C8 Traffic Data

Southwest Boulevard Ramp Meter

(SB)

7th StreetRamp Meter(NB and SB)

Antioch RoadRamp Meter(NB and SB)

Johnson DriveRamp Meter(NB and SB)



Ramp Metering CMAQ Application: 2016 Fiscal Year

Ramp Metering($966K)

Public Involvement($100K)

2016

Costs determined by doublingNB costs. No design evaluationwas completed for SB direction.

Project Costs:

C8.4 Include the following information for each segment in the following order:

Segment identifier (name or number) Corridor segment length (miles) Pre-project average daily speed (mph) Pre-project peak speed (mph) Pre-project average daily traffic volume, total of both directions (vehicles per day) Pre-project peak traffic volume, total of both directions (vehicles per day during peak

hours) Post-project average daily speed (mph) Post-project peek speed (mph) Post-project average daily traffic volume, total of both directions (vehicles per day) Post-project peak traffic volume, total of both directions (vehicles per day during peak

hours)

I-35 at 87th St. NB, TI, 66mph, 58mph, 23542 vehicles, 3123 vehicles, 70mph, 61 mph, 24249 vehicles, 3217 vehicles

I-35 at 87th St. SB, TI 61 mph, 62 mph, 40168 vehicles, 6373 vehicles, 65 mph, 66 mph, 41374 vehicles, 6568 vehicles

I-35 at 67th St. NB, TI, 66 mph, 65 mph, 74965 vehicles, 11266 vehicles, 70 mph, 69 mph, 77214 vehicles, 11604 vehicles

I-35 at 67th St. SB, TI, 57 mph, 38 mph, 73982 vehicles, 11180 vehicles, 60 mph, 40 mph, 76202 vehicles, 11516 vehicles

I-35 at Johnson Dr. NB, TI, 60 mph, 55 mph, 66768 vehicles, 9559 vehicles, 63 mph, 58 mph, 68772 vehicles, 9846 vehicles

I-35 at Johnson Dr. SB, TI 57 mph, 39 mph, 66951 vehicles, 10142 vehicles, 60 mph, 41 mph, 68960 vehicles, 10447 vehicles

I-35 at Antioch Rd. NB, TI, 76 mph, 66 mph, 68449 vehicles, 9955 vehicles, 80 mph, 70 mph, 70503 vehicles, 10254 vehicles

I-35 at Antioch Rd. SB, TI, 58 mph, 41 mph, 68517 vehicles, 10627 vehicles, 61 mph, 44 mph, 70573 vehicles, 10946 vehicles

I-35 at Southwest Blvd. SB, TI, 64 mph, 61 mph, 43128 vehicles, 7224 vehicles, 68 mph, 65 mph, 44422 vehicles, 7441 vehicles

I-35 at 7th St. NB, TI, 62 mph, 62 mph, 27897 vehicles, 3510 vehicles, 66 mph, 66 mph, 28734 vehicles, 3616 vehicles

I-35 at 7th St. SB, TI, 62 mph, 63 mph, 28883 vehicles, 4453 vehicles, 66 mph, 67 mph, 29750 vehicles, 4587 vehicles

KDOT I-35 Ramp Metering Deployment

CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION COST:87th Street 31,000$ 31,000$ 62,000$ 67th Street 63,000$ 63,000$ 126,000$ Johnson Drive 88,000$ 88,000$ 176,000$ Antioch Road 49,000$ 49,000$ 98,000$ Southwest Boulevard 63,000$ 63,000$ 7th Street Trafficway 29,000$ 29,000$ 58,000$

Subtotal Contractor Construction Cost 260,000$ 323,000$ 583,000$

Notes: 1. SB Ramp Metering Assumed to be same cost as NB. 2. Southwest Blvd. is in SB Direction Only

Mobilization (8% of Contractor Construction Cost) 47,000$ Traffic Control (4% of Contractor Construction Cost) 24,000$

Subtotal Contractor Mobilization and Traffic Control 71,000$ 71,000$

SUBTOTAL 654,000$

OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS:

Integration into KC Scout (14% of Contractor Construction Cost) 82,000$

Subtotal Other Construction Costs 82,000$ 82,000$

SUBTOTAL 736,000$

OTHER RAMP METERING PROJECT COSTS:

Construction Engineering and Contingency (10% of Construction Cost) 66,000$ Design Engineering Cost (25% of Contractor Construction Cost) 164,000$

Subtotal Other Ramp Metering Project Costs 230,000$ 230,000$

SUBTOTAL 966,000$

OTHER PROJECT COSTS:

Public Involvement (Funded by KDOT) 100,000$

Subtotal Other Project Costs 100,000$ 100,000$

SUBTOTAL 1,066,000$

TOTAL PROJECT COST 1,066,000$

Project Funding BreakdownProposed KDOT Funding (Including Public Involvement) 392,000$ 37%CMAQ Grant Request 674,000$ 63%

Total Project Cost 1,066,000$ 100%

Ramp MeteringNB

Ramp Metering

SB

Total Construction Cost Estimate

PRELIMINARY PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

The public involvement task will include some or all of the following tasks to prepare education materials that may be used during the future implementation of ramp meters:

1. The CONSULTANT Team will assist KC Scout personnel in preparing for and conducting up to three (3) meetings with municipal level agency staff to discuss ramp metering goals, issues and concerns. The CONSULTANT Team will prepare presentation materials for the meetings. The anticipated materials include a 15-25 slide power point with technical emphasis to be reviewed and approved by KC Scout personnel. The Team will document the meetings. This scope includes two rounds of comment and changes to the meeting materials.

2. In support of future outreach efforts, the CONSULTANT Team will prepare drafts of outreach deliverables which could include visual (VISSIM) models, fact sheets, plotted maps graphics, power point presentations, graphic display boards and sample handouts. The deliverables will be individually tailored to 4 stakeholder groups. The intent of the deliverables is to demonstrate the information to be shared with each group, graphic presentation, and format to the Scout Board for their review. The groups include:

Public Officials Technical Staff and Transportation Engineers Law Enforcement General Public

Materials will be presented to and reviewed by Scout Staff prior to presentation the Board. This scope includes two rounds of comment and changes to the draft deliverables.

3. The CONSULTANT will summarize existing traffic laws that would govern ramp meters in both Missouri and Kansas and prepare a technical memorandum of our findings.

4. Develop a draft enforcement strategy for review by KC Scout staff.

5. Develop a draft program for the purpose of educating the highway patrol about ramp metering operation

6. Conduct a search of other jurisdictions and document their ramp metering experience. The CONSULTANT expects to document 2 relevant jurisdictions and will gain concurrence of the selected jurisdictions prior to any documentation.

7. The CONSULTANT will coordinate production of a three (3) minute video. Included in this task is researching other cities’ approaches and the availability of existing video from other jurisdictions appropriate for use in this area. KC Scout personnel will review and approve all video materials. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the Scout public outreach office the production of a three minute video. The CONSULTANT assumes that no travel is required for the preparation of the video.

8. The CONSULTANT will develop a draft media plan which includes the following:

A Draft Media Schedule of Events with relative, not date specific, timeframes for activities. Draft Media Kit for review by KC Scout personnel. The kit is expected to include: a) Why ramp metering is needed b) Turn on dates c) Locations, maps d) Relevant technical facts concerning why Ramp Meters are being installed e) Benefits of ramp metering f) What the motorists will see

City of Lenexa / 12350 West 87th Street Parkway / Lenexa, Kansas 66215-2882 City of Lenexa / P.O. Box 14888 / Lenexa, Kansas 66285-4888

Telephone (913) 477-7500 / Fax (913) 477-7504

March 19, 2014 Mr. David Schwartz Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning Eisenhower Building 700 SW Harrison Topeka, KS 6603 Re: CMAQ Application for I-35 Ramp Metering Project Dear Mr. Schwartz: The City of Lenexa would like to offer its support for the proposed I-35 ramp metering project that you are considering for Johnson and Wyandotte Counties. We feel that this would be an appropriate use of CMAQ funds and would provide improvements to the traffic flow along mainline I-35 between 87th Street and downtown Kansas City. We have observed the traffic flow improvements when ramp meters were installed along the I-435 corridor. They allow vehicle to merge into the main lanes of traffic more smoothly and with fewer crashes whenever traffic conditions dictate the need. This in turn has a positive impact on our regional air quality. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to assist in your application preparation. We look forward to hearing that you have received a positive response from MARC regarding this project request. Sincerely, CITY OF LENEXA

Steven R. Schooley, P.E., PTOE Transportation Manager

O p t i m i z a t i O n p l a n

Project # 35-106-KA-2597-01

35Moving Forward

Johnson and Wyandotte Counties

May 2013

I-35 Corridor Optimization Plan 23

Photo of hard

shoulder running

on I-66 in Virginia .

Shoulder running

is being utilized

internationally

in Great Britain,

Amsterdam and

the Netherlands,

and nationally

in Washington

D.C., Seattle and

Minneapolis to

cost-effectively

manage peak hour

congestion needs .

could be used to maximize dollars spent in the corridor. (More than one answer was possible.)

4. Stakeholder Support — Eighty-five percent of respondents thought KDOT and its stakeholders would support continuing existing strategies for I-35, such as fixing key bottlenecks and adding general capacity where needed. Sixty-nine percent of respondents thought KDOT and its stakeholders would support pricing to manage congestion. Fifty-four percent of respondents supported a complete streets/multi-modal approach to solving congestion in the corridor. (More than one answer was possible.)

5. Multi-Modal Level — Seventy-seven percent of respondents thought KDOT should be moderately aggressive to increase and enhancement multi-modal solutions.

6. Shoulder Running — Sixty-nine percent of respondents said they would support expansion of bus on shoulder to address congestion. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would support restricted vehicles (e.g., transit, HOV, HOT) using the shoulders during peak periods and incidents. Only 23 percent felt that all traffic should use the shoulders to manage congestion and incidents during the peak periods.

7. Managed Lanes — One hundred percent of respondents said they understood that a primary purpose of managed lanes was to provide sustainable reliability to the I-35 Corridor. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said they understood that one of the key goals of managed lanes was to encourage greater use of transit and ridesharing.

The input from the policy considerations survey was used to help guide the decision-making process on the recommended preferred strategy for I-35.

Recommended Preferred StrategyThe recommended preferred strategy is based on a comprehensive analysis approach. The preferred strategy is based on:

z National and international best practices,

z Peer community interviews,

z Technical analysis, and

z Advisory group feedback.

The preferred strategy is intended to be flexible and adaptable to changing corridor conditions and evolving trends over time. It was also important the preferred strategy be constructible

OptimizationPlan


considering the right of way constraints along the corridor, as well as financially feasible, since there are many competing priorities for the state’s limited funding.

Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 (Page 26 - 28) show the recommended preferred strategy in a graphical format for the short-term (approximately 2013 to 2020), mid-term (approximately 2020 to 2040), and long-term (approximately beyond 2040), respectively. Table 2 (Pages 29 -32) summarize the improvements recommended for the short-term, mid-term and long-term, respectively.

As KDOT considers I-35 improvements, looking at individual strategy components will be important. Each individual improvement should be evaluated in more detail in regards to their trade-offs. Benefits are both tangible and intangible.

Tangible benefits include measures such as travel time savings and accident reduction. Intangible benefits include measures such as customer perceived benefits and economic benefits. With limited funding, prioritization of corridor

improvements could be determined in a manner similar to the Gateway Project and the I-70/K-7 interchange project by determining what initial phases provide the greatest immediate benefits for the cost.

KDOT cannot implement the I-35 recommendations on their own. In order

to achieve these improvement goals, a team approach will be necessary. The team starts with the Advisory Group. The Advisory Group was led by KDOT and MARC but included participation from:

z Wyandotte and Johnson Counties

z The Cities of Gardner, Kansas City, Kansas, Lenexa, Merriam, Mission, Olathe, Overland Park, and Shawnee

z Chambers of commerce and economic development agencies

z Private businesses

z The Federal Highway Administration

z Johnson County Transit

z Kansas Highway Patrol

z KC Scout

z Missouri Department of Transportation

z Interested Citizens

All of these groups will need to be at the table to implement the Plan’s recommendations.

Priced managed

lanes are being

used in many

metropolitan areas

today to manage

congestion and

provide a reliable

commute . This

photo shows

priced managed

lanes, known as

Express Lanes in

Minneapolis, Minn.


Bottleneck Improvement

Local ImprovementEnhanced ITS

Ramp Metering

Enhanced Traffic Incident Management

Interchange Approach Arterial Dynamic Message Signs

Transit Priority at Interchanges

Legend Exhibit 1 — Short-Term Improvements (2013 — 2020)Corridor Improvement

Roeland Park

Transit Improvement

Lenexa

Overland Park

Shawnee

Olathe


Moving Forward

35175th St

119th St

75th St

Extend 4 lane section thru 75th Street in one direction

Existing Bus On Shoulder

Expanded Bus on Shoulder

Existing Xpress Routes with Service Enhancements

New Xpress Routes

New Park and Ride Lots

Note: See Table 2 for comprehensive list of improvements.

Homestead Ln.

151st St

Exhibit 1 .

Short-Term

Improvements

OptimizationPlan


Str

ateg

y

Improvement Tim

e

Fra

me*

Section 1 State Line to I-635

Section 2 I-635 to U .S . 69

Sh

ort

Mid

Lo

ng

Sh

ort

Mid

Lo

ng

ITS

Ramp metering with transit priority √ √ √ √ √ √

Facilitate and promote advanced traveler information √ √ √ √ √ √

Enhanced traffic incident management - Enhanced motor assist program - Multidiscipline responder training

√ √ √ √ √ √

Arterial dynamic message sign √ √ √ √ √ √

Active Traffic Management (ATM)

- Variable speed limits/queue warning

- Lane control for general purpose lanes and shoulder

√ √ √ √

Crash investigation sites √ √ √ √

Ramp metering to 175th Street

Support electronic toll collection √ √

Fiber backbone extension

Other future ITS/ATM technology improvements as identified through evolving trends

√ √

Mu

lti-

Modal

Bus on Shoulder expansion √ √ √ √ √ √

Supporting Bus on Shoulder system

- U .S . 69

- I-435 west of I-35

Transit priority at interchanges √ √ √ √ √ √

Increase transit service levels √ √ √ √ √ √

Pedestrian/bicycle I-35 crossing where interchange movements are planned

√ √ √ √ √ √

Add new Xpress Routes

- Shawnee Route

- West Olathe

- K-10 to K-7

- Leawood Route

√ √ √

Park and Ride lots and improved pedestrian/bicycle access to the lots

√ √ √

Continue to evaluate based on new trends √ √

Sh

ou

lder

-Ru

nn

ing

(in

side

or

ou

tsid

e la

ne)

Prepare shoulders for future should running in tandem with maintenance projects

√ √ √ √ √ √

Restricted peak hour and incident use (e.g., a combination of transit/HOV/HOT)

√ √ √ √

Crash investigation sites/refuge (see ITS above) √ √ √ √

Geometric and safety improvements to shoulders √ √ √ √

Combined with ATM (see ITS above) √ √ √ √

Table 2 .

Recommended I-35

Improvements

(See Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 for a graphical representation of recommended improvements)

* Short Term: 2013-2020Mid Term: 2020-2040

Long Term: 2040+

C8 Traffic Data

Documents

Transcript of C8 Traffic Data