MPO Staff Report Technical Advisory Committee: July 12, 2017

Similar documents
City of Grand Forks Staff Report

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

Open House. Highway212. Meetings. Corridor Access Management, Safety & Phasing Plan. 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. - Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition

Alpine Highway to North County Boulevard Connector Study

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Transportation. Background. Transportation Planning Goals. Level of Service Analysis 5-1

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting

Northeast Pavement Preservation Partnership Burlington, Vermont. Rhode Island DOT

Highway 18 BNSF Railroad Overpass Feasibility Study Craighead County. Executive Summary

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report

Corridor Sketch Summary

Current Corridor Characteristics. MN 62 Corridor Performance

Highway 23 New London Access & Safety Assessment. Public Open House #2 October 3, :00 to 7:00 PM

MPO Transit Study. Transit Concept for 2050 November 5, Transit Technologies

US 10 Corridor Performance

Harlem Avenue between 63 rd and 65 th

Parking Management Element

Purpose and Need Report

March 2, 2017 Integrating Transportation Planning, Project Development, and Project Programming

A Vision for Highway Automation

Sales and Use Transportation Tax Implementation Plan

F:\PROJ\ \dwg\Alt-bridge-alignments.dwg, 17-2, 11/12/ :22:17 PM, saamhu, Acrobat PDFWriter

Transportation Performance Management Overview. Laura Toole 2018 Ohio Planning Conference

Western ND Meeting. February 19, 2014 Grant Levi, NDDOT Director

City of Grand Forks Staff Report

Dulles Corridor Air Rights Study Investigation

Recommended Transportation. Capital Improvement Program

I-394 Corridor Performance

The Eastern Connector Study November, 2007 planning for the future

Welcome. Highway 23 Gap New London to Paynesville. Open House. - Please Sign In -

Population Trends. US 12 Corridor Performance

CHARACTERIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK LOAD SPECTRA FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE PAVEMENT DESIGN PRACTICES IN LOUISIANA

Planning for Future Mobility In a Performance-Based World Steven Gayle, PTP

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

Metro Transit Update. Christina Morrison, Senior Planner Metro Transit BRT/Small Starts Project Office. John Dillery, Senior Transit Planner

Missouri Seat Belt Usage Survey for 2017

Overview. Prioritization of Safety Strategies Development of the Minnesota Sinusoidal Rumble Strip Implementation and Public Relations Considerations

Slow Down! Why speed is important in realizing your Vision Zero goals and how to achieve the speeds you need

ITEM 13 - NOTICE May 20, 2009

10/4/2016. October 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Transportation Statistical Data Development Report BAY COUNTY 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Harlem Avenue between 63 rd and 65 th

Rocky Mount. Transportation Plan. Transportation Planning Division. Virginia Department of Transportation

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

ALAMEDA CORRIDOR. A A Project of National Significance. TRB Summer Conference MTS as a Component of the Nation s Transportation System June 25, 2002

Utilizing GIS Models in Prioritizing and Selecting Transportation Projects

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

Interstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Simulation Output

Introduction. Assumptions. Jeff Holstein, P.E., City of Brooklyn Park Steve Wilson, Principal Tim Babich, Associate Krista Anderson, Engineer

PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 834 Individual and General Notice June 15, 2018

Transportation accomplishments

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Understanding and Identifying Crashes on Curves for Safety Improvement Potential in Illinois

Improving Accessibility of Regional Bus Stops and Pathways

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

Business Advisory Committee. July 7, 2015

TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

I-820 (East) Project Description. Fort Worth District. Reconstruct Southern I-820/SH 121 Interchange

Regional Transit Extension Studies. Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Passenger Rail Task Force Meeting December 17, 2013

Citizens Committee for Facilities

Business Advisory Committee. November 3, 2015

Signal System Timing and Phasing Program SAMPLE. Figure 1: General Location Map. Second St.

Bennett Pit. Traffic Impact Study. J&T Consulting, Inc. Weld County, Colorado. March 3, 2017

Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension Study. October 2014

Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology

2016 Congestion Report

Plainfield, Indiana Speed Limit Study

The Georgia CMAQ Program. Practice Makes Perfect

Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report

WIM #37 was operational for the entire month of September Volume was computed using all monthly data.

MEMO VIA . Ms. Amy Roth DPS Director, City of Three Rivers. To:

Clearlake Road (State Road 501) Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study

Task Force Meeting January 15, 2009

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

Only video reveals the hidden dangers of speeding.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Freeway System Reconstruction Study

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

WIM #40 is located on US 52 near South St. Paul in Dakota county.

Community Advisory Committee. October 5, 2015

Florida Strategic Highway Safety Planning Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Update and Performance Overview

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 3 PROJECT STUDY AREA Figure 1 Vicinity Map Study Area... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS... 5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS...

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

Request for Qualification for Comprehensive Plan Services RFQ#

Call for Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Emissions Formulas Technical Advisory Committee

DEVELOPMENT OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Trunk Highway 13 Corridor Study Update Existing and No-Build Conditions Technical Memo #2B: Traffic Forecasts and Operations Analysis SEH No.

Tulsa Transportation Management Area. Urbanized Area Surface Transportation Program

Lacey Gateway Residential Phase 1

RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULING ASSESSMENT SERVICES. January 10, 2011 Presentation to Arvada City Council

Mountainland Association of Governments SPRINGVILLE-SPANISH FORK AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY APRIL 2012

Interchange Modification Justification Study. I-90/Timberline Road Interchange, Exit 402 SIOUX FALLS MPO

Exhibit A Sound Transit Board Resolution R Selecting the bicycle, pedestrian, and parking access improvements to be built for the Puyallup

House Committee on Transportation Policy Public Hearing HB April 5, 2017

MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

Additional $200 Speeding Fine Signs

Transcription:

MPO Staff Report Technical Advisory Committee: July 12, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 2 nd TAC Meeting with Kimley-Horn/WSB in Updating the Street/Highway Element of 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Matter of Kick-off for 2045 Street/Highway Element. Background: The UPWP identifies that the major undertaking of the MPO for the next two years is to update the Street/Highway Element of our Metropolitan Transportation Plan to the horizon year of 2045. Kimley-Horn, with WSB as subconsultant, were retained to assist us in this update. The final contracts were signed during the first week of May. The consultant team will be present at the July TAC meeting to present existing conditions of the Street/Highway system. The presentation is attached. Findings and Analysis: This activity is identified in UPWP. The regular 5 year update cycle ends December 2018 This update is required to be FAST compliant This update will need to incorporate require performance measures and targets. The consulting team of Kimley-Horm and WSB are under contract and working. One of the first activities is to analyze the existing conditions. Support Materials: Presentation.

Streets + Highways Plan Update TAC Meeting #2 July 12, 2017

Agenda Existing Conditions Report Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Schedule & Public Participation Process Overall Schedule Online Engagement In Person Engagement Open House #1 Wrap-Up Next Steps Questions

Existing Conditions Report

Existing Conditions: Overview Existing Demographics and Forecasted 2045 Land Use Update on 2015/2045 Travel Demand Modeling (ATAC) Existing Street/Highway System Characteristics NHS & Other Federal-Aid Eligible Roadways Network Lane Miles Roadway Jurisdiction Pavement Conditions Traffic Volumes Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Auto and Truck Crash History Truck Routes and Truck Traffic Volumes BNSF Trackage and Railroad Crossings

Existing Conditions: MPO Study Area Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Population Forecasts City 2010 2015 2025 2035 2045 US Census ACS Estimate Grand Forks 52,838 54,944 60,247 67,879 76,479 East Grand Forks 8,601 8,611 9,841 10,764 11,773 Total 61,439 63,555 70,088 78,643 88,252 1.2 percent growth rate assumed per 2045 Grand Forks Land Use Plan 0.9 percent growth rate assumed per 2045 East Grand Forks Land Use Plan Source: 2045 Grand Forks Land Use Plan, East Grand Forks 2045 Land Use Plan

Existing Conditions: Age Groups 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over Grand Forks 2015 East Grand Forks 2015 Source: 2015 American Community Survey

Existing Conditions: Race Composition City White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Some other race Grand Forks 90.7% 3.7% 4.7% 3.2% 0.2% 1.1% East Grand Forks 94.9% 3.7% 3.3% 1.4% 0.1% 0.6% Source: 2015 American Community Survey

Existing Conditions: Workplace Location and Travel Patterns City Percent of People that Live and Work in Same City Percent of People that Live and Work in Same County Travel to Work via Automobile Drive Alone Mean Travel Time to Work Grand Forks 84.4% 89.7% 90.1% 82.1% 12.9 minutes East Grand Forks 22.3% 27.5% 94.6% 86.7% 14.5 minutes Source: 2015 American Community Survey Note: MPO data indicates approximately 4,000 EGF residents commute to GF for work and approximately 4,000 GF residents commute to EGF for work.

Existing Conditions: Link Level of Service (LOS) ATAC UPDATING NETWORK TO 2015 CALIBRATED BASE YEAR

Existing Conditions: 2045 Land Use Plans Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: 2045 Growth Allocation MPO STAFF/ATAC ALLOCATING FORECASTED GROWTH BY TAZ (POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & HOUSEHOLDS) Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: National Highway System (NHS) & Other Federal-Aid Roads Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Lane Miles Roadway Type 4 Lanes All Others Total North Dakota 32.7 316.62 349.32 Minnesota 7.6 134.57 142.17 MPO Study Area 40.3 451.19 491.49 Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Roadway Jurisdiction Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Roadway Jurisdiction Mileage Jurisdiction State County Township City Total North Dakota 37.62 22.06 63.72 225.88 349.28 Minnesota 18.1 21.25 42.24 60.57 142.16 MPO Study Area 55.72 43.31 105.96 286.45 491.44 Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Functional Classification Note: Functional Classification recently updated for East Grand Forks Needs to be updated for Grand Forks Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Functional Classification Mileage Totals by State Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Major Collector Local All Roads North Dakota 16.22 24.42 38.53 4.03 52.16 213.92 349.28 Minnesota 0 8.23 15.88 8.78 16.33 92.94 142.16 MPO Study Area 16.22 32.65 54.41 12.81 68.49 306.86 491.44 Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Functional Classification Summary Compared to FHWA Guidelines Facility Type MPO Study Area FHWA Urban Guidance Principal Arterials (including interstates) 10% 5 to 10% Principal Arterials plus Minor Arterials 21% 15 to 25% Collectors 17% 5 to 10% Local Streets 62% 65 to 80% Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Pavement Conditions Note: GF 2013 EGF 2015 NDOT and MnDOT missing data. Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Pavement Trends by Pavement Condition Index Year Grand Forks Average PCI East Grand Forks Average PCI Grand Forks Weighted Average PCI East Grand Forks Weighted Average PCI 1999 63.9 67.2 n/a n/a 2003 86.3 87.0 78.1 74.9 2008 76.7 76.8 82.0 79.9 Current 72.7 (2013) 79.18 (2015) 69.9 (2013) 82.0 (2015) Note: NDDOT and MnDOT roads missing data. Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Pavement Conditions Comparison Pavement Condition GF/EGF MPO Area MN-Side ND-Side Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Good 35% 7% 24% 9% 40% 1% Satisfactory 21% 7% 7% 4% 27% 13% Fair 17% 21% 2% 0% 24% 72% Poor 7% 0% 2% 0% 9% 0% Very Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% No Data 21% 66% 64% 87% 0% 14% Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Traffic Volumes Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Intersection LOS LOS F Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) 80 55 35 20 10 LOS E LOS D LOS C LOS B LOS A Not Congested Congested Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) 50 35 25 15 10 LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS C LOS B LOS A Not Congested Congested Source: Highway Capacity Manual Signalized Intersection Un-signalized Intersection

Existing Conditions: Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

Existing Conditions: Crash Rates (2012-2015) Source: NDDOT and MnDOT

Existing Conditions: Crash Type (2012-2015) Key Locations* Intersection Angle/Turn Head On Rear End Side Swipe Other 31st St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 45 0 6 0 1 24th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 28 0 7 3 0 10th Ave. N. & Columbia Rd. 16 0 3 0 0 Columbia Rd. & 32nd Ave. S. 11 0 21 9 1 17th Ave. S. & 17th St. S. 13 0 3 0 0 17th Ave. S. & 20th St. S. 9 1 2 0 0 17th Ave. S. & Washington St. 17 1 16 2 4 17th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 12 3 10 4 3 17th St. S. & 24th Ave. S. 8 0 4 0 1 20th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 38 0 4 0 2 27th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 14 1 5 1 3 Interstate 29 & US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. 7 0 8 1 0 Interstate 29 & 32nd Av. S. 11 0 2 2 0 US Highway 297/Demers Ave. & 42nd St. N. 33 1 17 3 6 US Highway 297/Demers Ave. & Columbia Rd. 6 0 20 0 0 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Mill Rd. 12 0 10 1 3 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Columbia Rd. 18 0 15 2 4 30th Ave. S. & 34th St. S. 10 0 1 1 1 32nd Ave. S. & Washington St. 9 1 31 1 4 34th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 38 1 19 4 2 38th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 23 1 9 1 1 42nd St. N. & University Ave. 7 1 6 1 2 4th Ave. S. & Belmont Rd. 9 0 3 0 0 6th Ave. N. & Columbia Rd. 3 0 6 3 0 Washington St. & University Ave. 19 2 9 0 1 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Central Ave./TH 220 11 2 18 4 1 Source: NDDOT and MnDOT * Above expected crash rate

Existing Conditions: Crash Rate/Severity (2012-2015) Key Locations* Intersection Actual Crash Rate Expected Crash Rate Total Crashes Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes 31st St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 1.54 0.71 52 0 22 24th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 0.97 0.71 38 0 8 10th Ave. N. & Columbia Rd. 1.24 0.52 19 0 8 Columbia Rd. & 32nd Ave. S. 0.88 0.71 42 0 16 17th Ave. S. & 17th St. S. 0.97 0.52 16 0 7 17th Ave. S. & 20th St. S. 0.69 0.52 12 0 2 17th Ave. S. & Washington St. 0.88 0.71 40 0 16 17th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 0.76 0.71 32 0 10 17th St. S. & 24th Ave. S. 0.88 0.52 13 0 4 20th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 1.17 0.71 44 0 22 27th Ave. S. & Columbia Rd. 0.76 0.71 24 0 8 Interstate 29 & US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. 0.82 0.52 16 0 4 Interstate 29 & 32nd Av. S. 0.91 0.52 15 0 2 US Highway 297/Demers Ave. & 42nd St. N. 1.48 0.71 60 0 16 US Highway 297/Demers Ave. & Columbia Rd. 0.97 0.71 26 0 11 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Mill Rd. 0.77 0.71 26 0 7 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Columbia Rd. 0.98 0.71 39 0 12 30th Ave. S. & 34th St. S. 0.92 0.52 13 0 3 32nd Ave. S. & Washington St. 1.38 0.71 46 0 8 34th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 1.37 0.71 64 0 24 38th St. S. & 32nd Ave. S. 1.02 0.71 35 0 11 42nd St. N. & University Ave. 0.75 0.71 17 0 4 4th Ave. S. & Belmont Rd. 1.00 0.52 12 0 5 6th Ave. N. & Columbia Rd. 0.84 0.52 12 0 0 Washington St. & University Ave. 0.87 0.71 31 0 9 US Highway 2/Gateway Dr. & Central Ave./TH 220 1.14 0.71 36 0 9 Source: NDDOT and MnDOT * Above expected crash rate

Existing Conditions: Truck Routes Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Truck Traffic Volumes Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Truck Crashes Source: NDDOT and MnDOT

Existing Conditions: Truck Crashes Truck Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Double Axle 6 1 6 2 15 Triple Axle or greater 7 8 7 9 31 Truck Tractor with 0-3 Trailers 17 22 10 15 64 Unknown Heavy Truck 1 1 0 4 6 Total 31 32 23 30 116 Death 0 0 1 0 1 Injury 3 5 2 6 16 Property Damage Only 27 28 20 24 99 Source: NDDOT and MnDOT

Existing Conditions: BNSF Trackage Source: GF-EGF MPO

Existing Conditions: Railroad Crossings Source: GF-EGF MPO

Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures: Process Review 2040 MTP performance measures Update goals and performance measures per updated FAST Act guidelines and requirements, drawn from: TAC feedback New priorities within the area New perspectives Effectiveness of old performance measures Best practices from other MPOs Ease of adoption by NDDOT and MnDOT Others

Performance Measurement: Goals 2040 Plan Goals FAST Act: Required Goals Goal 1: Economic Vitality Goal 2: Security Goal 3: Accessibility and Mobility Goal 4: Environmental/Energy/ Quality of Life Goal 5: Integration and Connectivity Goal 6: Efficient System Management Goal 7: System Preservation Goal 8: Safety Goal 1: Safety Goal 2: Infrastructure Condition Goal 3: Congestion Reduction Goal 4: System Reliability Goal 5: Freight Movement and Economic Vitality Goal 6: Environmental Sustainability Goal 7: Project Delivery

MPO 2045 Draft Vision Statement The Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Long Range Transportation Plan envisions a community that provides a variety of complementary transportation choices for people and goods that is fiscally constrained.

MPO 2045 Draft Goals Goal 1: Economic Vitality Goal 2: Security Goal 3: Accessibility and Mobility Goal 4: Environmental/Energy/ Quality of Life Goal 5: Integration and Connectivity Goal 6: Efficient System Management Goal 7: System Preservation Goal 8: Safety Goal 9: Resiliency Goal 10: Tourism

Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Matrix Existing/ Proposed Goal Objective Performance Measure Data Source Federal Req t? State Req t? Local Issue Addressed Existing Safety Reduce the number, severity, and rate of crashes compared to previous years by type of vehicle and transportation facility. Number of traffic fatalities and serious crashes. NDDOT/ MnDOT Yes ND/MN

Schedule & Public Participation Process

Project Overview: Schedule

Wrap Up: Next Steps Actively working on Task 2: Goals/Objectives/Performance Measures Report Task 3: Existing Conditions Report Task 4: Existing Plus Future Conditions Report Followed by Task 5: Identification of Issues Report Task 9: Prep for TAC #2 and Open House #2

Online Engagement: WikiMapping

In Person Engagement Open House Date Purpose Open House 1 August 10, 2017 Present existing conditions Introduce performance based planning including goals, objectives, and performance measures Open House 2 November 2017 Present existing plus future conditions Present issues identified Present goals, objectives, performance measures Open House 3 April 2018 Present issues identified Present range of alternatives Present financial plan Open House 4 July 2018 Present recommended future network and implementation report Present Street and Highway Plan

Open House #1: August 10, 2017 Details Time: TBD Location: TBD Outline Sign-In Station Formal Presentation & Open House Format Major Topics Addressed Existing conditions Public engagement process Planning process Display Boards Existing Conditions Vision, Goals, and Performance Objectives Schedule and participation process Activity interactive map to identify issue areas Website and WikiMapping Overview Comment box

In-Person Engagement

Wrap Up Questions? Next TAC Meeting: November 8, 2017 Kimley-Horn Brandon Bourdon, P.E. 651-643-0421 brandon.bourdon@kimley-horn.com WSB Scott Mareck, AICP 320-534-5948 smareck@wsbeng.com