(PARI) Viman Nagar Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pune ...
I5 Tumwater to Mounts Road Strategies Study
1. Interstate 5: Tumwater to Mounts Road
Mid- to Long-Term Strategies
Nisqually River Council
December 20th, 2019
Dennis Engel Matthew Pahs
Olympic Region Multimodal Planning Manager Principal Senior Planner
2. 2
Funding legislation
$550,000 in state and local funds to identify potential improvements
between exit 116 and exit 99 of Interstate 5. The study should
• further develop mid- and long-term strategies,
• identify potential US101/I-5 interchange improvements,
• a strategic plan for the Nisqually River bridges,
• regional congestion relief options, and
• ecosystem benefits to the Nisqually River estuary for salmon
productivity and flood control
-Engrossed Senate Substitute Bill 6106 Session Law, 2018 Regular Session
3. 3
Study area limits
• Southern end point:
Exit 99 – SR 121/93rd Ave
• Northern end point:
Exit 116 – Mounts Road
• Included I-5 between
Mounts Road and Main
Gate at JBLM in travel time
measures
• Included all of Thurston
County and parts of Pierce
County for regional
measures such as VMT
4. 4
Study purpose and goals
I-5 and major connecting routes between Tumwater and Mounts Road affect our region’s
economic vitality, accessibility and mobility, defense operations, and the environment. This
segment of I-5 is experiencing increasing congestion. Performance-based strategies are needed
to satisfy the following goals (not listed in order of priority):
• Improve travel times and reliability
• Increase the ability to safely, efficiently, and equitably move all people (multimodal) and
goods, and manage corridor capacity as an asset
• Improve accessibility to industrial areas, commercial areas, and job sites
• Protect and enhance the environment including reducing the transportation and
estuarine habitat constraints related to the Nisqually River Bridges and the river’s
delta.
• Improve network redundancy and resiliency
5. 5
Modeling Scenarios
Scenarios Examples of modeled strategies
Operations • Extra lane at Nisqually Interchange
• Roundabouts on SR 507 near Yelm
Land Use • Sustainable Thurston – growth concentrated in urban centers and
corridors
Travel demand management • Increased parking rates in urban core
• Increased telework and schedule shifts
Transit • Full implementation of Intercity Transit’s long-range strategic plan
Hard shoulder running • Peak period general purpose shoulder use on I-5 between Sleater-
Kinney and Henderson
HOV conversion • Convert one existing general purpose lane to HOV from US 101 through
38th in Tacoma
Interchange improvements • Braided ramp at US 101 and I-5
• Martin Way interchange reconfiguration
Capacity expansion – HOV • Add 4th lane through study area as an HOV lane
Capacity Expansion – General purpose • Add 4th lane through study area as a general purpose lane
6. 6
Performance measures
Study goal areas Performance measures
Travel times and reliability Corridor travel times
Maximum Throughput Travel Time Index (all traffic, HOV)
Multimodal efficiency & equity Corridor person throughput (all traffic, HOV)
County-wide mode split
County-wide vehicle miles traveled
Traffic Balance on I-5 (percent through traffic)
Access for Environmental Justice populations (poverty,
minority, disability, no vehicle access)
Accessibility County-wide access (SOV, HOV, & Transit) to
o Jobs
o Commercial services
Travel times on selected freight access routes
Environment Greenhouse gas emissions
Resiliency Qualitative comparison “Improves availability and/or capacity of
alternate routes”
Travel times on alternate routes through study area
7. 7
Modeling
Used a practical solutions approach
• Modeled lower cost strategies first such as
operations and TDM
Included all improvements from
previous scenarios
• Exception – Widening scenarios did not include
Hard Shoulder Running
• Did this to see cumulative effect of lower cost
strategies
10. 10
Draft strategy recommendations
Scenario Priority Draft recommendations
Land Use 1 Recommended short-term/mid-term/ongoing
Transit 2 Recommended short-term/mid-term/ongoing
Travel Demand Management 3 Recommended short-term/mid-term/ongoing
Operations 4 Recommended short- and mid-term
Hard Shoulder Running 5 Recommended mid-term
Interchange Improvements 6 Recommended mid-term/long-term
HOV Conversion 7 Recommended mid-term
Capacity Expansion I-5 - HOV1,2 8 Consider long-term
Capacity Expansion I-5 All GP2 - Not recommended
Short-term (0-4 years), mid-term (5-9 years), long-term (10-20 years)
Unless otherwise noted, scenarios included all improvements from previous scenarios
1 The benefits of HOV lanes are accounted for in the HOV conversion scenario, the Capacity Expansion I-5 – Add GP Lane, Retain HOV Lane adds general purpose
capacity not an HOV lane
2 Does not include Hard Shoulder Running, instead has permanent auxiliary lanes
11. 11
Hydrologic Study
WSDOT and the Nisqually Indian Tribe fully
funded this study ($150,000 each)
Nisqually Tribe working with USGS
• Updating & validating modeling
• Analyzing historic water levels, storm surge, wave heights,
and extreme flood events
Draft results expected in November
12. 12
Next steps
Next steps for this study
• Public engagement in late November/early December
• Report review in December
Planning Environmental Linkages Study
• WSDOT has advertised a Request for Qualifications
• Expect consultant selection in January
• PEL study will further refine solutions in cooperation with resource agencies
Project webpage: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/i5/tumwater-mounts-road/home
Hinweis der Redaktion
Thank you for the opportunity to update you all, on our study effort that involves all jurisdictions here and frankly all travelers on the I-5 corridor in this area.
As a reminder, out of the 2018 legislative session, WSDOT was given a budget item and very specific language to find solutions for the corridor specifically between Tumwater and Mounts Road.
We partnered with TRPC to:
develop Mid & Long Term strategies
ID potential improvements for US 101/I-5
Develop a strategic plan for the I-5/Nisqually River bridges
Look at congestion relief options
& look at ecosystem benefits to the estuary for salmon productivity and flood control
Here’s our study limits….southern end is Exit 99 in Tumwater….northern end is Exit 116 at Mounts Road
Our traffic model also includes the JBLM area, all of Thurston county and parts of Pierce county for measures such as travel times and Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Executive Team made up of the Cities (Tumwater, Olympia, Lacey, Dupont) involved, TRPC, Intercity transit & Pierce Transit, WSDOT, FHWA, JBLM, SSMCP, Thurston & Pierce counties, Nisqually tribe, Port of Olympia
Refined the Study purpose and developed the following 5 goals:
Improve travel times & reliability
Increase the ability to move all people and goods, as well as manage the corridor capacity as an asset
Improve accessibility
Protect and enhance the environment
Improve redundancy/resiliency
The improvement scenarios we were able to model are listed here along with some example strategies.
For the scenario that enhances operations, an extra lane at the Nisqually I/C was included as well as RABs near Yelm (Vail Road & SR 702).
(Nisqually NB on-ramp from Martin Way – 2 thru lanes rather than 1 currently there)
Land Use – Sustainable Thurston is a Community plan centered around resiliency, quality of life, etc.
TDM – increased parking rates and increased telework and shift schedules
Transit scenario includes IT’s long range plan implementation (new routes, expanded hours)
HSR – peak use for GP between Sleater Kinney and Henderson on SB I-5 in Lacey/Olympia
The HOV conversion scenario converts 1 existing lane to HOV through the corridor (assumes beyond Mounts Road)
Capacity expansion HOV – 3 GP lanes and 1 HOV lane (HOV already in the base model)
Capacity expansion – GP – adds a 4 GP
Here’s the Performance Measures the team applied to each goal area.
For Travel times & reliability: corridor travel times and Max throughput were used. (Index = Actual speeds vs Max throughput; theory is that between 45-51 mph the corridor moves the most amount of vehicles)
For goal area Multimodal efficiency & equity, performance for the scenarios was measured by:
Corridor person throughput – how many made it through - measurement
County-wide mode split – SOV vs HOV
County-wide vehicle miles traveled
Traffic Balance on I-5 (percent traveling through rather than entering & exiting)
Accessibility for Environmental Justice populations (people experiencing poverty, minority status, disabilities, and those with no access to a vehicl)
Accessibility – Thurston County wide Access to Jobs and Commercial services
as well as Travel times on freight routes (SR 510, Plum Street, etc.)
Environment – performance metric is Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles
Resiliency – we used qualitative analysis of availability & capacity of alternate routes from our Technical group, as well as travel times on alt. rtes. through the study area
MARC
Talking points
We took a Practical Solutions approach to modeling, starting with smaller, less costly strategies
Each subsequent scenario includes improvements from all previous scenarios except for the capacity expansion scenarios do not include hard shoulder running because they have permanent auxiliary lanes
This is important to keep in mind when looking at modeling results and scenario scoring
I-5/US 101 Interchange animation
Mounts Road Interchange animation
Regarding strategies that were not recommended
Local Network strategy improvements are already part of Regional Transportation PlanThe 30 local network projects included in this study did not provide significant benefit according to study performance measures. However, these projects are intended for multimodal safety and local traffic flow and are important for local transportation network functioning.
Capacity Expansion – I-5: Add GP Lane, Convert HOV Lane to GP did not perform as well as expansion w/ HOV laneThis study assumed continuous HOV lanes would be installed through the JBLM area up to Tacoma. Given that assumption, the expansion scenario with HOV lanes performed slightly better than a scenario with all GP lanes. Performance results may be different if reality does not match the assumption and HOV versus GP expansion should be reconsidered.