Ramp Metering Feasibility Study: S.H. 225 LaPorte Freeway -- I- 610 to S.H. 134

Transcription

1 Ramp Metering Feasibility Study: S.H. 225 LaPorte Freeway -- I- 61 to S.H

2 RAMP METERING FEASIBILITY STUDY S.H. 225 LaPorte Freeway to S.H. 134 The Houston District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxD1) is presently developing plans for a Computerized Transportation Management System (CTMS) along S.H. 225 LaPorte Freeway (Figure 1). The proposed CTMS will include the installation of video surveillance, changeable message signs, mainlane vehicle detection, frontage road signal operations, and freeway entrance ramp control. TxDOT requested the Texas Transportation Institute (TTl) to complete a detailed feasibility study to evaluate the need for ramp metering on S.H This study includes an analysis of the existing traffic conditions, those that can be expected to occur in the future, an evaluation of ramp metering guidelines, and recommendations for installation of ramp meter signals. Existing Traffic Conditions The existing traffic conditions were determined by completing traffic volume counts at all entrance and exit ramps for an approximate seven-day period (i.e., Tuesday through Monday). All ramps between the I-61 East Loop interchange and S.H. 134, as well as the adjacent frontage roads, were studied. A mainlane count at the Sam Houston Parkway (Beltway 8) was completed during the ramp study and used with the ramp counts to determine freeway demands between ramps for each hour. This information is used to determine critical freeway sections in terms of demand to the available capacity. This information is presented in Appendix A. Complete copies of the seven-day counts for ramps and adjacent frontage roads are available for further analysis. Eastbound Direction Based upon the traffic demands presented in Appendix A, the most critical section for the eastbound direction is located between Allen-Genoa and Scarborough. Demands in this three-lane section are estimated at 614 vph from 5:-6: p.m. Another concern is the Allen Genoa exit with measured traffic volumes of 217 vph for the same time period. Traffic demands for the Tatar and Sam Houston Parkway exits were measured at 144 vph and 17 vph respectively during the PM peak hour. With the possible exceptions of the connections from

3 ! fi '.. I'... ::l t; ;>-,... "' ~.!i ~~iz NO- 3~~ j... u ~ o '-.. Cl) :E E- u V) ('I ('I ::c Cl) e ::l Oj}!:.I..

4 I-61, no entrance ramps west of the Sam Houston Parkway are experiencing capacity problems. The maximum volume measured was 85 vph on the Red Bluff entrance from 6:-7: a.m. Although not considered in this analysis, there are several eastbound exit ramps that are operating near capacity. Ramps of concern are the Allen-Genoa, Tatar, and Beltway 8. The Beltway 8 exit ramp is of limited concern since it is likely to be replaced by a freeway-freeway connector in the future. Westbound Direction The most critical section of the westbound direction is between Scarborough and Allen Genoa. Traffic demands in this three-lane section from 7:-8: a.m. are estimated at 58 vph. Congestion for the westbound direction would most likely start at the Scarborough entrance. There are also several entrance ramps with high demands during the AM peak period: Sam Houston Parkway - 16 vph (6:-7: a.m.), 195 vph (7:-8: a.m.); Tatar- 114 vph (6:-7: a.m.), 129 vph (7:-8: a.m.); and Allen-Genoa- 11 vph (6:-7: a.m.), 138 vph (7:-8: a.m.). None of the exit ramps for the westbound direction indicate any capacity problems at this time. The westbound direction is the most likely to experience congestion as the freeway is "loaded" in this direction during the AM peak period. Truck Volumes S.H. 225 passes through an area that is dominated by the petrochemical industry. A manual count of the mainlane traffic at the Sam Houston Parkway was completed during the AM and PM peak periods on March 3, This study separated the heavy trucks (i.e., ISwheelers) from the rest of the traffic stream to determine truck percentages. Detailed information is included in Appendix A. The percentage of heavy trucks for the eastbound direction was measured as 3.7% and 3.5% for the AM and PM peak periods. Percentage of trucks for S.H. 225 westbound was 3.9% and 6.5% for the AM and PM peak periods.

5 Travel Times ITI also completed travel time studies between 1-61 and S.H. 146 during the AM and PM peak periods on March 31, The studies were completed for both directions at 3- minute headways using the "floating-car" technique. Average peak period travel times and speeds are presented in Tables 1 and 2. There was no congestion or queuing on the freeway mainlanes of S.H. 225 during these studies. Detailed travel time and speed information is presented in Appendix B. Table 1. Peak Period Travel Time Summaries - S;ll. 225 Eastbound AM Peak Period PM Peak Period S<!ction Limits Distance Travel Time Average Speed Travel Time Average Speed (miles) (km) (min) (mph) (kph) (min) (mph) (kph) 1-61 l<l Alkn-G<!noa 1.5 :? Alkn-Gc:noa to Scarborough Scarfo.,rnui!h to Richey Rici1c' l > Shaver Sha'.cr l > Red Bluff Red Blui"f lt> Bearle.8 1.:? Bear!.: l > South.75 1.:? South lt> Sam Houston Pkwy I. I:? Sam Houston Pkwy to SP RR Overpass SP RR Overpass to Center Cc:nt.:r t.> SH SH l3-t to SH :? l-61 t.> Sam Houston Pkwy :? Sam Hnuston Pkwy to SH t ' SH :? :?

6 Table 2; Peak Period.TraveJ Tune.Summarles~-S~IJ#~25Westbounci... _ Section Limits Distance Trave1m.m~. :::Avei-~il~ ~e~ :J:r~\{;Z:me \Average Speect (miles) (icm).. (min). Jmpli). (JCp~). (inph). (kph)... SH 146 to SH SH 134 to Center Center to SP RR Overpass SP RR Overpass to Sam Houston Pkwy Sam Houston Pkwy to South South to Bearle Bearle to Red Bluff Red Bluff to Shaver Shaver to Richey Richey to Scarborough Scarborough to Allen-Genoa Allen-Genoa to SH 146 to Sam Houston Pkwy Sam Houston Pkwy to SH 146 to Traffic Growth Rate It is extremely difficult to forecast future traffic conditions on any roadway. This requires the estimation of an assumed yearly growth rate that is then applied to the existing traffic demands. TxDOT has a permanent automatic traffic recorder (A TR) station located on I-61 East Loop at the north end of the ship channel bridge (Station Sl82). Traffic has increased an average of.67% per year at this location since The AADT for S.H. 146 at the north end of the Baytown Tunnel (Station Sl7) has increased an average of 1.3% per year for the same time period. Average yearly growth rates for the two stations over the past five years are 2.4% and 2. 7%, respectively. Considering that these two A TR stations are in close proximity to S.H. 225, growth rates along this freeway could be expected to be similar. Therefore, in predicting the future traffic conditions, an average growth rate of 2% per year has been used for both directions of S.H. 225.

7 Simulation of Future Traffic Conditions In order to evaluate the impacts of the expected growth of the traffic on freeway mainlane operations, the FREQ1PC simulation model was used. The FREQlOPC was used to simulate free'.vay operations for S.H. 225 from S.H. 134 to the I-61 East Loop. The computer program allows simulation of freeway traffic operations for a given set of geometric and demand input parameters. It is based upon a macroscopic deterministic approach which assumes that freeway operations can be simulated by disregarding the actual randomness of traffic demand and the behavior of individual vehicles. Inputs to the model includes geometric and traffic demand data. Model outputs include freeway travel time, ramp delay, total freeway travel time, total travel distance. average speed, gasoline consumed, vehicle emissions, and mainlane delay. The latest version of the model (REL T91) was used for this analysis. The FREQlOPC model was setup for typical weekday traffic conditions using the traffic data presented in Appendix A. Using an assumed 2% per year growth factor, the traffic along S.H. 225 was simulated for 1994, 2, , and 215. Table 3 presents the results of the FREQ lopc simulation analysis for the existing and projected traffic conditions on S.H. 225 eastbound between I-61 East Loop and S.H The table includes selected model outputs and observations concerning the expected freeway operations. Based upon this analysis, queuing should develop from the I-61 connectors to the Allen-Genoa entrance ramp. This concludes that the "bottle-neck" freeway section is the threelane section just east of Allen-Genoa. Because of this bottle-neck, congestion does not develop on other sections of the freeway. The excessive demands of the 1-61 connector ramps are the major cause of the congestion and account for the majority of the anticipated ramp delays.

8 Table 3. FREQ1PC Outputs for Sll 225 Eastbound as Totaled for 24-llour Period (1-61 to SH 134) Freeway Ramp Total Year Travel Time Delay Travel Time Average Speed 2 Speed' Special NoteS/Observations (veh-hrs) (veh-hrs) (veh-hrs) (mph) (kph) <3 mph? , , No No congestion observed ,116 2,93 11, Yes Queuing for I + hours during PM peale. PM congestion extends to Allen-Genoa entrance ramp NB demands exceed capacity (PM) ,34 5,158 15, Yes Queuing for 2+ hours during PM peale. Congestion extends to Allen- Genoa entrance ramp. SH 134 exit demands exceed one-lane capacity (AM) NB entry demands exceed capacity (PM). 21' 12,41 1, Yes Queuing for 3 + hours during PM peak congestion extends to Allen- Genoa entrance ramp. SH 134 exit demands exceed one-lane capacity (AM). I-61 NB and 1-61 SB entry demands exceed capacity (PM). 215' , Yes Queuing for 3 + hours during PM peak congestion extends to Allen- Genoa entrance ramp. SH 134 exit demands exceed one-lane capacity (AM). I-61 NB and 1-61 SB entry demands exceed capacity (PM). NOTES: Future traffic projected hy increasing existing demands by 2% per year. Average speed represents that for the entire freeway modelled for a 24-hour period. If the average speed for any section was Jess than 3 mph (48 kph) for a one-hour period, "yes" is designated. Table 4 presents the results of the FREQlOPC simulation analysis for the current and projected future traffic conditions for westbound S.H. 225 between S.H. 134 and I-61 East Loop. Presented are selected model outputs and observations concerning the expected freeway operations. All congestion and queuing begins in the three-lane section west of the Scarborough entrance ramp, extending to the east as the future traffic demands increase. Queues are expected to form at this "bottle-neck" during the AM and PM peak periods within the next 15-2 years for the westbound direction. The average speeds as reported in Table 4 may be somewhat misleading. These speeds as presented represent the average speed for the entire 24-hour period. In each of the simulation analyses completed, there are several hours each day during which no

9 congestion exists and speeds average 55 mph (89 kph) or higher. The 24-hour averages are lowered because of the slow speeds during the periods of congestion and queuing. Table 4. FREQIOPC Outputs for SH 225 Westbound as Totaled for 24-llour Period (SII 134 to 1-61) Freeway Ramp Total Year Travel Time Delay Travel Time Average Speed 1 Speed 3 Special Notes/Observations (veh-hrs) (veh-hrs) (veh-hrs) (mph) (kph) <3 mph? ,942 6, No No congestion observed. 2' 8, , Yes Queuing for I+ hours during AM peak. AM congestion extends from Red Bluff to Scarborough. Allen- Genoa entry ramp demand exceeds capacity (AM). 25' Yes Queuing for 3+ hours during AM peak. AM congestion extends from Beltway 8 to Scarborough. AJien- Genoa and Tatar entry ramps demand exceeds capacity (AM) , Yes Queuing for 4+ hours during AM peak. AM eongestion extends from SH 134 to Scarborough. Allen- Genoa nnd Tatar entry ramps demand exceeds capacity (AM). 215' 23,1 5, Yes Queuing for 6+ hours during the AM peak. Queuing for 3 + hours during the PM peak. AM congestion extends from SH 134 to Scarborough. PM congestion extends from Beltway 8 to Scarborough. Center, Allen-Genoa, and Tatar entry ramps demand exceeds capacity (AM). NOTES. Future traffic projected by increasing existing demands by 2% per year.. -\verage speed represents that for the entire freeway modelled for a 24-hour period. lf the average speed for any section was less than 3 mph (48 kph) for a one-hour period, "yes" is designated. Guidelines for Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals The Texas MUTCD CD provides general guidelines for the successful application of freeway entrance ramp control. Specifically, the manual states: lnsrallarion of freeway enrrance ramp conrrol signals may be jusriji.ed when the total expecred delay ro traffic in rhe freeway corridor, including freeway ramps and local

10 streets, is expected to be reduced with ramp control signals and when at least one of the following instances occurs: 1. There is recurring congestion on the freeway due to trqffic demand in excess of the capacity; or there is recurring congestion or a severe accident hazard at the freeway entrance because of inadequate ramp merging area. A good measure of recurring freeway congestion is freeway operating speed. An early indication of a developing congestion pattern would be freeway operating speeds less than 5 mph, occurring regularly for a period of half an hour. Freeway operating speeds less than 3 mph for a half-hour period would be an indication of severe congestion. 2. The signals are needed to accomplish transponation system management objectives identified locally for freeway traffic flow, such as: (a) maintenance of a specific freeway level of service, or (b) priority treatments with higher levels of service, for mass transit and carpools. 3. The signals are needed to reduce (predictable) sporadic congestion on isolated sections of freeway caused by shon-period peak traffic loads from special events of from severe peak loads of recreational traffic. (lj Applications of Ramp Metering for S.H. 225 Eastbound Based on 1994 volume and travel time data, S.H. 225 eastbound has no recurrent congestion that is related to the basic capacity of the freeway. The freeway section west of the Sam Houston Parkway is basically a six lane cross section, with added lanes between the I-61 East Loop and Allen-Genoa interchanges. Only in the section between Allen-Genoa and ' Scarborough does the demand equal the capacity for one hour from 5: to 6:p.m. Due to the high exit demand for the Allen-Genoa exit, some congestion forms between the 1-61 interchange and Allen-Genoa, but free flow traffic conditions exist east of Allen-Genoa. The use of ramp metering to reduce this congestion would also require metering freeway to freeway connectors from I-61 as well as entrance ramp metering. The application of ramp metering at only Allen-Genoa would maintain good operations in the section to Scarborough. Therefore, ramp metering would have no significant impact on reducing 1994 congestion east of the I-61 freeway connectors.

11 No entrance ramps other than the I-61 connectors have high volumes that require ramp control. However, as travel demands increase and with the high percentage of commercial traffic in the corridor, travel conditions will change as demonstrated by the simulation analysis that shows significant congestion by the year 2. Therefore. ramp metering should be planned for installation within three years in order to maintain the existing high level of service along eastbound S.H The entrance ramps that serve the eastbound S.H. 225 do not have auxiliary lanes in the merge area. For the most part the entrance ramps are well designed, and there does not appear to be a merging problem due to geometries in the merging area. However, as demand on the freeway mainlanes and the ramps increase, the merging operations will become a problem. Therefore, ramp metering could be effective in maintaining safe merging operations. The eight-lane section of freeway east of the Sam Houston Parkway has low demands in relation to available capacity. No ramp metering is recommended for this section at this time, but traffic monitoring systems should be installed to determine when traffic growth reaches the point of requiring some demand control. Applications of Ramp Meterin~: for S.H. 225 Westbound This direction of S.H. 225 has no recurrent congestion, although the section between Scarborough and Allen Genoa has volumes of 58 during the morning peak period. This section also has several entrance ramps west of Sam Houston Parkway that have high traffic demands. Therefore, the section has a potential for congestion as travel demands increase, as demonstrated by the simulation studies. Therefore. ramp metering should be considered for installation within three years in order to maintain the high level of service along westbound S.H Because of the very high entrance ramp volumes, there will be merging problems at the ramps as congestion on the mainlanes increase. There do not appear to be weaving problems on the approaches to the freeway to freeway interchange. The basic designs of the ramps are adequate, but ramp metering could improve the merging operation.

12 Positive and Negative Aspects of Ramp Metering Near peak and off peak operation of the ramp meters could result in major benefits to traffic mobility in the S.H. 225 corridor. Because of the anticipated congestion in the future, there are significant time periods during the development of congestion when ramp metering will be effective. There may develop high volumes throughout the day, particularly near the noon hour, for which ramp metering operation should be effective in reducing short-term congestion and merging conflicts. Some major alternate routes that have been made available in recent years could become more attractive to users of S.H The construction of the channel crossing to replace the Baytown/LaPorte Tunnel could provide a shift from S.H. 225 to the I-1 East Freeway. The completion of the Sam Houston Parkway and the construction of freeway to freeway connections may also encourage a different route. The application of ramp metering could encourage some motorists to seek out these or other alternatives. The metering will not prevent the formation of traffic congestion during peak periods in the peak direction after traffic demands have increased during the next several years. Ramp metering will reduce the amount of time that congestion forms which, from an overall mobility point of view, is positive. The major problem is how to operate the ramp metering system during the times when ramp metering will be ineffective in improving freeway operations. During nighttime hours when volumes are low, the accepted approach is to turn the signals off. During the peak period when the volumes are very high and there are no acceptable alternate routes, the options for the mode of operation of the ramp meters are: operate the signals at a rate faster than the freeway could accept the entering traffic, thus not contributing to the congestion on the cross street but also not providing any relief to the problem; (This would be the recommended mode of operation for S.H. 225.) operate the signals in the flashing yellow mode to give the motorists the sense that the system is operational, and that the motorist should enter with caution; operate the signals in a dark mode by turning the signals and the advanced flashers off. Metering would cause increased congestion and problems on arterial cross streets. This is always a concern with the introduction of ramp metering for two reasons: one, the ramp

13 merering system is designed to divert some traffic from the ramp to either another entrance ramp or to an alternate route along the arterial street system; two, the control of the flow rates at the ramp causes queues to form which can block a lane of the frontage road, and back into the intersection of the adjacent cross street. These two factors would have to be examined at each of the entrance ramps to be metered. Freeway ramp metering requires good alternate routes for the diverted traffic to bypass the ramp. In the S.H. 225 corridor there are few good alternate routes in either direction, but there are some ramps with no good alternate routes. The lack of continuous frontage roads between Allen-Genoa and Scarborough is of major concern as is the limited frontage road capacity. An evaluation on a case by case basis should be made. Ramp metering must have good enforcement and public acceptance to get adequate compliance to be effective. The usual reaction to the provision of ramp metering is negative from both public and commercial interests. If a ramp metering project is to be considered on the S. H. 225 LaPorte Freeway, the transportation agencies must support the project from the beginning, and solicit the help of the local industrial and commercial developers to market the system to the public. The affected municipalities of Houston, Pasadena, Deer Park, LaPorte, as well as the Metropolitan Transit Authority must support the project through adequate enforcement. Use of Ramp Meterine to Encournee Hieh Occupancy Vehicle Usaee A factor that needs to be considered with ramp metering on S.H. 225 is the priority treatment of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOY). Since no transit service exists in this corridor, the HOVs would consist of carpools and vanpools. This is an accepted practice that has been proven in many urban areas. TxDOT has some experience with several ramps that were modified to provide for this operation. Private companies in the vicinity of the S.H. 225 corridor will be developing demand management programs to raise the level of vehicle occupancies to meet air quality requirements. The successful formation of carpools would be a major justification of the introduction of ramp metering that provided priority entry to the freeway.

14 Summarv of Aq:uments Concernim: Installina= Ramp Meterina= on S.H. 225 Freeway The following statements are derived from a brief analysis of the traffic conditions and roadways of the subject freeways and from the experience of the authors: 1. For ramp metering: a. Will complete the CTMS installation. b. Will avoid the charge of favoritism. c. Will maintain control over the operations of the urban freeway system. d. Will provide improved operations on the freeways. e. Will encourage the use of other streets and freeways for short distance trips. f. Will avoid disruptions caused by future installations. g. Will encourage the use of HOVs. h. Will discourage the overloading of the urban freeways. 1. Will be cost effective. 2. Against ramp metering: a. Will increase the cost of installation. b. Will produce conflicts with major land developers. c. Will increase the cost of maintenance. d. Will result in conflicts with traffic operations on cross streets. e. Will not be perceived as a successful operation by the public. f. Will not be effective at all times. Recommendations The following recommendations concerning the implementation of ramp metering on S.H. 225 discussed in this memorandum are accompanied by other recommendations concerning the general approach to freeway control. These recommendations are those of the author. L Implementation of Ramp Metering on S.H. 225 Freeway from 1-61 to Sam Houston Parkway a. Install and operate the ramp metering system by b. Consider a design that encourages the formation of carpools and vanpools.

15 c. Consider freeway to freeway control for the connections from I-61 to S.H. 225 eastbound. 2. Implementation of Traffic Monitoring on S.H. 225 Freeway from Sam Houston Parkway to S.H. 134 a. Install and operate monitoring system by b. Consider a design that monitors freeway mainlane speed/volumes and entry/exit ramp volumes. 3. Policy Decisions a. TxDOT should make a commitment to provide ramp metering at all ramps. b. TxDOT should plan for the priority treatment of high occupancy vehicles at ramps that are controlled by ramp meters. c. TxDOT should make a commitment to consider the extension of ramp metering to a closure control. d. TxDOT should make a commitment to consider the application of freeway to freeway connector control. e. TxDOT should make a commitment to consider the application of mainline control. The decision as to when and where to implement each of these items as well as when and how to operate each type of control should be determined by the TxDOT Freeway Operations Manager. Closure Freeway ramp control systems have proven to be beneficial in all reported systems in reducing congestion. The amount of benefits and the size of the benefit/cost ratios are dependent on the extent of traffic problems and the amount of costs that must be assigned to the control systems. In the CTMS in Houston, there is a commitment to provide a monitoring system and a data communications system. The CCTV system and other traffic management systems share the costs with other agencies as well.

16 Therefore, in a justification statement for the decision as to the implementation of ramp metering, only those costs involve in adding ramp metering to the infrastructure of CTMS should be considered. Freeway ramp control systems have proven to be effective in reducing accidents. The improvement in freeway mainline operations and the improvement of merging operations have resulted in a reduction in the frequency of accidents, while maintaining or increasing the flow rates. Therefore, if a freeway has congestion and an accident experience that can be related to the quality of operations, then ramp control systems should be considered for implementation. Freeway ramp control systems have proven to be effective in maintaining acceptable traffic patterns. For ramps that have acceptable alternate routes, ramp metering can be effective in reducing the total input volume when congestion conditions, caused by either recurrent or non-recurrent congestion exist. Therefore, if TxDOT is committed to improving the freeway operations by freeway traffic management and incident management, ramp control systems should be considered for implementation on all access facilities.

17 APPENDIX A Results of Traffic Volume Studies

18 SH 225 LAPORTE FREEWAY EASTBOUND --TYPICAL WEEKDAY Page 1 of 3 TIME (Begin) I-61SB 1-61 NB Goodyear Allen-Genoa Allen-Genoa Scarborgh Richey Shaver 12:AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM : AM : PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM n :PM :PM :PM :PM : PM : PM TOTAL NOTES: Mainlane volumes from April 1994 survey. All entrance and exit mmp counts were updated in March & April All data collected by the Texas Tmnsportation Institute.

19 SH 225 LAPORTE FREEWAY EASTBOUND --TYPICAL WEEKDAY Page2 of3 TIME (Begin) Richey Tatar Red Bluff Searle Searle South BeltwayS ** Beltways 12: AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM B:OO AM :AM :AM :AM : PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM BOO :PM : PM :PM TOTAL NOTES: Mainlane volumes from April 1994 survey. All entrance and exit ramp counts were updated in March & April All data collected by the Texas Transportation Institute.

20 SH 225 LAPORTE FREEWAY EASTBOUND --TYPICAL WEEKDAY Page3 of 3 TIME (Begin) Frontage Rd Center Tidal East Blvd. Tidal SH 134 SH :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM : AM : AM" : PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM : PM :PM TOTAL NOTES: Mainlane volumes from April1994 survey. All entrance and exit mmp counts were updated in March & April1994. All data collected by the Texas Transportation Institute.

21 TIME (Begin) 12. AM 1:AM 2:AM 3:AM 4:AM 5:AM 6:AM 7:AM 8:AM 9:AM lo:ooam ll:ooam 12: PM 1:PM 2:PM 3:PM 4:PM 5:PM 6:PM 7:PM 8:PM 9:PM lo:oopm 11: PM TOTAL SH SH SH 225LAPORTE FREEWAY WESTBOUND-- TYPICAL WEEKDAY Tidal East Tidal Center sao Beltways so NOTES: Main lane volumes from April1994 survey. All entrance and exit ramp counts were updated in March & April All data collected by the Texas Transportation Institute. Page 1 of 3 Frontage Rc

22 TIME (Begin) 12: AM 1:AM 2:AM 3:AM 4:AM 5:AM 6:AM 7:AM 8:AM 9:AM 1: AM 11: AM 12: PM 1:PM 2:PM 3:PM 4:PM 5:PM 6:PM 7:PM 8:PM 9:PM 1: PM 11: PM TOTAL ** BeltwayS no SH 225 LAPORTE FREEWAY WESTBOUND --TYPICAL WEEKDAY South Bearle Bearle Red Bluff nto Tatar no Richey Page2 of Shaver NOTES: Main lane volumes from April 1994 survey. All entrance and exit ramp counts were updated in March & April All data collected by the Texas Transportation Institute.

23 SH 225 LAPORTE FREEWAY WESTBOUND --TYPICAL WEEKDAY Page 3 of 3 TIME (Begin) Richey Scarborgh Allen-Genoa Allen-Genoa Goodyear 1-61 NB AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM :AM : PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM :PM : PM :PM TOTAL NOTES: Mainlane volumes from April1994 survey. All entrance and exit ramp counts were updated in March & April1994. All data collected by the Texas Transportation Institute.

24 SH 225 [LA PORTE] EASTBOUND BELTYAY 8 TIME NON TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS TIME HEAVY TRUCKS TIME NON TRUCKS NON TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS NON- HEAVY TIME TRUCKS TRUCKS : :15 :3 :45 6: 954 6: : : : 12:15 12:3 12:45 18: :15 18:3 18: : 1:15 1:3 1:45 7: 7:15 7:3 7: : 13:15 13:3 13:45 19: 19:15 19:3 19:45 2: 2:15 2:3 2:45 8: 8:15 8:3 8: : 14:15 14:3 14:45 2: 2:15 2:3 2:45 3: 3:15 3:3 3:45 4: 4:15 4:3 4:45 5: 5:15 5:3 5:45 9: 9:15 9:3 9:45 1: 1:15 1:3 1:45 11: 11:15 11:3 11: : 15:15 15:3 15:45 16: 16:15 16:3 16:45 17: 17:15 17:3 17: I I I 1s92 1 I I I I I I I I : 21:15 21:3 21:45 22: 22:15 22:3 22:45 23: 23:15 23:3 23:45 NOTE: HEAVY TRUCKS DESIGNATE 18-WHEELERS ONLY NON-TRUCKS REPRESENT ALL OTHER VEHICLES COUNT DATES: 6: - 1: > 3/3/ : - 19: --> 3/3/1994 SUMMARY TOTALS 6:-9: ===> 16:-19: ===> NON-TRK TRUCKS TOTAL X TRKS SOURCE: TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MANUAL COUNTS AM PEAK HOUR = 6:15-7:15 ===> PH PEAK HOUR = 17:-18: ===>

25 SH 225 [LA PORTE] YESTBOUND BELTYAY 8 NON HEAVY TIME TRUCKS TRUCKS TIME NON- TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS TIME NON TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS TIME NON- TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS : :15 :3 :45 6: 6:15 6:3 6: : 12:15 12:3 12:45 18: 18:15 18:3 18: : 1:15 1:3 1:45 7: 7:15 7:3 7: : 13:15 13:3 13:45 19: 19:15 19:3 19:45 2: 2:15 2:3 2:45 8: 8:15 8:3 8: : 14:15 14:3 14:45 2: 2:15 2:3 2:45 3: 3:15 3:3 3:45 9: 9:15 9:3 9: : 15:15 15:3 15: : 21:15 21:3 21:45 4: 4:15 4:3 4:45 1: 1:15 1:3 1:45 16: 16:15 16:3 16: : 22:15 22:3 22:45 5: 5:15 5:3 5:45 11: 11:15 11:3 11:45 17: 17:15 17:3 17: : 23:15 23:3 23:45 NOTE: HEAVY TRUCKS DESIGNATE 18-YHEELERS ONLY NON-TRUCKS REPRESENT ALL OTHER VEHICLES COUNT DATES: 6: - 1: > 3/3/ : - 19: --> 3/3/1994 SUMMARY TOTALS 6:-9: ===> 16:-19: ===> NON TRK TRUCKS TOTAL X TRKS SOURCE: TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MANUAL COUNTS AM PEAK HOUR = 6:45-7:45 ===> PM PEAK HOUR = 16: 17: ===> zan

26 APPENDIX B Results of Travel Time and Speed Studies

27 Description of Section Limits - SH 225 Eastbound Section Code Sections Limits Distarice (miles).... (km) S to Allen-Genoa S-2 Allen-Genoa to Scarborough S-3 Scarborough to Richey.5.8 S-4 Richey to Shaver S-5 Shaver to Red Bluff S-6 Red Bluff to Bearle S-7 Bearle to South S-8 South to Sam Houston Pkwy S-9 Sam Houston Pkwy to SP RR Overpass S-1 SP RR Overpass to Center S-11 Center to SH S-12 SH 134 to SH Total I-61 to SH

28 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Eastbound -- AM Peak Period START TIME S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 6 T. TIME AVG. SPO T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME

29 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Eastbound-- AM Peak Period START TIME S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 s-7 S-8 S-9 s-1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 9 T. TIME T. TIME PEAK PERIOD AVERAGES T. TIME

30 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Eastbound -- PH Peak Period START TIME S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 s-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 15 T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME

31 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Eastbound -- PH Peak Period START TIME S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 18 T. TIME AVG. SPO T. TIME AVG. SPO PEAK PERIOD AVERAGES T. TIME

32 Description ofsectiori.li!!tits~.sh22 'We5tbound-r. { : S-1 SH 146 to SH S-2 SH 134 to Center S-3 Center to SP RR Overpass S-4 SP RR Overpass to Sam Houston Pkwy S-5 Sam Houston Pkwy to South S-6 South to Bearle S-7 Bearle to Red Bluff S-8 Red Bluff to Shaver S-9 Shaver to Richey S-1 Richey to Scarborough.5.8 S-11 Scarborough to Allen-Genoa S-12 Allen-Genoa to I Total SH 146 to I

33 START TIME T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Westbound AM Peak Period S-1 S-2 s-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 6 T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME CKPH)

34 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, Westbound -- AM Peak Period START TIME S-1 S-2 s-3 s-4 s-s S-6 s-7 S-8 S-9 S 1 S-11 S-12 TOTAL 9 T. TIME AVG. SPO T. TIME AVG. SPO CKPH) PEAK PERIOD AVERAGES T. TIME AVG. SPO

35 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, 1994 Westbound PM Peak Period START TIME S 1 S-2 S 3 S-4 S-5 S-6 s S-12 TOTAL 15 T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME T. TIME

36 T E X A S T R A N S P R T A T I N I N S T I T U T E Results of Travel Time Studies SH 225 LaPorte Freeway March 31, 1994 Westbound PM Peak Period START TIME S 1 S 2 s-3 S 4 S 5 S 6 S-7 S 8 S 9 S-1 S 11 S 12 TOTAL 18 T. TIME CKPH) T. TIME PEAK PERIOD AVERAGES T. TIME CKPH)