HRMPO Proposed Alternatives1. 3rd Crossing from Southside to the Northern Peninsula.

a. Phase 1: Widen I-664 from Bowers Hill to Hampton.b. Phase 2: Add a bridge-tunnel between the existing MMMBT and

I-564 in Norfolk and a connector across Craney Island from new bridge-tunnel and the Western Freeway.

2. Southeastern Parkway/Dominion Boulevard from Virginia Beach to Chesapeake.

3. Widen Midtown Tunnel and extend MLK Freeway to I-264.

4. Improving Route 460 (eventual construction of a parallel roadway)

5. Widen I-64 on the Northern Peninsula as far west as Route 199.

6. Widen I-64 on the Southside (including the High Rise Bridge) from Battlefield Boulevard in Chesapeake to Bowers Hill in Suffolk

HRMPO Proposed Alternatives

Key Sections of StudyMacroscopic transportation model (regional traffic demand model)

Freight Modeling Adds impact of cargo transfer and large trucks to the

traffic demand model

Congestion analysis Mesoscopic transportation simulation Ability of selected sections of network assessed for ability

to clear congestion

Accidents and Incidents

Potential economic model

Assistance Provided StudyVirginia Department of Transportation Statewide traffic demand model Hampton Roads regional traffic demand model Global Insight, Inc. Transearch Database (nationwide

database of freight traffic flow) Accident and incident data compiled by Virginia State

Police (restricted to events with injury or property damage exceeding $1000)

Hampton Roads Traffic Operations Center Hampton Roads accident and incident data based on

Safety Service Patrols reportsHampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization Hourly traffic flow data for 2006 Analysis suggestions, reviews, and comments

Metrics Used in AnalysisVehicle Volume: The number of vehicles assigned to the analyzed road section.

Level of Service Indicator (Volume/Capacity): Road segment volume is the maximum demand (number of vehicles) using the segment. Capacity is the maximum that can be handled before additional traffic is diverted to other routes. V/C = 1 means a road is operating at its maximum capability. V/C>1 means congestion will occur due to high volume.

Speed Decay: Free-flow speed (FFS) is the vehicle speed for vehicles experiencing no congestion. Congestion forces vehicles to slow. Speed decay is the ratio of free-flow speed to modeled speed. Speed decay values of >1.0 indicate speeds are reduced due to congestion.

Freight Traffic Modeling

Integrates freight traffic with passenger traffic in the traffic demand model.

Commonwealth does not have a Cube Cargo freight model.

Commonwealth provided the Global Insight Transearch Database, which was used to extract anticipated 2030 truck volumes.

Freight Modeling Metrics

Four metrics have been selected to describe the performance of the road transportation system. Truck volume Total vehicle volume Level of service (volume/Capacity) Speed decay (Free-flow to congested speed ratio)

Tables summarizing these performance indicators for 27 selected locations in the road network are provided for each scenario

Year 2000 Level of Service

Significant sections around region are already congested or extremely congested

2030 No-build Level of Service

Majority of principal roads throughout region are congested or extremely congested

Year 2030 All Build Level of Service

Congestion improves compared to no-build scenario, especially on MMMBT and JRB.

3rd Crossing (Ph. 2) Level of Service

Significant improvement at MMMBT and some improvement to HRBT with new lanes on I-664 .

Six-lane HRBT Level of Service

Improved service on JRB and MMMBT as traffic shifts to expanded HRBT, which remains highly congested with increased volume.

Year 2000 Speed Decay

Lower than free flow speeds in large portions of Peninsula, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and all bridges and tunnels

Year 2030 No-build Speed Decay

Severe speed reductions much more extensive on highways and on selected local roads.

Year 2030 All Build Speed Decay

Compared to no-build scenario, vehicle movements will be faster, but roads remain congested.

3rd Crossing (Ph. 2) Speed Decay

I-664 is less congested, but congestion on other roads remains

Six Lane HRBT Speed Decay

Widespread low congested speeds remain, but are improved on HRBT, MMBT, and JRB

Macroscopic Modeling“Big Picture” Cannot model individual vehicles All vehicles modeled as passenger cars

Assesses over 5 million trips/day and over 1000 origin and destination zonesFourteen total scenarios analyzedAll alternatives assumed to be assigned tolls with rates as indicated in the VDOT provided modelCube Voyager (Citilabs®, Inc.)

Scenarios Analyzed

Fourteen total Scenarios

Four main sections No build scenario All build scenario (includes completion of

the six alternatives proposed by the HRMPO)

Individual alternatives analyses HRBT analyses

HRBT Traffic Demand and V/C

Peak Hour V/C Ratios of Road Segments Where Each Project is Built

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

I-64 Widening (Peninsula Only)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

I-64 Widening (Southside Only)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

US 460 Only

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Build

No Build

Midtown Tunnel

Peak Hour V/C Ratios: Impacts of “All Build” and HRBT Expansion on Third Crossing and

Midtown Tunnel

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

All Build + HRBT 6 Lanes

All Build (HRBT 4 Lanes)

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

All Build + HRBT 6 Lanes

All Build (HRBT 4 Lanes)

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

All Build + HRBT 6 Lanes

All Build (HRBT 4 Lanes)

Build

No Build

Midtown Tunnel

Peak Hour Speeds (mph) on Road Segments Where Each Project is Built

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

I-64 Widening (Peninsula Only)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

Third Crossing-Phase 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

I-64 Widening (Southside Only)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

Midtown Tunnel

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Build

No Build

US 460 Only

Incident-Induced Congestion Analysis

Mesoscopic simulation: Citilabs® Cube Avenue

Selected sections of network tested

Testing assumed rush hour conditions and three incident scenarios: Shoulder blocked One lane blocked Two lanes blocked (selected sections)

For simplicity of comparison, all incidents assumed to have 15 minute duration

Incident-Reduced Capacity

Values taken from HCM 2000 Exhibit 28-6

Critical Segment Daily Traffic Flow

Note variances in flow during the day and variances between segments

Rush hour volumes simulated during incident

Congestion Analysis Results

Congestion Analysis Videos

Video Simulation Unavailableat this time

Contact@HRP.orgFor more information

Congestion Analysis Videos

Simulations Videos show:

A 15-minute incident at HRBT and its effects on length of back-up, traffic flow and time to clear traffic as follows:

1.Current status2.Status with 1 additional HRBT lane both east and west3.Status with “3rd crossing” diverting traffic through MMBT

Study ConclusionsFailure to take action should not be an option. All major road ways will be very congested. Peak hour demand will exceed capacity by more than 50% on most

critical roads.

All alternatives significantly improve local recurrent and incident induced congestion.Of 6 proposed alternatives, only the 3rd Crossing appreciably improves conditions at the HRBT. Even with the building of the 3rd Crossing and a significant shift of traffic

to this route, volume at the HRBT will still exceed capacity.

Only expanding the HRBT can relieve both recurrent and incident-induced congestion at the HRBT. Expanding the HRBT to 6 lanes (or more) and imposition of tolls will

relieve some, but not all, of the recurrent congestion. Combining an expanded HRBT and the 3rd Crossing (Phase 2) greatly

improves congestion.

Questions?

Backup Slides

HRBT Traffic Demand and V/C

p. B-7

Project Traffic Demand, V/C, and Speed

p. B-11