i-95 corridor study - fampo · southeast quadrant . 12 2045 no-build scenario results for mainline...

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






No change



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


No-Build Alternative

Draft No-Build

Alternative SB River Crossing Project (CD-lanes)

SB River Crossing Project (CD-lanes)

No change


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)


(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)


(min)

Simulation -Experienced

Travel Time (min) Percent

DifferenceDistance (miles)


(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


Exit 133 (Weekday PM Severe Congestion)

16


Exit 130 (Weekday AM Moderate Congestion)

17



18


Exit 126 (Weekday AM Moderate Congestion)

19



20


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


No change







No change



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


Rev

Rev

Rev


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


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


4th General Purpose Lane







No change



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



Wid

en R

te 1

from

4

to

6-la

nes


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

i-95 corridor study - fampo · southeast quadrant . 12 2045 no-build scenario results for mainline...

Documents