dane county vandewalle & associates strand associates william o’connor
DESCRIPTION
Dane County Vandewalle & Associates Strand Associates William O’Connor. Roadway Concept Select Link Traffic Modeling. August 7, 2002. Demand Modeling Review. Projected ADTs. 8,400. 12,300. 12,300. 28,300. 29,200. 50,000. 63,500. Exist. Alt 1. Alt 1A. 70,500. Alt 2. 148,00. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
8/7/02
Dane County
Vandewalle & Associates
Strand Associates
William O’Connor
Roadway Concept Select Link Traffic
ModelingAugust 7, 2002
8/7/02
Demand Modeling Review
8/7/02
112,000
132,000
83,200
33,600
21,300
96,000110,700
128,100
82,200
33,100
34,900
95,000108,300
130,600
80,600
41,100
42,000
91,000106,300
133,000
82,000
30,300
42,900
94,600109,000
137,800
79,200
30,200
63,700
90,300106,200
138,100
79,000
29,900
73,300
89,000
104,700
67,600
49,100
29,000
14,800
68,200
109,500108,600103,900108,300104,000105,100
94,400
148,00148,600142,300141,600141,800143,200
70,500
45,600 43,100 41,400 44,400 42,700 41,700
~30,000
12,30012,30028,30029,20050,00063,500
8,400
Alt 1Alt 1A
Alt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5
Exist
System Effects ~Year 2050
Projected ADTs
8/7/02
37,00045,60045,50045,40047,60046,700
28,900
33,60033,10041,00030,30030,20031,300
29,000
13,10012,50011,80012,60013,10016,800
--
21,20034,90042,00042,90063,70069,600
14,800
12,30011,40028,30029,20050,00056,100
8,400
8,50010,50010,10010,0006,2005,700
--
8,1008,6008,0008,2009,4008,700
--
2,4002,4002,4002,2002,6002,600
--
4,8005,9004,500
23,7001,1001,400
--9,40010,1008,3005,500
44,60045,600
7,800
Alt 1Alt 1A
Alt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5
Exist
10,1008,6006,5006,6001,6003,800
--
8,7007,4007,7007,3006,3006,300
--5,2002,3003,2003,0004,0002,200
--
13,60014,20026,20012,80012,40011,600
--
Oncken Rd.
ST
H 1
13C
TH
Q
CT
H M
STH 19
Northport Dr.
Phe
asan
t B
ranc
h R
d.
CTH K
Woodland Dr.
River Rd.
CT
H I
Schneider Rd.
15,90014,10013,50013,80013,30013,600
13,200
Projected ADTs
Northern Effects ~Year 2050
8/7/02
Key Conclusions - Demand Modeling
• All roadways will need to be upgraded (expanded shoulders, wider cross sections, and access control) to safely handle future traffic demands, no matter which alternative is implemented.
• The interstate will experience substantially greater traffic demands no matter which alternative is implemented.
• Freeway alternatives will draw small traffic amounts (5 to 10 percent) off of the isthmus and the south beltline. Therefore congestion remains.
• Freeway capacity will be fully used no matter which alternative is implemented.
8/7/02
Key Conclusions - Demand Modeling
• Different land use development patterns (compact vs existing trends) do not alter traffic volumes enough to reduce the need for roadway improvements (3 to 7%). Different land use development patterns do make transit options and alternate modes more viable/feasible.
• Excess capacity provided to Century Ave by some alternatives will be absorbed by local growth. Traffic volumes will remain similar to what exists today.
• Relief provided to any local collectors by the alternatives will be absorbed by local growth.
8/7/02
Key Conclusions - Demand Modeling
• The CTH M section from STH 113 to CTH Q is the greatest capacity constraint in the corridor. The largest traffic moving capabilities are observed when capacity is added to this segment
• Low build alternatives have heavy intersection volumes that will require higher level intersection improvements
8/7/02
Select Link Analysis• Select Link Analysis shows where the traffic is
coming from and where it is going to on a selected link.– Useful in understanding travel patterns
• Select link analysis does not present total volumes on other roadways feeding or being fed by the link.
• For North Mendota Parkway, all select link information has been normalized to percentages.– Reduces chance of misinterpretation
• West to East is shown, yet East to West information is essentially identical.
• All information is ~2050
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 No Build
Land Use Scenario 1CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)
West to East - Normalized to Percentage~2050
22%
40%
20% 15%
85%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1A
No Build w/ Enhancements Land Use Scenario 1
CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
27%
34%
16% 12%
88%
12%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 3
Onken Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1
CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
16%
38%
13% 28%
60%
20%
12%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 5
4-Lane Freeway Off-Alignment Land Use Scenario 1
CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
65%
8% 53%
47%
17%
11%
34%9%
8/7/02
Observations - CTH M
East side
• Alt 1A improvements to CTH M between STH 113 and CTH K primarily influence travel patterns on Northport.
• Currently most CTH M traffic is oriented to Northport. The low build alternatives maintain this orientation. (85% to 15% split)
• With each successive improvement, more traffic is oriented towards STH 19 to the north. In alternative 3 the split is 60% to 40% and with alternatives 4 and 5 the split evens to 50% to 50%.
• With the higher build alternatives, traffic is attracted to CTH M from greater distances.
8/7/02
Observations - CTH M Select LinkWest side• In the low build alternatives, a greater proportion of the
CTH M traffic is drawn from the Century Ave corridor than CTH K or STH 19
• With the higher build alternatives, Century Ave volumes remain constant. The additional build corridor provides a greater proportion of CTH M traffic.
• The higher build alternatives draw more traffic from outside arterials.
• With the low build alternatives there is more regional and less local traffic on Century.
• With the high build alternatives there is more local and less regional traffic on Century.
• Century volumes remain constant in both cases.
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 - No Build
Land Use Scenario 1Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)
West to East - Normalized to Percentage~2050
47%42%
58%
42%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1A
No Build w/ Enhancements Land Use Scenario 1
Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
46%44%
63%
33%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 3
Onken-Balzer Connection
Land Use Scenario 1
Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
46%44%
64%
26%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 5
4-Lane Freeway Off Alignment Land Use Scenario 1
Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
46% 44%
70%
26%
8/7/02
Observations - Century Ave Select Link
• Distribution remains relatively constant with all alternatives
• Higher build alternatives draw traffic from further east than lower build alternatives
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1- No Build
Land Use Scenario 1Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)
West to East - Normalized to Percentage~2050
48%
10%
56%
41%
18%
10%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1A
No Build w/ Enhancements Land Use Scenario 1
Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
12%
50%
70%
20%
3%
27%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 3
Onken-Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1
Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
49%
57%
21%
3%
39%
9%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 5
4-Lane Freeway Off Alignment Land Use Scenario 1
Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
48%
74%
22%
26%
8%
8/7/02
Observations - Northport Select Link Analysis
• Distribution to the east remains relatively constant with all alternatives.
• In the low build alternatives, a moderate to high proportion of Northport traffic is drawn from the Waunakee area.
• In the higher build alternatives, Northport draws a greater proportion of its traffic (regional traffic) from farther west, generally along the build corridor.
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 - No Build
Land Use Scenario 1STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)
West to East - Normalized to Percentage~2050
44%
50% 55%
5%
18%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1A
No Build w/ Enhancements Land Use Scenario 1
STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
47%54%
22%
47%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 3
Onken-Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1
STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
46% 47%
19%
48%7%
8/7/02
Select Link AnalysisAlternative 5
4-Lane Freeway Off Alignment Land Use Scenario 1
STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)West to East - Normalized to Percentage
~2050
50% 44%23%
45%
5%
8/7/02
Observations - Main St Select Link
• Distribution remains relatively constant with all alternatives
• Main Street tends to draw a slightly higher percentage of its traffic from the build corridor.
8/7/02
Select Link Also Performed for:
• Main Street - CTH Q and Endres
• South Beltline - Yahara Bridge
• USH 12
8/7/02
Next Steps1. Preliminary transportation recommendations
(selection & sequence of improvements) 2. Roadway and community character issues,
techniques and recommendations3. Preservation issues, techniques and
recommendations4. Intergovernmental relations issues, techniques and
recommendations5. Final transportation recommendations6. Comprehensive Implementation Package Strategy7. Project Report and, Report Adoption, Project
Completion
8/7/02
Dane County
Vandewalle & Associates
Strand Associates
William O’Connor
Roadway Concept Select Link Traffic
ModelingAugust 7, 2002