Transportation Reliability Program...Mar 05, 2009 · Los Angeles Adaptive Traffic Control System...
24
Statewide Integrated Transportation Reliability Program Southern Nevada Stakeholders Meeting March 5, 2009
Transcript of Transportation Reliability Program...Mar 05, 2009 · Los Angeles Adaptive Traffic Control System...
Statewide IntegratedTransportation Reliability Program
Southern Nevada Stakeholders MeetingMarch 5, 2009
Agenda
ITRP Status
Best Practices
Gap Analysis Process
Next Steps
ITRP Development Process –Phase I
ITRP Development Process –Phase II
ReliabilityFocusRegions
1. Las VegasMetropolitan Area
2. Reno/Sparks/Carson City/Tahoe
3. I-80 Corridor
4. Rural Corridors
5. Statewide
Reliability Issues and Impacts
Las Vegas Metropolitan Area– Recurring congestion
• Unique peak travel periods
• Capacity
– Infrastructure deployment
– Incident management – TIM Coalition
– Land use planning and future expansion
– Regional systems and coordination withlocal systems
– Access management
– Traveler information
– Transit/Multimodal
– FUNDING
Goals/Priorities for Program
Funding – for implementing operationsand strategiesTraveler information – need a ‘push’system to get information to publicInformation sharing among agencies –data collected in region could bebeneficial to multiple agenciesLimited arterial capacity – cannotsupport freeway traffic, accessmanagement, arterial detour routesIncident management and responsecoordination – coordinate with localagencies for arterial impacts fromfreeway incidents
Overview of Best PracticesReference Guide
Best practices and innovativeapproaches by category
Federal programs and initiatives forcongestion management
Other processes and strategies –performance measures, land useplanning, emerging trends
5 case studies
Areas for Potential Best PracticesLand use/access management planningwith a congestion management focusExpanding TIM focus to include arterialsMode shift to alleviate recurringcongestionInnovative funding approaches – howfunds are utilized/distributed to allow fornear-term operational enhancementsLocalized/regional traveler informationapproaches
Case StudiesWashington State DOT and theGeorgia DOT –Incident management,traveler information, maximize capacitythrough HOT lanes and corridormanagement, statewide traveler infoMaryland CHART – Performancemonitoring, documenting cost/benefitAZTech™ in Phoenix, Arizona – Regionaltraveler information, institutionalframework for operationsMetropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) in the San FranciscoBay Area – urban multimodal travelerinformation, integrated corridors
How to Use Reference Guide
Strategies Featured Best Practices and ApproachesSection 2 – Maximizing CapacityReducing Bottlenecks Los Angeles Operation Bottleneck Relief Program
Minnesota DOT Bottleneck Reduction ProgramHigh-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanesand Reversible Lanes
Minnesota MnPass Express Lanes Congestion PricingFlorida DOT Miami-Dade I-95 Express LanesTucson Arterial Reversible LanesPhoenix Arterial Reversible LanesDallas Freeway Reversible Zipper Lanes
Traffic Control Devices (TrafficSignal Timing and Ramp Metering)
Los Angeles Adaptive Traffic Control SystemNorth Central Texas Council of Governments Thoroughfare
Assessment Traffic Signal Timing ProgramMaricopa Association of Governments Traffic Signal Optimization
Funding ProgramTwin Cities Ramp Metering Evaluation Program
Organized into sections:• Maximizing capacity• Demand management• Traffic incident management• Work zone management• Road weather management• Traveler information
Not all sections will apply to all regions – usethe sections that your region can apply
Gap Analysis Process
GAP = a system, functional, or policydeficiency that is impacting theability of NDOT to continue toimprove the reliability of travel inNevada
Goal for gap analysis process = toshift ITRP discussions and planningefforts from the core causes ofcongestion and unreliability to thesix gap analysis categories
Gap Categories
Capacity Improvements and TravelDemand Management
Traffic Incident Management
Work Zone Management
Traveler Information
Planning and Policy
Operations and Management
Gap Analysis Category ID by Region
ITRPRegions
Gap Analysis Category
CapacityImprovements
and TDM
TrafficIncident
Mgmt
Work ZoneMgmt
TravelerInformation
Planning andPolicy
Operationsand Mgmt
Las VegasMetro
Reno/Sparks/ Carson
City/ LakeTahoe
I-80 Corridor
RuralHighwayCorridors
Statewide
Strategy Types
Technical – equipment, technology,systems
Institutional – agency/organizationculture, staff capacity, ability ofagencies to partner
Policy – formal policy atorganizational, regional, or state level
Process – programs, actions, oractivities to deliver a specific serviceor reach a specific goal
Strategy Types (continued)
Agency Operations – Internaloperational procedures ofrequirements, management andmaintenance responsibilities
Funding – Existing and future fundingsources, activities, priorities
To most effectively address the gapsand the many influences on each gapbased on the way Nevada currentoperates
Example Gap for Las Vegas Region
Gap Specific Deficiencies
Strategy Type
Tech
nica
l
Inst
itutio
nal
Polic
y
Proc
ess
Agen
cy O
pera
tions
Fund
ing
Lack of arterial,freeway andintersection/interchangecapacity toprocess trafficvolumes duringpeak periods
Lack of right-of-way in developed areas constrains the abilityto expand existing facilities and develop new facilities andtransit options.
X
Lack of funding to support construction of new roadways orwidening existing facilities. X
Local agencies do not have a formal process in place as partof their capital improvement programs to identify capacityconstrained areas, develop mitigation strategies andprioritize potential improvement projects.
X X X
Requirements for right-of-way dedication have not beenconsistently applied by local agencies to new development. X X X
Example Gap for Las Vegas Region
Gap Specific Deficiencies
Strategy Type
Tech
nica
l
Inst
itutio
nal
Polic
y
Proc
ess
Agen
cy O
pera
tions
Fund
ing
Lack of arterial,freeway andintersection/interchangecapacity toprocess trafficvolumes duringpeak periods
A disconnect exists between local agencies and withinagency planning and engineering departments.Infrastructure projects do not typically look beyond theimmediate project area to incorporate other traffic demandmanagement measures or evaluate long-range landplanning.
X X X
Impacts of development are felt beyond jurisdictionalboundaries. A regional approach to traffic impact analysis isneeded.
X X X
No funding mechanism exists for agencies to effectivelyidentify and address near-term or immediate operationalimprovements
X
Example Gap for Las Vegas Region
Gap Specific Deficiencies
Strategy Type
Tech
nica
l
Inst
itutio
nal
Polic
y
Proc
ess
Agen
cy O
pera
tions
Fund
ing
Accessmanagementpolicies do notexist or are notapplied uniformlyin the region
There are no uniform guidelines that can be utilized on alocal level. The current NDOT access management policy isdirected towards high-speed state facilities and does notaddress volume and throughput needs of today’s urbancorridors.
X X
There is no requirement to review access management fornew developments at the regional level. Inconsistent accessmanagement requirements at agency boundaries createconflicts along corridors.
X X
There are no regional or local impact fees in place to driveaccess management planning and compliance. X
Trends in Gaps
Across all regions:Sharing incident and weatherinformation that affects traffic withmultiple agenciesLack of detour routesNeed to get more information outto travelersStatewide systems not sufficient toprovide detailed information toagenciesFUNDING
Effort and Impact on Reliability
Low Effort
High Impact
IMPA
CT M
EASU
RE
EFFORT MEASURE
Low Effort
Low Impact
High Effort
High Impact
High Effort
Low Impact
Strategy 1• Does not requirenew staff
• Does not affect manyreliability issues
Strategy 2• Needs training
and new staff• Addresses manyneeds
Next Steps
Stakeholder review of:– Tech Memo #3 Best Practices
Reference Guide– Tech Memo #4 Gap Analysis
Next phase in the ITRP process(Phase II):– Develop detailed strategies to
address gaps– Develop implementation plan to
guide the deployment of thestrategies
– Develop performance measures
Contact Information
John Domina – Nevada DOT [email protected]
Pierre Pretorius – [email protected]
Lisa Burgess – [email protected]
ITRP Focus Areas
