.

53 Model Outputs - Number of vehicles - Number of trips by trip type (HBW, HBS, HBO, NHB) - Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) - Vehicle hours traveled (VHT) - Transit trips - Intersection congestion & delay - Average speed - Volume to capacity ratio

54 Model Outputs How can we use the model for The I-81 Challenge? Example: Change in Intersection Delay Compare each strategy to the no-build strategy using various model outputs Look at change in volumes, V/C ratios, VMT, VHT, etc. Help us measure some of our project objectives Objective Improve peak period mobility and reduce delay

55 Model Outputs Example: Change in Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled Objective Preserve regional mobility by maintaining travel times

56 Model Outputs Example: Change in Drive Time (minutes) Objective Improve access to key destinations This is the change in drive time to downtown in the peak Specific to one location (can do this for any location)

57 Extensions to Regional Model Extensions to this analysis Refined analysis & microsimulation of traffic Estimate emissions and noise Impact to targeted populations (e.g. low income) Impact to specific locations (e.g. hospitals) Better understand non-auto travel Make value judgments on transportation impacts

58 Extensions to Regional Model Regional Modeling and Corridor Study Transportation impacts will extend well beyond I-81 corridor Impacts will be measurable for the entire region (regional modeling) Most dramatic impacts likely in central Syracuse More detailed analyses will be necessary where impacts are most severe (traffic impact analysis) Corridor study will model (using microsimulation) a sub area, say downtown, taking output from regional model Regional Model Regional statistics such as Vehicle Mile Traveled, Vehicle Hours Traveled Daily traffic volumes Average speeds Regional level routing Corridor Study Microsimulation Intersection levels of service (delays) Queue lengths Sub-area level routing

59 Next Steps Define strategies and begin stage 1 screening No-build Rehabilitate Reconstruct Tunnel/Depressed Boulevard

60 Within the current Corridor Study (approx. 12 months) Develop strategies for Stage 1 screening Additional public meetings to present and refine options Short list of 4-5 viable options Beyond the Corridor Study Refine preferred options through finegrained analysis Conduct environmental review (EIS), with continued public involvement Reach ultimate decision

61 Questions What are the key components of the I-81 Challenge? Technical analysis (including travel demand modeling) and public participation What percentage of regional interstate traffic currently travels through the region without stopping? 12% How do accident rates on I-81 through the I-690 interchange compare to the statewide average? Up to 5 times the statewide average From the May 2012 public meeting, what strategies were recommended to progress to Stage 1 screening? No-build, reconstruction, rehabilitation, tunnel/depressed, and boulevard

62 Questions What were some of the common themes from the comments at the May 2012 public meeting? Safety, accessibility to regional destinations, support for alternative modes, physical/visual impact of viaduct, economic development, fiscal impact, neighborhood impacts What are the steps of a 4-step model? Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, assignment What data did the SMTC collect to help validate model results? Average speed data and traffic counts

63 Get Involved thei81challengeblog.org