I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) ProjectI-80 ICM Draft CSMP June 10, 2010 Presented to WCCTAC-TAC 1 I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project Corridor System Management

I-80 ICM Draft CSMP June 10, 2010

Presented to WCCTAC-TAC 1

I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project

Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP)

WCCTAC TAC PresentationWCCTAC TAC PresentationJune 10, 2010

DRAFT1

I-80 Corridor CSMP Study Corridor

Existing Conditions

Near-Term Conditions and Improvement Strategies

Intermediate Term Improvements

Long-Term Conditions and Improvement Strategiesg p g

Summary/Key Findings

2

4-



Study Corridor

3

Existing ConditionsHighway Travel Characteristicsg y 117,000 to 288,000 vehicle per day; 1.8% to 5.4% are trucks Morning peak is westbound and evening peak is eastbound HOV 3+ vehicles represent 20% of auto trips the AM, and 15% in

the PM Accident rate in Berkeley/Emeryville segment is almost double the

statewide average

T it S iTransit Service Transit split: 10 % to 20 % (2006 American Community Survey). Average weekday ridership of 9 BART stations is 54,000 (within

study corridor). Average weekday bus ridership: AC Transit 25,000 and WestCAT

4000 (within study corridor).4

4-



Existing AM Bottleneck Locations

E tb d AMEastbound AM:

- Gilman Street/WB I-580

Westbound AM:

-Pinole Valley Road/Appian Way

-San Pablo Dam Road

-I-580/Gilman Street

-Powell Street/Diverge

-Bay Bridge Toll Plaza5

Existing PM Bottleneck Locations

E tb d PMEastbound PM:

-Gilman Street/I-580

-Carlson Boulevard

-San Pablo Avenue

-Pinole Valley Road/SR 4

Westbound PM:

-I-80/I-580/I-880 Diverge

-Bay Bridge Toll Plaza6

4-



Near-Term (2015) Baseline Conditions

F d d i 16% Freeway demand increases 16%

Transit Ridership increases by 12%

Corridor VMT increases by approximately 12% while the VHT increases by approximately 20%

Freeway vehicle hours of delay projected to increase by 50% in the AM, and 100% in the PM ,

Existing bottlenecks will be still present but with longer queues and longer time to clear the queues

7

Near-Term (2015) Congestion Mitigation Strategies

I-80 Eastbound HOV Lane Extension – SR 4 toI 80 Eastbound HOV Lane Extension SR 4 to Carquinez Bridge

I-80 ICM Project:• Freeway Management – adaptive ramp metering, variable

advisory speed signs, lane use signs.• Arterial Management - coordinated traffic signal systems, TMC

for local jurisdictions.• Transit Management - ramp meter HOV preferential lanes, TSP,

transit traveler information at BART stationstransit traveler information at BART stations• Traveler Information – 511 enhancement, CMS, HAR• Traffic Surveillance and Monitoring - CCTV cameras, vehicle

detection system• Incident Management-Vehicle detection, incident response plan• Commercial Vehicle Operations – Future preferential treatment

of CVO, value pricing8

4-




Under recurring conditions:Under recurring conditions:

- AM peak period: Ramp Metering reduces WB I-80 delay by 23% and network delay by 9%

- PM peak period: Ramp Metering reduces WB I-80 delay by 20%, EB I80 delay by 3% and network delay by 5%

Under non-recurring conditions:Under non-recurring conditions:

- Depending on incident, RM+VASS+Lane Management may reduce freeway delay by 15% & network delay by 5%

10

Near-Term (2015) - Recurring Conditions Average Benefits (Annual)

Average Delay Savings (Vehicle Hours) 3200 (1)

Average Vehicle Occupancy Rate 1.5 (2)

Average Value of Travel Time/Person $11.30/hr (3)

Number of Peak Period Days/Year 220

Expected Savings – Annual Delay Reduction $11,932,800

Total Annual Savings (AM & PM)

1 –Network Delay Savings - 2015 AM & PM Conditions versus 2015 No Build

2 –Source – 2007 Caltrans HOV Lane Report

3 - Source – California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (weighted Avg .– Auto +Truck)

11

4-



Near-Term (2015) - Recurring Condition Return on Investment Analysis

Ramp Metering and TOSRamp Metering and TOS

Estimated CostTotal

Savings

Return on

Investment

Annual $30 0 M $11 9 M 2 5 YearsAnnual $30.0 M $11.9 M 2.5 Years

Notes:

1 Assuming declining benefits from 100% to 50% during 20-year life cycle12

Near-Term (2015) - Non-Recurring Conditions Incidents Summary Findings

Employing Ramp Metering + VASS + Lane Management together provides significant delay reduction in an incidents located between University & Ashby (8:02 to 8:42 , Lanes 4&5 closed scenario)• WB I-80 delay for the entire corridor is reduced by 12%WB I 80 delay for the entire corridor is reduced by 12%

• WB I-80 delay from Central to 580/880/ Split is reduced by 19%

• Flow past incident location (University & Ashby) increases by 5%

13

4-



Low-end Benefits (Lowest scenario)2015 AM WB I-80, Non-Recurring Conditions

Average Delay Savings/day (Vehicle Hours) 240 (1)Average Delay Savings/day (Vehicle Hours) 240 (1)Average Vehicle Occupancy Rate 1.5 (2)Average Value of Travel Time/Person $11.30/hr (3)Number of Peak Period Incident Days/Year 200

(AM&PM)Expected Savings – Delay Reduction $814,000Expected Savings Accident Costs (4) $5 700 000Expected Savings – Accident Costs (4) $5,700,000

Total Annual Savings $6,514,000Notes:1 – Delay reduction (5 %) for the lowest incident scenario versus 2015 No Build. For WB I-80 only. 2 – Source – 2007 Caltrans HOV Lane Report3 – Source – California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (weighted Avg .– Auto +Truck)4 – Source – California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis and Model Results, assuming 10% reduction in

secondary accidents. 14

Return on Investment, Non-Recurring Conditions Full Incident Analysis, ATM Elements on I-80

Delay

Reduction

WB80(4 hr)

Scenarios

SecondaryAccidentsReductionScenarios

Estimated

Cost

Incident

Delay

Savings

Accident

Reduction

Savings

Total

Cost

Savings

0% 3% $10.75 M 0.00 $1.7 M $1.7 M

5% 3% $10.75 M 0.82 $1.7 M $2.52 M

Return on

Investment

6.3

4.3

0% 10% $10.75 M $0.00 M $5.7 M $5.7 M

5% 10% $10.75 M $0.82 M $5.7 M $6.52 M

17% 10% $10.75 M $2.98 M $5.7 M $8.68 M

1.9

1.6

1.2

16

4-



Traffic Light Synchronization Project (TLSP)

17

Expected Benefits of TLSP

Safety Improvements benefits;

Signal Coordination Improvement benefits;

Transit Improvements benefits or expected mode shifts;

Incident Management benefits or expected reduction in secondary incidents and reduction in incident clearance times;

Parking Management Strategy benefits or expected mode shifts with availability of on-route parking choices; andavailability of on route parking choices; and

Traveler Information benefits or expected mode shifts as a result of real-time information dissemination to the public.

Notes: 1 Benefits documented in the TLSP Application

18

4-



Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) Return on Investment

Estimated Cost Total Savings 1Return on

Investment

Annual $25.4 M $7.74 M 3.28 Years

Notes:

1 Only delay reduction savings included. Other saving include transit mode shift, incident management and parking management (totaling $25.4 M) not included

19

Intermediate-Term (2025) Congestion Mitigation Strategies

Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements• Ramp modifications

Powell – WB on & EB off

Buchanan – WB on

San Pablo/Roosevelt – EB on

SR 4 – WB on, WB I-80 to EB SR 4

• Interchange modificationsGilman

Central

McBryde

San Pablo Dam

El Portal Drive

20

4-




Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements (con’t) Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements (con t)• Auxiliary lanes

WB San Pablo Dam Road to San Pablo Avenue

EB Ashby to University

EB Pinole Valley to SR 4

• MainlineRe-stripe WB to 580/880 connector to 4 lanes

Drop WB HOV lane sooner

21


System Management Improvements System Management Improvements • Freeway-to-freeway connector metering

• Extend lane management capabilities

• Signalize ramp intersections (i.e. Carlson)

• Extend SMART Corridor

• Corridor-wide signal coordination

• Allow shoulder use during incidentsAllow shoulder use during incidents

Transit Improvements/Enhancements• Enhance express bus and rail services

• Additional station parking capacity

• New Park-and-Ride lots

22

4-



Long-Term (2035)Baseline Conditions

Freeway demand increases by approximately 70% Freeway demand increases by approximately 70%

• Transit Ridership increases by 64%

Corridor VMT increases by approximately 35% while VHT increases by over 90%

I-80 corridor is expected to operate under extreme congested conditions - more severe congestion associated with existing bottlenecks, new bottlenecks also emerge

23

Long-Term (2035) Congestion Mitigation Strategies

Potential for roadway expansion is constrained Potential for roadway expansion is constrained physically and institutionally

Limited support for roadway widening due to:• High costs• Significant environmental impacts• Potential for increased capacity drawing more vehicles into the

corridor

N d t f t t i th t Need to focus on strategies that:• Maximize the efficiency of the existing roadway system• Encourage use of other modes• Reduce the occurrence and impact of incidents• Reduce or manage peak period vehicle travel demand

24

4-




System Management Improvements System Management Improvements • Full ATM implementation

• Allow shoulder use during incidents

Transit Improvements/Enhancements• Extend BART

• New ferry service

• Enhance express bus and Capitol Corridor rail services• Enhance express bus and Capitol Corridor rail services

• Additional station parking capacity

• New Park-and-Ride lots

25


Demand Management Demand Management• Continue transit commute benefits promotion, flex work,

carpool,

• TOD around transit centers

• promote urban infill development

Goods Movement Policies• Construct satellite freight consolidation facilityConstruct satellite freight consolidation facility

• Peak period restrictions

26

4-




Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements• Ramp modifications

Construct HOV preferential lanes

• Interchange modificationsCentralMcBryde San Pablo Dam El Portal Drive

• Auxiliary lanesWB Carlson to Potrero EB El Portal to San Pablo Dam EB Hilltop to Richmond Parkway

• MainlineConvert HOV lanes to Express lanes 27

Implementation Plan

Near Term Intermediate Term Long Term

Time frame 0 to 10 years 10 to 20 years 20 to 30 years

Type of projects

Secured funding, obtained environmental clearance, design stage, do not require significant physical work or funding

Have support but no funding, on-going environmental clearance or design, do not require significant physical work or funding

Significant physical work and funding, consensus building, institutional issues

Proposed projects

I-80 ICM Project, adopt land use strategies, express buses for the I-80 corridor, initiate ferry service

Minor to moderate geometric improvements, improved connectors between roadways, signalization of interchange intersections, increase in public transit service

Major public transportation expansion, additional roadway capacity, revised goods movement strategies, large-scale ITS improvements

28

4-



EB I-580 Connector MeteringScenario

29

EB I-580 Connector MeteringScenario Definition

Modeled 2015 AM WB I-80, Peak Period

Metered all Westbound “Local” On-Ramps plus Eastbound I-580 Connector

Assumed Metering Layout for Eastbound I-580 Connector based on Preliminary Design:Connector based on Preliminary Design:• 2 General-Purpose (GP) Lanes plus 1 HOV Preferential Lane

30

4-



EB I-580 Connector Metering Scenario

Westbound PerformanceI-80 2015 AM, Peak Period

Hours of Delay

Base“Local” ARM

“I-580” RM

Carq Br to SR 4 5040

(-8%)

30

(-42%)

SR 4 to Central 16001400 1260

SR 4 to Central 1600(-13%) (-21%)

Central to 580/880 Split

24701720

(-30%)

500

(-80%)

Total 41103160

(-23%)

1790

(-56%)31

EB I-580 Connector MeteringSummary Findings

Metering of I-580 connector will:• Provide significant benefits to Westbound I-80 through

Berkeley/Emeryville Area; Notably in the segment from Central to the I-80/I-580/I-880 Split (-80%)

• Shift Delay from I-80 WB to I-580 EB which will provide significant reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay on I 80significant reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay on I-80 Westbound: (-56%) compared to No Build

• Reduce Metering Load at Local On-Ramps on I-80

• Help traffic entering from I-580 EB into I-80 WB

32

4-



EB I-580 Connector MeteringSummary Findings

However, with Assumed design:

• Eastbound I-580 demand (up to 3100 vph) will greatly exceeds Meter Capacity (approx 2100 vph)

• Significant Queuing and Delay is projected for Eastbound I-580

Estimated Queue Length

“Local” “I 580”Base

Local RM

I-580 RM

Estimated Maximum Queue

Length2.5 miles 1 mile > 5 miles*

* Queue continuing to grow at end of analysis period33

4-

I-80 ICM Draft Ramp Metering Plan June 10, 2010


I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project

Ramp Metering

WCCTAC TAC PresentationJune 10, 2010

DRAFT

I-80 Most Congested Highway in the San Francisco Bay Area

HIGHWAY

Contra CostaCounty

Alameda County

ARTERIAL

5-



I-80 Ramp Metering

Goals of Ramp MeteringGoals of Ramp Metering

• Balance arterial and freeway traffic flow

• Minimize merging impacts

• Reduce number of collisions

• Increase travel speed

Ramp Metering

Freeway Mainline

St li

Ramp MeteringSignal

Passage Sensor

Mainline Sensor

X

Frontage road or surface street

Stop-line

Demand Sensor

Queue Sensor

5-



Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Guidelines

Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Guidelines

5-



Typical vs. Adaptive Ramp Metering Typical Adaptive

Advanced Queue Detector

Based on Measured Freeway and Ramp Demand

R i Fi T d

Advanced Queue Detector + additional mainline detection

Based on Real-Time Freeway and Ramp Demand

R h f Rate is Fine-Tuned as needed

“Max Rate” addresses ramp queue

Rate changes as freeway demand changes based on algorithm

“Max Rate” addresses ramp queue

Adaptive Ramp Metering

What will be done

Allocate in a balance way the total traffic flow entering the freeway

How

Fixed Time Ramp Meters

Local Traffic Responsive Ramp Metering

S t Wid T ffi R i R

ARMController

ATM/ARMSoftware

Detectors

System-Wide Traffic Responsive Ramp Metering

Why

Create a balanced traffic flow on the freeway

ATMS(TMC)

DataConcentrator

5-



I-80 Software ARM Evaluation Criteria

• Corridor-wide capabilities

• Solid deployment track record

• Minimal impact on existing ramp metering

• Infrastructure

Algorithms Being ConsideredAlgorithms Being Considered• Fuzzy Logic (Deployed by WSDOT in Seattle area)

• Stratified Zone (Deployed by MNDOT in Twin Cities area)

• HERO (Deployed in Europe and Australia)


Under recurring conditions:Under recurring conditions:

- AM peak period: Ramp Metering reduces WB I-80 delay by 23% and network delay by 9%

- PM peak period: Ramp Metering reduces WB I-80 delay by 20%, EB I80 delay by 3% and network delay by 5%

Under non recurring conditions:Under non-recurring conditions:Depending on incident, RM+VASS+Lane Management may reduce freeway delay by 15% & network delay by 5%

5-



Location Peak Demand Configuration Limit Line Placement

EASTBOUND

Ramp Meter Configuration (EB)

Powell St. 982 2 Use Proposed Loops

Ashby Ave./Potter St. 899 2 Use Proposed Loops

University Ave. 982 2 Use Existing Loops

Gilman St. 887 2 Use Existing Loops

Buchanan St. 377 1 Use Existing Loops

Central Ave. 639 2 Use Existing Loops

Carlson Blvd. 774 2 Use Existing Loops

Cutting Blvd. (loop ramp) 801 1 Use Proposed Loops

Cutting Blvd. 1003 2 Use Existing Loops

San Pablo Ave. 1370 2 Use Existing Loops

San Pablo Dam Rd. 910 1 Use Existing Loops

El Portal Dr. 863 2 Use Existing Loops

Eastbound Hilltop Dr. (loop ramp) 470 1 Use Existing Loops

Westbound Hilltop Dr. 224 1+1 Use Existing Loops

Eastbound Fitzgerald/ Richmond Pkwy. (loop ramp) 1445 2 Use Existing Loops

Westbound Fitzgerald/Richmond Parkway 236 1 Use Existing Loops

Southbound Appian Way (loop ramp) 355 1 Use Existing Loops

Northbound Appian Way 609 2 Use Existing Loops

Pinole Valley Rd. 453 1 Use Existing Loops

John Muir Pkwy. (SR‐4) 392 Part of different Caltrans Project

Willow Ave. 238 Part of different Caltrans Project

Cummings Skyway 654 Part of different Caltrans Project

Location Peak Demand Configuration Limit Line Placement

WESTBOUNDS P bl A / P St 289 1 U E i ti L

Ramp Meter Configuration (WB)

San Pablo Ave. / Pomona St. 289 1 Use Existing Loops

Cummings Skyway 23 1 Use Existing Loops

Willow Avenue 776 Part of different Caltrans Project

John Muir Parkway (SR‐4) 2350 2+1Still researching limit line placement

with respect to bridge

Pinole Valley Rd. 1198 2 Use Proposed Loops

Appian Way 1229 2 Use Existing Loops

Fitzgerald Dr./Richmond Parkway 757 1Use Existing Loops if single lane; use

proposed loops if 2 lane

Westbound Hilltop Dr. (loop ramp) 770 1 Use Existing Loops

Hilltop Dr. 309 1+1 Use Existing Loops

El Portal Dr. 1006 2 Use Existing Loops

San Pablo Dam Rd. 1156 2 Use Existing LoopsSan Pablo Dam Rd. 1156 2 Use Existing Loops

Solano Ave. 790 1 Use Existing Loops

Barrett Ave. 794 2 Use Existing Loops

Potrero Ave. 659 2 Use Proposed Loops

Carlson Blvd. 418 2 Use Existing Loops

Central Ave. 608 1 Use Existing Loops

Buchanan St. 1143 1+1 Use Existing Loops

Gilman St. 738 1+1 Use Existing Loops

University Ave. (loop) 777 1+1 Use Proposed Loops

Ashby Ave. & Frontage Rd. 1178 2+1 Use Proposed Loops

Powell St./Frontage Rd. 1655 2 Use Proposed Loops

Powell St. 466 1 Use Proposed Loops

5-

13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, CA 94806 – 510.215.3035

TO: WCCTAC TAC DATE: June 4, 2010

FR: Christina Atienza, Executive Director

RE: Update on Vehicle Registration Fee Ballot Initiative

CCTA’s Administration and Projects Committee at their June 3 meeting considered the draft expenditure plan, benefit analysis findings, and ordinance language, and developed recommendations to the full CCTA Board for consideration at their June 16 meeting. Following are highlights from the Committee’s discussion. § The Committee agreed to recommend to the Board for approval the draft expenditure

plan, benefit analysis findings, and ordinance language, with these changes: o A jurisdiction’s eligibility for the Local Road Improvement and Repair, and

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Access funds, would not be tied to compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program.

o A ‘complete streets’ approach toward expenditure of Local Road Improvement and Repair funds is acceptable, as is the approach description that was developed by a subcommittee of the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, but the phrase ‘complete streets’ would not be used in the expenditure plan, as it is potentially confusing.

In terms of administration, the following costs are proposed to be recouped from the fee: 1) CCTA’s actual costs to administer the program up to the 5 percent maximum allowable administration reimbursement, including $150,000 on consultant assistance in preparing for the ballot measure; and 2) the election cost, estimated at $1 million.

§ If the ‘Stop Hidden Taxes’ initiative (http://www.nomorehiddentaxes.com/) passes, the VRF would be in jeopardy unless it passes with a 2/3 majority vote. (Last poll indicated 54% in favor of the fee.) CCTA Legal Counsel made two recommendations that may better protect the VRF, which the Committee accepted: 1) make the VRF effective as of the day of the election, rather than the day after, which would be the effective date of the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative; and 2) change the vehicle for the measure from an ordinance to a resolution – so as to avoid it being interpreted as a referendum, which would mean it can’t be effective until 30 days after the election.

§ The Committee noted the need for public education, as there appears to be limited

awareness of the measure. MTC has expressed interest in providing assistance given the number of Bay Area counties that are proceeding with the ballot initiative. There are also discussions involving the launch of a regional campaign. (Note that public funds may be expended for the purpose of educating the public about the initiative, but may not be used to influence a particular vote.) TransForm also expressed interest in helping with the campaign if the final expenditure plan is one that they would support.

Handout: 8-1

http://www.nomorehiddentaxes.com/�

Documents

I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) ProjectI-80 ICM Draft CSMP June 10, 2010 Presented to WCCTAC-TAC 1 I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project Corridor System Management