central indiana suburban transportation & mobility study (cistms) central indiana suburban...
TRANSCRIPT
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Sponsored by INDOT in conjunction with the
Indianapolis MPO
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
Sponsored by INDOT in conjunction with the
Indianapolis MPO
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
Study AreaStudy Area
North
South
West East
Study PurposeStudy Purpose• Evaluate existing and forecasted travel needs
for “crosstown” (non-radial) corridors• Identify key issues and problems pertaining
to suburban mobility on those corridors• Determine how needs can best be addressed
from a planning and policy perspective• Develop Project Implementation Timeline
– 10-25 years
• Evaluate existing and forecasted travel needs for “crosstown” (non-radial) corridors
• Identify key issues and problems pertaining to suburban mobility on those corridors
• Determine how needs can best be addressed from a planning and policy perspective
• Develop Project Implementation Timeline– 10-25 years
Study ActivitiesStudy Activities
• Model & evaluate corridor needs (4 corridors)
• Evaluate potential benefits of “outer belt” for I-465 and other corridor facilities
• Define land use/transportation relationships
• Model & evaluate North-South Statewide Mobility Corridor (E) and I-69 routing through Marion County
• Identify short- & long-term recommendations for each study corridor
• Model & evaluate corridor needs (4 corridors)
• Evaluate potential benefits of “outer belt” for I-465 and other corridor facilities
• Define land use/transportation relationships
• Model & evaluate North-South Statewide Mobility Corridor (E) and I-69 routing through Marion County
• Identify short- & long-term recommendations for each study corridor
North-South Statewide Mobility Corridor (E)
North-South Statewide Mobility Corridor (E)
CISTMSWork Flow
CISTMSWork Flow
Inputs Issues Outputs
Base CurrentConditions Needs?
Report
Travel Future Corridor PlansSimulation Corridor Final
Model Needs? Report
Statewide
MobilityCorridor? Future
INDOT/MPO
I-69 Route Programthrough
Indianapolis?
Land Use OuterModel Belt?
(LUCI\T)
PeerCity
Review
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
BASE BASE CONDITIONS CONDITIONS REPORTREPORT
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
BASE BASE CONDITIONS CONDITIONS REPORTREPORT
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
CONTENT:
Overview of Study Area
Overview of each Study Corridor
Existing Conditions Data
Recommended Low-Cost Actions to Address Current Problems
CONTENT:
Overview of Study Area
Overview of each Study Corridor
Existing Conditions Data
Recommended Low-Cost Actions to Address Current Problems
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA:
County, City and Town Census Data
Population and Employment Trend Data
Brief Transportation System Overview
1990 & 2000 Commuting Patterns
OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA:
County, City and Town Census Data
Population and Employment Trend Data
Brief Transportation System Overview
1990 & 2000 Commuting Patterns
1990 & 2000
1990 & 2000
COUNTY TO COUNTY WORKFLOWSFOR THE 8 RING COUNTIES
East – West TripsYear 2000 vs. (1990)
Boone
Hendricks
Hamilton
Madison
Hancock
Morgan
Johnson
Shelby
Marion
Source:U.S. Census BureauInternet Release Date 3/6/2003 (for 2000 data)
104 (19)85 (7)
1,891 (1,297)835 (481)
1,453 (1,133)5,689 (2,302)
67 (29)190 (38)
64 (44)0 (13)
550 (222)1,025 (714)
1,689 (1,011)605 (419)
261
(83)
121
(69)
1,376
(547
)
304
(117)
441
(190)
530
(159
)
506
(293)
1,513(374)
Commuting Patterns
Commuting Patterns
To Marion County (2000)150,000 trips per day
From Marion County (2000)50,000 trips per day
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
CORRIDOR REVIEWS:
Overview of Parallel Arterials
State and Local Plans
Physical & Operational Reviews (State Highways -- INDOT Inventories)
Strategies to Maximize Existing Efficiency
CORRIDOR REVIEWS:
Overview of Parallel Arterials
State and Local Plans
Physical & Operational Reviews (State Highways -- INDOT Inventories)
Strategies to Maximize Existing Efficiency
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
PHYSICAL REVIEWS:
Lanes, Surface Width, Shoulder Width
Percent “No-Passing”
Access Points per Mile
Right of Way Width
Urban – Rural Category
PHYSICAL REVIEWS:
Lanes, Surface Width, Shoulder Width
Percent “No-Passing”
Access Points per Mile
Right of Way Width
Urban – Rural Category
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
OPERATIONAL REVIEWS:
Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Speed Limit & Average Travel Speed
Percent “Time Spent Following”
Level of Service (A through F)
OPERATIONAL REVIEWS:
Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Speed Limit & Average Travel Speed
Percent “Time Spent Following”
Level of Service (A through F)
Base Conditions ReportBase Conditions Report
Strategies to Maximize Existing Efficiency :
Access Management Actions
Traffic Engineering Improvements
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Strategies to Maximize Existing Efficiency :
Access Management Actions
Traffic Engineering Improvements
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
TRAVEL TRAVEL SIMULATION SIMULATION MODELMODEL
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
TRAVEL TRAVEL SIMULATION SIMULATION MODELMODEL
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
Travel Simulation ModelTravel Simulation Model
Indianapolis MPO Regional Travel Simulation Model
INDOT Statewide Travel Simulation Model
Indianapolis MPO Regional Travel Simulation Model
INDOT Statewide Travel Simulation Model
Travel Simulation ModelTravel Simulation Model
2025 Network Updates for CISTMS:
INDOT Long Range Plan Projects Included
Indianapolis MPO Regional Plan Projects Included
I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis Included (FEIS Alt 3C)
2025 Network Updates for CISTMS:
INDOT Long Range Plan Projects Included
Indianapolis MPO Regional Plan Projects Included
I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis Included (FEIS Alt 3C)
Travel Simulation ModelTravel Simulation Model
Bookend Alternatives:
Yr 2025 Current Plan (Minimum Change) Current 2025 Plan with only minor safety and
operational improvements within study corridors – auxiliary lanes, intersection changes, spot improvements
Yr 2025 Outer Belt (Maximum Change) Current 2025 Plan, plus upgrade or build new
roadways at interstate standards within each corridor; link them to provide a continuous circumferential route
Bookend Alternatives:
Yr 2025 Current Plan (Minimum Change) Current 2025 Plan with only minor safety and
operational improvements within study corridors – auxiliary lanes, intersection changes, spot improvements
Yr 2025 Outer Belt (Maximum Change) Current 2025 Plan, plus upgrade or build new
roadways at interstate standards within each corridor; link them to provide a continuous circumferential route
Travel Simulation ModelTravel Simulation Model
Bookend Alternatives:
A range of options is being evaluated in CISTMS.
The bookend alternatives are intended to represent the outer limits of that range.
Neither the Current Plan nor the Outer Belt option is currently proposed.
Different options may be recommended for different corridors.
Bookend Alternatives:
A range of options is being evaluated in CISTMS.
The bookend alternatives are intended to represent the outer limits of that range.
Neither the Current Plan nor the Outer Belt option is currently proposed.
Different options may be recommended for different corridors.
Travel Simulation ModelTravel Simulation Model
Model Runs (To Date) for CISTMS:
Yr 2000 base (testing and calibration)
Yr 2025 Current Plan (Minimum Change)
Yr 2025 Outer Belt (Maximum Change)
Model Runs (To Date) for CISTMS:
Yr 2000 base (testing and calibration)
Yr 2025 Current Plan (Minimum Change)
Yr 2025 Outer Belt (Maximum Change)
2025 ForecastCurrent Plan Network
• Veh-mi travel – 71.1 Mil
• Ave trip length – 9.9 mi.
• LOS E or worse – 876 mi.
2025 ForecastCurrent Plan Network
• Veh-mi travel – 71.1 Mil
• Ave trip length – 9.9 mi.
• LOS E or worse – 876 mi.
47
75
32
39
39
267
37213
19
44
44
252
142
42
28
128
32
234
9
9
9
65
69
70
74
65
70
74
865
36
31
421
136
36
40
31
52
CISTMS
Travel Demand Model Base Network2025 ADT volumes
0 4 8 12
Miles
CIST Alt 1
Base Volume
200000 100000 50000
2025 ForecastOuter Belt Network
• Veh-mi travel – 72.4 Mil
• Ave trip length – 10.1 mi.
• LOS E or worse – 746 mi.
2025 ForecastOuter Belt Network
• Veh-mi travel – 72.4 Mil
• Ave trip length – 10.1 mi.
• LOS E or worse – 746 mi.
47
75
32
39
3 9
267
37213
19
44
44
252
142
42
28
128
32
234
9
9
9
65
69
70
74
65
70
74
865
36
31
421
136
36
40
31
52
Travel Demand Model - Build Alt 12025 ADT volumes
CISTMS0 4 8 12
Miles
Max Vol
200000 100000 50000
2025 Outer Belt -Traffic Increases
• I-69N – I-70 74,000 veh/day
• I-69S – I-70 48,000 veh/day
• I-70W – US 40 44,000 veh/day
2025 Outer Belt -Traffic Increases
• I-69N – I-70 74,000 veh/day
• I-69S – I-70 48,000 veh/day
• I-70W – US 40 44,000 veh/day
47
75
32
39
39
267
37213
19
44
44
252
142
42
28
128
32
234
9
9
9
65
69
70
74
65
70
74
865
36
31
421
136
36
40
31
52
CISTMS
Comparison Between Alt 1 & Base NetworkIncrease in 2025 ADT volumes 0 4 8 12
Miles
Formula Field
50000 25000 12500
2025 Outer Belt -Traffic Reductions
• I-69 NE 28,000 veh/day
• I-69 SW 23,000 veh/day
• I-465 NW 18,000 veh/day
• I-465 NE 13,000 veh/day
2025 Outer Belt -Traffic Reductions
• I-69 NE 28,000 veh/day
• I-69 SW 23,000 veh/day
• I-465 NW 18,000 veh/day
• I-465 NE 13,000 veh/day
47
75
32
39
39
267
37213
19
44
44
252
142
42
28
128
32
234
9
9
9
65
69
70
74
65
70
74
865
36
31
421
136
36
40
31
52
CISTMS
Comparison Between Alt 1 & Base NetworkDecrease in 2025 ADT volumes 0 4 8 12
Miles
Formula Field
0 -30000 -50000
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
LAND USE LAND USE MODELMODEL
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
LAND USE LAND USE MODELMODEL
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
LUCI: Land Use in Central Indiana
• Model to predict future patterns of urban development for the Central Indiana region
• Purpose not to produce “best” forecast but alternative scenarios
• Scenarios reflect policy choices, including restrictions on development, utility expansion
• Scenarios reflect alternative assumptions for future development, including population growth, density and accessibility preferences
LUCI/T Model
• Created for CISTMS land use analysis
• Restricted to nine-county area (from original 44 counties)
• Uses travel time* rather than distance for employment accessibility
• Uses traffic analysis zone employment data*
*From regional travel simulation model
2000-2025 Urban Development
2000 Existing(Base Condition)
2025 Current Plan (Minimum Change)
550 sq.mi. urban 848 sq.mi. urban
2025 Urban DevelopmentCurrent Plan
(Minimum Change)
Outer Belt(Maximum Change)
848 sq.mi. urban2,521 pop./sq.mi.
849 sq.mi. urban2,520 pop./sq.mi.
Possible Reasons for Small Differences
• The existing base of county to county commuting trips is limited.
• Urban development Fringe does not reach outer belt alignment (even in 2040).
• Households have better employment access at edge of urban fringe than from outer belt.
• Major travel time benefits between locations along outer belt, not to and from existing activity centers.
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
PEER CITY PEER CITY ANALYSISANALYSIS
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
PEER CITY PEER CITY ANALYSISANALYSIS
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
Peer City AnalysisPeer City Analysis
Literature Review – Beltways and Land Use
Land use impacts relate to beltway function Employment location more important than
road (beltway) location Land use affected by commuting “time budget” Development influenced by proximity of
beltway to urban “edge” Many factors besides transportation determine
patterns of growth and sprawl
Literature Review – Beltways and Land Use
Land use impacts relate to beltway function Employment location more important than
road (beltway) location Land use affected by commuting “time budget” Development influenced by proximity of
beltway to urban “edge” Many factors besides transportation determine
patterns of growth and sprawl
Peer City AnalysisPeer City Analysis
Selected Peer Cities
Population
Houston, TX
4,670,000Boston, MA
3,407,000Charlotte, NC
1,499,000Nashville, TN
1,231,000
Indianapolis MSA population is 1.6 million
Selected Peer Cities
Population
Houston, TX
4,670,000Boston, MA
3,407,000Charlotte, NC
1,499,000Nashville, TN
1,231,000
Indianapolis MSA population is 1.6 million
Peer City AnalysisPeer City Analysis
Conclusions – Urban Sprawl & Beltways
1. Urban growth, economic expansion and the trend of decentralized development prompts urban sprawl concerns nationwide
2. Research is inconclusive regarding direct relationship of outer belts with urban sprawl
3. Beltways (and all freeways) impact the location of development, but its character and intensity is influenced by land use planning and zoning
Conclusions – Urban Sprawl & Beltways
1. Urban growth, economic expansion and the trend of decentralized development prompts urban sprawl concerns nationwide
2. Research is inconclusive regarding direct relationship of outer belts with urban sprawl
3. Beltways (and all freeways) impact the location of development, but its character and intensity is influenced by land use planning and zoning
Peer City AnalysisPeer City Analysis
Conclusions – Urban Sprawl and Planning
1. Land Use Planning and early zoning is key to orderly growth and development
2. Local planning is key since land use policies are determined locally
3. Inter-jurisdictional participation is a necessity
“Transportation objectives are regional, but land use impacts are local.”
Conclusions – Urban Sprawl and Planning
1. Land Use Planning and early zoning is key to orderly growth and development
2. Local planning is key since land use policies are determined locally
3. Inter-jurisdictional participation is a necessity
“Transportation objectives are regional, but land use impacts are local.”
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
Central Indiana SuburbanTransportation & MobilityStudy (CISTMS)
NEXT NEXT STEPSSTEPS
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
NEXT NEXT STEPSSTEPS
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Parsons Brinckerhoff
CISTMSWork Flow
CISTMSWork Flow
Inputs Issues Outputs
Base CurrentConditions Needs?
Report
Travel Future Corridor PlansSimulation Corridor Final
Model Needs? Report
Statewide
MobilityCorridor? Future
INDOT/MPO
I-69 Route Programthrough
Indianapolis?
Land Use OuterModel Belt?
(LUCI\T)
PeerCity
Review
CISTMS – Next Steps
• Evaluate Future Corridor Needs
• Review Planning Relationships With Local Roadways
• Evaluate Statewide Mobility Corridor (East)
• Examine Impact Of I-69 Travel Through Indianapolis
• Develop Corridor Recommendations
• Produce and Present Final Report