i-95 corridor study - fampo · southeast quadrant . 12 2045 no-build scenario results for mainline...
TRANSCRIPT
I-95 Corridor Study Phase II
LRTP Advisory Committee
September 27, 2017
2
1. Coordinated with VDOT on precise understanding of
infrastructure / operational details of FredEX Project to allow study team to model it correctly in the no-build scenario
2. Completed travel demand forecast reflecting no-build scenario
3. Prepared preliminary modeling of no-build scenario in VISSIM
using travel demand forecasts. Seeing VDOT buy-in at this time
Work Completed since Sept 6 meeting
3
• It’s critical to get the no-build assumptions correct as this will be the basis for all build alternative testing
• For the purpose of this study, ‘no-build’ is defined as the future condition with all planned & programmed improvements other than the changes expected to be tested as part of this study
Future No-Build Assumptions
4
• Future no-build is proposed to include the following infrastructure:
• The I-95 corridor as it exists today • PLUS the Southbound CD-lane project between Exits 133 & 130
• PLUS the FredEX proposal to extend the reversible express lanes
further south to the vicinity of Exit 133
• PLUS the interchange modification at Exit 130 which replaces the EB to NB loop ramp (challenging weave) with a triple-left turn
The following slides show a graphical representation of the no-build scenario
Future No-Build Assumptions
143
140
136
133
130
126
Garrisonville Rd
Courthouse Rd
Centreport Pkwy
17
Central Park area
3
Segment 1
Segment 3
Segment 2
Segment 5
Segment 7
Segment 9
Segment 4
Segment 6
Segment 8
I-95 Phase 2 STUDY
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
Not to scale
1
95
95
N
Northbound Southbound Rev
No change
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
No change
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Red color indicated
infrastructure not present today but assumed as part of future no-build
scenario
09/25/17
Harrison Rd
Courthouse Rd
5
Improve connection from EB Rte 3 to I-95 NB CD
Addition of two reversible lanes
Rev
Rev
Rev
Addition of two reversible lanes
No-Build Alternative
Draft No-Build
Alternative SB River Crossing Project (CD-lanes)
SB River Crossing Project (CD-lanes)
No change
Addition of two reversible lanes
STARS improvement
SB I-95 to SB US 1 improvement
Interchange reconstruction
CD GP GP
CD GP GP
CD GP GP
CD-lanes to a point just south of Exit 130
6
Future No-Build Assumptions (Southbound CD-lane project)
Rappahannock River Crossing
7
Highlights from the modeling assumptions and process are shown in the following slides
8
North of Exit 133 (No-Build)
Old southbound lanes now repurposed as CD-lanes
New southbound lanes constructed in median to carry general purpose traffic
FredEX lanes constructed in median.
9
Exit 133 (No-Build)
Old southbound lanes to be repurposed as CD-lanes
New southbound lanes constructed in median to carry general purpose traffic
10
Exit 133 (No-Build)
HSIP - Signal Removal at Short Street and Signal Addition at Old Forge Drive
11
Exit 130 (No-Build)
Rte 3 to I-95 NB Triple Lefts ~ 1,250 feet storage
SB I-95 to WB Rte 3: Fork Ramp + Channelization to Central Park
Loop Ramp Removal in Southeast Quadrant
12
2045 No-Build Scenario results for mainline operations
Distance (miles)
Free Flow Travel Time
(min)
Simulation -Experienced
Travel Time (min) Percent
DifferenceDistance (miles)
Free Flow Travel Time
(min)
Simulation -Experienced Travel
Time (min) Percent
DifferenceExit 126 - 130 5.7 6 5.7 OK 5.7 6 5.8 OKExit 130 - 133 4.2 5 4.4 OK 4.2 5 4.3 OKExit 133 - 136 3.8 4 3.8 OK 3.8 4 3.9 OK
Distance (miles)
Free Flow Travel Time
(min)
Simulation -Experienced
Travel Time (min) Percent
DifferenceDistance (miles)
Free Flow Travel Time
(min)
Simulation -Experienced Travel
Time (min) Percent
DifferenceExit 126 - 130 5.7 6 5.7 OK 5.7 6 5.5 OKExit 130 - 133 4.2 5 5.1 2% 4.2 5 4.3 OKExit 133 - 136 3.8 4 4.1 2% 3.8 4 3.8 OK
Legend (Travel Time):Insignificant Difference compared to Free-Flow SpeedPercent Difference <10% compared to Free-Flow SpeedPercent Difference 10% - 25% compared to Free-Flow SpeedPercent Difference > 25% compared to Free-Flow Speed
Weekday PM Peak Period
Location
I-95 Northbound I-95 Southbound
Weekday AM Peak Period
Location
I-95 Northbound I-95 Southbound
13
2045 No-Build Scenario results for interchange operations
Operational performance associated with interchanges and cross roads are shown
graphically in the following slides
Exit 136 (Weekday AM Severe Congestion)
14
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 136 (Weekday PM Moderate Congestion)
15
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 133 (Weekday PM Severe Congestion)
16
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 130 (Weekday AM Moderate Congestion)
17
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 130 (Weekday PM Severe Congestion)
18
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 126 (Weekday AM Moderate Congestion)
19
(2045 No-Build scenario)
Exit 126 (Weekday PM Severe Congestion)
20
(2045 No-Build scenario)
21
<depart from slideshow here and view select No-Build VISSIM videos>
22
Introducing the concept of ‘No-Build +’ which includes everything in the No-Build scenario
PLUS the Northbound Rappahannock Crossing Project (CD-Lanes)
This alternative will be analyzed for
operational performance and presented at the next LRTP meeting
143
140
136
133
130
126
Garrisonville Rd
Courthouse Rd
Centreport Pkwy
17
Central Park area
3
Segment 1
Segment 3
Segment 2
Segment 5
Segment 7
Segment 9
Segment 4
Segment 6
Segment 8
I-95 Phase 2 STUDY
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
Not to scale
1
95
95
N
Northbound Southbound Rev
No change
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
No change
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Red color indicated
infrastructure not present today but assumed as part of future no-build
scenario
09/25/17
Harrison Rd
Courthouse Rd
23
Improve connection from EB Rte 3 to I-95 NB CD
Addition of two reversible lanes
Rev
Rev
Rev
Addition of two reversible lanes
No-Build+ Alternative
Draft No-Build+ Alternative
SB & NB River Crossing Projects (CD-lanes)
SB & NB River Crossing Projects (CD-lanes)
CD-lanes to a point just south of Exit 130
No change
Addition of two reversible lanes
STARS improvement
SB I-95 to SB US 1 improvement
Interchange reconstruction
US 1 to I-95 NB improvement
CD CD GP GP
CD CD GP GP
CD GP GP
Submission of Potential Highway Improvements for Consideration in I-95 Phase 2 Study
Each Advisory Committee member was invited to submit up to 3 improvements for consideration
• Each GWRC locality • DRPT • PRTC • VDOT • CTAG • MWCOG • FHWA
24
The study team received a good collection of concepts for potential testing. The following graphic describes those suggestions.
143
140
136
133
130
126
Garrisonville Rd
Courthouse Rd
Centreport Pkwy
17
Central Park area
3
Segment 1
Segment 3
Segment 2
Segment 5
Segment 7
Segment 9
Segment 4
Segment 6
Segment 8
I-95 Phase 2 STUDY
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
Not to scale
1
95
95
N
Northbound Southbound Rev
4th General Purpose Lane
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
No change
Southbound Northbound
Southbound Northbound
Green color indicated
infrastructure changes to be tested as build
alternatives
09/25/17
Harrison Rd
Courthouse Rd
25
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Full-Build Alternative
Draft Full-Build
Alternative NB River Crossing
Project (CD-lanes) & Express lane extension
No change
Connect over to US 17
Direct connection from EB 610 to I-95 NB Express Lanes
4th General Purpose Lane
4th General Purpose Lane
Wid
en R
te 1
from
4
to
6-la
nes
4th General Purpose Lane
with
in S
taffo
rd C
ount
y
Widen to 4-lanes
Connect over to Rte 3
CD CD GP GP
GP GP
SB I-95 to WB US 17 improvement
New I-95 access
New I-95 access
Rev
NB River Crossing Project (CD-lanes) &
Express lane extension
CD CD GP GP
Rev
Express lane southern tail to Harrison & CD lanes
New I-95 access
Location T.B.D.
CD CD GP GP
Other proposed concepts not shown:
1) Improve or construct non-
interstate roadways parallel to I-95 to the east or west
2) New roadway connecting Stafford Courthouse area to King George toward Dahlgren
3) Improvements at Exit 133 to help traffic to / from east
4) ITS improvements such as Active Traffic Mgmt Systems (ATMS), Integrated Corridor Mgmt (ICM), ramp metering, variable speed, shoulder lane usage & other innovations.
26
1. Forecasted increase in person movement when compared to the no-build condition
2. Forecasted decrease in person travel delay when compared to the no-build condition
3. Physical (footprint) impacts
4. Consistency with local, state & federal plans and policies
5. Planning level cost estimates
Alternative Evaluation Criteria When testing candidate alternatives, the
following evaluation criteria will be considered
Next Steps •Receive committee feedback on today’s presentation by October 6 •Complete modeling & calibration of future no-build alternative(s), including Sunday analysis.
• Work with Advisory Committee to agree on bundling of three build alternatives for testing • Study team proposes concept of low, medium, and high-build
• Test build alternatives in VISSIM modeling tool
• Report comparative results to Advisory Committee
• Screen alternatives to work towards a preferred solution
27