7. Roadway System. Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Transcription

1 7. Roadway System Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years Since the update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in December 2009, several roadway-related developments have progressed. The Alamo Area MPO continues to successfully use all available traditional and non-traditional funding sources (Proposition 12, Proposition 14, and Pass Through Financing, as examples) to expand the roadway system for this fast growing region. Additionally, Rider 42 funds have been used to effectively plan future roadway expansion and other state funds have been used to explore a wider program of travel demand management techniques and the San Antonio Mobility Coalition (SAMCo) continues to help with the education and funding processes at the federal, state and local levels. On the planning side, the MPO region successfully completed the regional roadway functional classification update in March 2013; the Toll and Managed Lane Analysis was accepted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in July 2014; the MPO continues to use crash data to evaluate transportation projects and use planning funds to evaluate traffic signal optimization programs. Lastly, TxDOT has an Incident Management/Intelligent Transportation Systems Study underway that will improve agency communication and response to facilitate a rapid response to clear roadway incidents. Roadway System Policies The pace of population and employment growth in the Alamo Area will continue to put pressure on the capacity of the roadway network. While it is recognized that building the region out of current and future congestion is not possible, adding new lanes and making operational improvements will be part of the comprehensive strategy to improve the transportation system. Roadway system improvements proposed in the MTP are constrained to the amount of funding available, or those revenues that can be reasonably expected over the 25-year horizon of the MTP. The anticipated revenues fall short of covering all desired roadway projects, so the funded roadway projects included in the MTP address the region s most congested areas. The policies proposed below will assist in developing the best transportation system for the area. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

2 Support the design, planning, maintenance and operation of a roadway system that is compatible with the needs of other modes such as bicycles, pedestrians, public transportation and truck and rail freight Collect and display crash information for the roadway system and use this quantitative information and the goals of the State Highway Safety Plan as primary factors in the project selection process Leverage transportation asset management data and methods to make informed, cost-effective program decisions and optimize the use of existing transportation assets Use technology such as intelligent transportation systems and signal prioritization to optimize the roadway operations Require land developers to preserve the necessary rights-of-way in future travel corridors Require private developer contributions in roadway construction in undeveloped areas through the development process Ensure a process exists for maintaining roadways through their life cycle Support travel demand management techniques that reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel throughout the system, including ride share/car share, parking pricing/policies, land use policies, and employer trip reduction programs Use all available funding tools available to the area Support the integrated development and implementation of transportation, land use and economic development plans by ensuring consistent collaboration between local, regional and statewide transportation partners Roadway Functional Classification The MTP is primarily concerned with those roadways that will be built or expanded using federal funding sources. These roadways are part of the functionally classified roadway system. A functionally classified roadway system allows for urban streets to be grouped by their purpose or function. There are three main functions for urban streets: 1) movement of traffic, 2) distribution or collection of traffic, and 3) provide access to terminal points. Freeways provide maximum movement of vehicles, but allow limited access to the adjacent land use. Arterial streets have lower vehicular MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

3 capacity and speed, but allow for direct access to surrounding land use. Collector and residential streets primarily provide access to larger facilities, as each class of urban street serves as a collection device for the next lower class of street. The functional classification system is further defined in Table 7.1. Functionally classified roadways describe the various levels of vehicular mobility. Using functional class in the transportation planning process ensures that general land use and local development are considered in evaluation of both existing and future transportation needs. Another purpose for using the functional classification system is to help determine which roadways should be included in a regional transportation system. Table 7.1 Functional Classification System Description Functional Class Level of Mobility System Access Level of Accessibility Freeway Connects all urban subregions together; connects urban and rural service areas with metro major activity centers; connects to other cities. To other freeways, principal arterials, and selected arterials; no direct land access. Long trips at high speed within and through the metro area; express transit trips. Principal Arterial Connects two or more subregions; provides secondary connections outside cities; complements freeways in high volume corridors. To freeways, other principal arterials, and high volume collectors; no direct land access except major traffic generators. Medium distance to long trips at high to moderate speeds within the urban area; express transit trips. Arterial Connects adjacent subregions and activity centers within subregions. To freeways, principal arterials, other arterials, and collectors; restricted direct land access. Medium to short trips at moderate to low speeds; local transit trips. Collector Connects neighborhoods within and between subregions. To arterial, other collectors, and local streets; direct land access. Primarily serves collection and distribution function for the arterial system at low speeds; local transit trips. Almost exclusively collection and distribution; short trips at low speeds. Local Connects blocks within neighborhoods and specific activities within homogeneous land use areas. To collectors and other local streets; direct land access. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

4 Major Thoroughfare Plans The area s Major Thoroughfare Plans are composed primarily of principal and major arterial streets and provides the necessary transportation support and access to and from local land uses. Since many major expressway corridors are constrained from acquiring additional right-of-way, much of the additional out-year demand will likely have to be accommodated through a better connected and more efficient arterial street system. Many of the major and minor arterials are expected to be constructed by developers interested in expanding commercial and residential development outside of already built-up portions of the cities within the MPO s study area. Base Year and Future Year Roadway Systems The future year (2040) roadway system was developed using an extensive public involvement process and technical and financial analysis. Using the functionally classified roadway system, agencies priorities, and projected transportation usage, a network of the future year highway and street system was developed. The number of lane miles, vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, and average speeds for facility types are summarized in Tables 7.2 through 7.5. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

5 Table 7.2 Comparison of Lane Miles by Facility Type % of % of % of Facility Type 2010 Total 2020 Total 2040 Total Radial Interstate Loop Interstate Tolled Radial Interstate Main Lanes Tolled Interstate Loop Main Lanes Radial Freeway Loop Freeway Tolled Radial Main Lanes Tolled Loop Main Lanes Radial Expressway Loop Expressway Principal Arterial Divided Principal Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane Principal Arterial Undivided Minor Arterial Divided Minor Arterial with Center left Turn Lane Minor Arterial Undivided Collector Divided Collector with Center Left Turn Lane Collector Undivided Frontage Roads Ramps Main Lanes to Frontage Roads Ramps Main Lanes to Main Lanes Tolled Ramps Totals 10, , , MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

6 Table 7.3 Comparison of Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Facility Type 2010 % of Total 2020 % of Total 2040 Radial Interstate 13,161, ,701, ,355, Loop Interstate 4,153, ,097, ,437, Tolled Radial Interstate Main Lanes , ,990, Tolled Loop Interstate Main Lanes Radial Freeway 2,903, ,866, ,266, Loop Freeway 2,017, ,446, ,382, Tolled Radial Main Lanes , , Tolled Loop Main Lanes ,566, Radial Expressway 942, ,244, ,034, Loop Expressway 771, ,197, , Principal Arterial Divided 2,995, ,629, ,839, % of Total Principal Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 3,283, ,962, ,770, Principal Arterial Undivided 1,417, ,923, ,229, Minor Arterial Divided 1,194, ,468, ,645, Minor Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 1,130, ,185, ,216, Minor Arterial Undivided 4,745, ,419, ,755, Collector Divided 365, , , Collector with Center Left Turn Lane 263, , , Collector Undivided 3,680, ,974, ,783, Frontage Roads 2,547, ,967, ,378, Ramps Main Lanes to Frontage Roads 1,395, ,550, ,415, Ramps Main Lanes to Main Lanes 613, , , Tolled Ramps , , Totals 47,583, ,820, ,387, MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

7 Table 7.4 Comparison of Vehicle Hours by Facility Type Facility Type 2010 % of Total 2020 % of Total 2040 Radial IH 284, , , Loop IH 95, , , Tolled Radial IH Mainlanes , , Tolled Loop IH Mainlanes Radial Freeway 65, , , Loop Freeway 41, , , Tolled Radial Mainlanes , , Tolled Loop Mainlanes , Radial Expressway 21, , , Loop Expressway 18, , , Principal Arterial Divided 86, , , % of Total Principal Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 106, , , Principal Arterial Undivided 44, , , Minor Arterial Divided 39, , , Minor Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 38, , , Minor Arterial Undivided 157, , , Collector Divided 13, , , Collector with Center Left Turn Lane 10, , , Collector Undivided 131, , , Frontage Roads 88, , , Ramps Mainlanes to Frontage Road 42, , , Ramps Mainlanes to Mainlanes 17, , , Tolled Ramps , , Totals 1,304, ,662, ,781, MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

8 Table 7.5 Comparison of Average Daily & Congested Speed by Facility Type Facility Type Radial Interstate 46.3/ / /26.5 Loop Interstate 43.3/ / /26.9 Tolled Radial Interstate Main Lanes n/a 49.7/ /38.8 Tolled Loop Interstate Main Lanes n/a n/a n/a Radial Freeway 44.5/ / /24.1 Loop Freeway 49.2/ / /25.2 Tolled Radial Main Lanes n/a 49.4/ /26.7 Tolled Loop Main Lanes n/a n/a 48.2/39.3 Radial Expressway 44.0/ / /20.7 Loop Expressway 41.6/ / /27.4 Principal Arterial Divided 34.5/ / /14.7 Principal Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 30.8/ / /14.9 Principal Arterial Undivided 32.0/ / /14.9 Minor Arterial Divided 30.1/ / /10.0 Minor Arterial with Center Left Turn Lane 29.6/ / /11.2 Minor Arterial Undivided 30.1/ / /12.0 Collector Divided 28.0/ / /13.4 Collector Center with Center Left Turn Lane 24.0/ / /14.3 Collector Undivided 28.0/ / /12.0 Frontage Roads 28.7/ / /11.6 Ramps Main Lanes to Frontage Roads 32.9/ / /19.3 Ramps Main Lanes to Main Lanes 34.1/ / /19.2 Tolled Ramps n/a 40.1/ /26.0 Totals 36.5/ / /16.8 MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

9 Toll and Managed Lane System: Environmental Justice Analysis Background For years 2020 and 2040, within the MPO study area, the freeway, managed & expressway system (including ramps and direct connectors) represents 33.5 and 36.0% of the lane miles of the non-local (defined as including collector, arterial, managed lane, expressway & freeway) roadway types, 59.3 and 56.1% of the non-local vehicle miles of travel and 50.6 and 47.3% of the non-local vehicle hours of travel. The managed lane (tolled) system represents 1.4 and 4.1% of the non-local lane miles, 1.3 and 5.0% of the non-local vehicle miles of travel, and 1.0 and 3.7% of the non-local vehicle hours of travel. As of December 2014, the only toll lanes operating within the MPO study area are on the southern extension of SH 130 from the Guadalupe County line to IH 10 East near the City of Seguin. VIA Metropolitan Transit is the regional public transportation authority, with a service area encompassing approximately 1,226 square miles. Alamo Regional Transit (ART) service, operated by the Alamo Area Council of Governments, serves twelve rural counties. The region currently has no high occupancy vehicle lanes; with the exception of some dedicated transit travel lanes in downtown San Antonio, all transit service operates in mixed flow transit. Mobility 2040 currently shows some improvements to transit service including express bus service operating on many of the proposed managed lanes as part of the bus priority plan afforded to VIA. Passenger Rail service has also been included in the 2040 transit network as part of the southern extension of the Lone Star Rail initiative. Future growth in travel will be mitigated somewhat by proposed improvements to the transit system (see Chapter 6) and improved arterial operations, but regional population and employment growth coupled with declining state and federal revenues will likely require continued implementation of toll/managed lane facilities. In the most recent toll policies and procedures adopted by the Alamo RMA in April 2012, the RMA has defined a toll lane as a lane operated by the Alamo RMA as a traditional turnpike lane with a fixed fee for usage paid by all drivers unless exempted by state law or the same adopted policies and procedures. The same document also defines a managed lane as a travel lane that allows transit, registered car pool users with a tag account, and vehicles exempted by state law to use the facility for no charge. All other vehicle types will be charged a toll fee for usage of the lane. At this time variable pricing is not part of the adopted policies and procedures and is not part of the subsequent analysis. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

10 This analysis focuses on the proposed toll/managed lane system in the Alamo Area region. All of the planned toll/managed lanes are in existing expressway corridors as shown in Figure 7.1. No conversion of existing non-toll facilities to toll/managed lanes is being considered. The new toll/managed lanes will either be constructed within existing right-of way, new right-of-way will be purchased, or the facilities will be elevated. Project Descriptions The managed lane projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan are shown in Figure 7.1. Complete descriptions of these projects can be found in the project list in Chapter 11. Figure 7.1 Proposed Managed Lane Projects in the Alamo Area MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

11 Travel Demand Model Applications and Limitations The MPO s travel demand model is the primary analysis tool for this effort. The model is a traditional four-step travel demand model that forecasts daily traffic and transit ridership for either a typical 24-hour weekday or for a combined a.m./p.m. peak period. The model characteristics have been calibrated and validated for year 2010 and are used to project travel for forecast years 2020 and For this analysis, only modeling results for years 2020 and 2040 are used. During the time of model calibration and validation, operational toll/managed lanes and passenger rail services were not part of the transportation system. For the current MTP, the toll/managed lanes as shown in Figure 7.1 are expected to be operational by the Plan horizon year of Traffic estimation for toll/managed lanes is performed within the Traffic Assignment step of the regional model using the TransCAD Multi-modal, Multi-class, User equilibrium vehicle assignment process. This routine basically allows for the application of multiple tolls and multiple values of time for different types of vehicles and traveler - in this application for regular vehicles (cars and personal use trucks) vs. commercial vehicles (defined as 8,500 pounds or heavier with 6 or more tires). Although the toll charges (generally expressed as cents per mile) are higher for commercial vehicles, the value of time for commercial vehicle operators is also assumed to be higher. Thus, toll/managed lane usage is based upon the traveler s willingness to pay for time savings. For modeling applications, the values of time for regular vehicle operators is $16.50 per hour and for commercial vehicle operators is $40.00 per hour. These values have not been calibrated specifically to the San Antonio region because of the absence of existing operational toll/managed lanes, but they are similar to those used in regions with toll facilities and do result in reasonable traffic forecasts. More refined estimates of toll/managed lane volumes, often referred to as Traffic & Revenue Studies are typically performed by consultant firms that specialize in Bond Grade Toll Analyses, which are required for the bonding and funding of toll facilities. These, more detailed, travel corridor type studies usually entail a more complete review of demographic forecasts, Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) configurations, current traffic counts, vehicle mix, transit use considerations, peaking characteristics and travel (O-D) patterns within the corridor. Regional models should be used in the context of what they were developed for: a regional sense of travel demand and movement. Detailed work can be performed by using the model for corridor analysis but should be followed up with additional data collection and analysis including traffic counts, mode share data, vehicle composition, MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

12 origin destination patterns and stated preference surveys to make the model representative of the corridor being studied. This detailed work is beyond the scope of this effort. Any data analysis done for peak hour traffic conditions needs to be confirmed with actual field data for the specific peak period. Environmental Considerations In support of linking planning and NEPA, the MPO evaluated each of the roadway projects included in the MTP. The evaluation of potential impacts to the environment and community is found in Table 9.1 and the broad environmental categories considered for each of the projects are listed below: Attainment Areas Project Locations and Adjacent Features Facilities Regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency Places of Community Interest Environmental and Social Justice Populations For this broad based environmental evaluation, the MPO used the NEPAssist tool, provided by EPA. NEPAssist gathers various databases regarding facilities or sites subject to environmental regulation. Information presented is publically available via the NEPAssist website and other public sources. All of the projects shown in Table 9.1 were generally evaluated using a 500-foot buffer either side of a centerline. Table 9.1 is not an exhaustive listing of factors however, and each project sponsor is still responsible for the relevant environmental clearance documentation to comply with NEPA or appropriate state level environmental clearance, where applicable. Additionally, factors such as Air Quality may be a regional concern and not specifically limited to individual travel corridors. Development and Adoption of the Toll Policy On April 12, 2012, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (RMA) Board of Directors adopted updated policies and procedures for toll collection operations on the Alamo RMA Turnpike System. The adopted policy includes exemptions from toll payment, payment methods, promotions on the use of electronic toll tags, customer service and violation policies, phasing of construction projects and/or toll collection, equal access to the system, toll rates and escalation and more. Toll Collection System The San Antonio area toll system will be a full electronic toll collection system, affording drivers the choice between a standing toll tag account interoperable across Texas, or the use of video tolling (pay by mail) a photo capture of license plates with a MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

13 monthly billing statement. The Alamo RMA may expand options for payment by any future action and the availability of technology. While final prices and distribution methods have not been established at this time, it is expected that the Alamo RMA will make toll tags available to the community through a variety of outlets. Several tag replenishment methods will also be made available to the user. Statewide toll tags will ensure interoperability between toll/managed lane facilities throughout Texas. A pay-by-mail or video billing option is presumed to be part of this component for those drivers who do not use a toll tag to use the toll facilities. This option will have a premium charge associated with the billing, and using industry averages, this is presumed to be approximately a 33% increase over the posted Tag Only rate. Additionally, a processing fee to recover costs of mailing the bill will be included. All tag and toll materials, including billing, will comply with all relevant executive orders, federal regulations and state law regarding accessibility for language preferences, ADA compliance, and other related impacts. Initial Adopted Toll Rates and Escalation Methodology Based on the policy adopted by the Alamo RMA, initial toll rates may be set in the range of $0.17 to $0.50 per mile for toll facility usage, dependent on the final project financial plan as developed and approved by the Alamo RMA Board of Directors. The policy further states the toll rates will be adjusted on an annual basis. For the first ten years of operation the minimum increase each year is to be set at 2.75% or the Consumer Price Index for the immediate preceding year, whichever is greater. Starting in year eleven and for each subsequent year, the minimum increase will be 3% or the Consumer Price Index for the immediate preceding year, whichever is greater. Emergency and state and federal military vehicles are exempt from paying tolls on the Alamo RMA toll road system. To facilitate a multi-modal transportation system that ensures safe and efficient travel, public transit vehicles operated by a public agency and having the characteristics of a bus as defined by of the Texas Transportation Code will be permitted free usage of any managed lanes in operation by the Alamo RMA. On traditional toll facilities without the managed lane designation, exemptions shall be established on an annual basis between the Alamo RMA and the public agency transit provider based on projected usage within the toll corridor. Users who are part of a registered carpool that have a declared vehicle with a tag and a funded account will be able to use the managed lane facility under the operation of the Alamo RMA for no charge dependent on the technology available to implement this provision. On traditional toll facilities without the managed lane designation, the tag MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

14 account will be charged the published rate for a toll tag transaction as determined by the Alamo RMA on an annual basis in accordance with the policy. It is recognized that toll/managed lanes not operated by the Alamo RMA may be subject to different toll policies and procedures. Environmental Justice Background In 1994, Executive Order No : Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations was issued. Executive Order expands on the Title VI Civil Rights Legislation and promotes nondiscrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health and the environment. In addition, the order provides minority and low-income communities access to public information and opportunity for public participation in related matters. All programs that receive funding from federal agencies require Environmental Justice consideration in accordance with federal law. More specifically, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws. Fair Treatment includes policies and practices that ensure that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups bear disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects resulting from federal programs, policies, and activities. Environmental Justice seeks to: Avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionally high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. In addition to the definition above, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued specific guidelines to MPOs regarding Environmental Justice. MPOs are to: Explore needs within minority communities Involve minority communities and disabled persons in the transportation planning process Include minorities/disabled persons on boards and committees in leadership roles MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

15 Document Title VI efforts Advertise public meetings in places where minorities/disabled persons go Hold meetings at times and places convenient for the minority community Communicate in languages other than English Consider special needs in public accommodations Follow up with the minority community after public meetings, when decisions are made and after project implementation For the development of the long range transportation plan, in order to thoroughly engage the public and gather input the MPO hosted a series of public meetings throughout the region. The purpose of the meetings was to identify innovative approaches to solve transportation problems while engaging the community and serving as a catalyst for their interaction with local governments and decision makers. The public commented on several major transportation issues discussed in the long range transportation plan. One major concern for the region is the continued use of tolled and managed lanes to help manage the projected increase in population by approximately 1,500,000 people by Tolled and managed lanes are one strategy utilized to fund and maintain future roadway systems and mobility. As the MPO region becomes more diverse and non-traditional transportation projects such as tolls are explored, Environmental Justice issues will continue to be at the forefront of transportation planning efforts. One of the core principles of Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis is the significant involvement of potentially impacted minority and low-income populations in the decisionmaking process surrounding transportation projects. The MPO and partner agencies recognize the need for and the clear benefits of Environmental Justice community participation. The proposed toll and managed lane projects in the 2040 long range transportation plan have been evaluated for potential impacts to Environmental Justice communities. There is the realization that with tolled or managed lane facilities there are potential future and indirect impacts to the region. This analysis considers effects tolled facilities may have on populations in the region, particularly low-income and minority communities as traditionally underserved populations are most sensitive to toll roads or managed lanes in relation to access. Restricting access due to pricing may have the potential to create an imbalance of adverse effects. This analysis focuses on the benefits and negative impacts to Environmental Justice communities. Limited English Proficiency Limited English Proficiency (LEP) can be a barrier to effective community involvement and hinder access to toll/manages lane facilities. The Spanish language is commonly used within the MPO study area. The MPO has adopted an LEP plan which MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

16 adheres to the USDOT guidelines by promoting the conduct of specific outreach in underserved communities by hosting public meetings in strategic locations, translating information into Spanish, including minorities/disabled persons on committees, advertising public meetings and information in a variety of print media and documenting all efforts. Definition of Environmental Justice (EJ) Areas At this stage, with the exception of the southern extension of the SH 130 toll road (which operates more as an inter-city turnpike) no other operational toll and/or managed lane facilities are currently in operation within the Alamo Area MPO region. It is therefore necessary to use the Regional Travel Demand Model to estimate toll patronage between EJ and Non EJ populations. As discussed in prior sections, the toll system will include annualized free service for VIA Metropolitan Transit, and will continue to maintain non-toll capacity within the same corridors, with new toll lanes being added to the corridor. No degradation of service is anticipated for non-toll users. Table 7.6 shows 2010 census total and minority population for the counties within the Alamo Area MPO. Table 7.6 Population (2010 Census) Totals for the Expanded MPO Study Area County Total Population Non- Hispanic White Pop Minority Population Percent Minority Population Bexar 1,714, ,123 1,195, % Comal 108,472 77,387 31, % Guadalupe 131,533 72,086 59, % Kendall (portion) 20,986 16,801 4, % MPO Study Area 1,975, ,397 1,290, % For the purpose of this analysis, though, the geographic unit used was the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). Using the 2010 U.S. Census SF1 Block Group Data (which contains population ethnicity and household income data), each TAZ was identified as EJ or Non-EJ. Since most TAZ contain multiple Block Groups, minority/non-minority populations and households at or below poverty level were combined for the entire TAZ to determine the percentage of both minority population and poverty households residing within the TAZ. Any TAZ with 50% or more minority population or 50% or more households at or below poverty level (based on the United States Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines provided in Table 7.7) were designated as EJ zones. All others were designated as Non-EJ zones. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

17 Table 7.7 United States Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons in family Poverty guideline 1 $10,830 2 $14,570 3 $18,310 4 $22,050 5 $25,790 6 $29,530 7 $33,270 8 $37,010 For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person. As shown in Table 7.8, for the MPO study area, 69.9% of the number of TAZ are currently EJ zones. These current EJ zones translate into 33.0% of the square miles of the MPO study area and they are projected to contain 67.2% of the year 2040 population. For the MPO study area, 28.2% of the TAZ are non-ej, reflecting 67.0% of the land area, and these 363 zones are projected to contain 32.8% of the year 2040 population. Environmental Justice TAZ Non- Environmental Justice TAZ Table 7.8 Analysis of EJ vs. Non-EJ Communities (MPO Study Area) No. of 2010 % of % of Square % of 2040 Current Population Total Total Miles Total Population TAZ % of Total 1,418, % % % 2,320, % 557, % % 1, % 1,133, % Totals 1,975, % % 2, % 3,453, % As shown in Figure 7.2 the Environmental Justice communities are widespread across most of the MPO study area. VIA Metropolitan Transit s 2010 transit service placed over the EJ zones is shown in Figure 7.3, their proposed 2040 transit service placed over the current EJ zones is shown in Figure 7.4 and the tolled/managed lane projects that are expected to be operational by year 2040 placed over the current EJ zones are shown in Figure MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

18 Figure 7.2 Environmental Justice Zones (Transportation Analysis Zones) MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

19 Figure 7.3 Transit Routes Located in Environmental Justice Zones (2010) MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

20 Figure Transit Network Located in Environmental Justice Zones MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

21 Figure 7.5 MPO Region s Environmental Justice Communities and Tolled/Managed Lanes MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

22 Analysis Methodologies and Results The analysis examines potential impacts that tolled/managed lane facilities may have on accessibility of all persons by analyzing travel time impacts of people residing in the Environmental Justice zones and Non-Environmental Justice zones. The analysis looked at several different distance and time components of the regional transportation system using both the 2020 and 2040 (with and without toll/managed lane) networks. While the 2020 reflects the existing plus committed network, (projects in the TIP that are open to the traveling public by 2020), the 2040 (with) includes the toll/managed lane projects designated in our long range plan 2040 and the 2040 (without) excludes these projects. Comparison of 2020 and 2040 Travel Times (Speed) For this analysis MPO staff identified 34 activity centers geographically distributed throughout the region and shown in Figure 7.6. The activity centers include central business districts, colleges and universities, major employers, military bases, major medical facilities and regional shopping centers. The travel time analysis, using the loaded network speeds and travel times generated from traffic assignment, compares travel times and speed from each EJ and non-ej TAZ to each activity center for years 2020 (with partial build-out of toll/managed lane system) and 2020 (without partial build-out of toll/managed lane system); 2040 (with full build-out of toll/managed lane system) and 2040 (without toll/managed lane system). This analysis determines that the EJ zones were not detrimentally impacted by the addition of toll/managed lanes. Moreover, the analysis determines that all travelers, whether EJ or not, benefit from the addition of toll/managed lanes, with the exception for those EJ or NEJ travelers for which no toll/managed lane is available to use for travel to a particular activity center. In general, and more so for 2040 than 2020, any traveler, who elects to save time by paying for and using the managed lane, moves out of the general purpose lane and thereby creates additional capacity on the free alternative so all travelers benefit. As shown in Table 7.9, the travel time savings and improved speeds vary for both EJ and Non-EJ zones based upon where they live and to which activity center they are destined, but there are no trips to activity centers where the travel times and speeds are degraded from the inclusion of toll/managed lane projects. The results from the travel time and speed analysis performed on the 34 activity centers are shown in Table 7.9. Interestingly, a greater proportion of the activity centers are located within or near EJ TAZ. This generally results in shorter home based trips for travelers from EJ zones than those from Non-EJ zones. Moreover, as part of the recent expansion of the MPO study area, more Non-EJ zones were added in the outlying areas, making this difference even more pronounced. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

23 As shown in the table, (with toll/managed lanes in place) the average 2020 distance, travel time and speed to activity centers is 8.5 miles in mph for EJ vs miles in mph for Non-EJ. These average trip distances are significant, which would tend to indicate that EJ travelers would be less likely to use freeways or toll/managed lane facilities (if available for the trip) because longer trips are typically required to generate enough time savings to justify paying a toll. Table 7.9 also indicates an overall degradation of travel times and speeds for 2020 and 2040 for both sets of travelers, when comparing the Build (with the toll/managed lanes) vs. the No Build (without the toll/managed lanes) scenarios. For example, the average 2020 EJ travel time increases from mph to mph (without the toll/managed lanes) and from mph to mph (without the toll/managed lanes) by For 2020 Non-EJ, the average travel time increases (slightly) from mph to mph (without the toll/managed lanes) and from mph to mph (without the toll/managed lanes) by So, although the travel time differentials (Build vs. No Build) are much smaller for 2020 than for 2040, the inclusion of the toll/managed lane system for both analysis years still aids all EJ and Non EJ travelers seeking shorter travel times and faster speeds. These results indicate benefit for all travelers and don t indicate any disproportionate adverse impact upon either set of travelers. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

24 Figure 7.6 Selected Activity Centers for the Travel Time Analysis MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

25 Table 7.9 Comparison of Travel Characteristics for EJ and Non EJ Zones MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

26 Comparison of 2020 and 2040 Travel Time Savings with Toll/Managed Lane Facilities and Without Toll/Managed Lane Facilities Table 7.10 continues this analysis by comparing the overall VMT and VHT for the combined home based EJ travel to activity centers (649,823/903,630 trips in 2020/2040) and the combined home based Non-EJ travel to activity centers (257,986/361,701) trips in 2020/2040). Although for 2020, the improved travel times for both EJ and Non-EJ travel to activity centers were mostly insignificant, the travel time savings by 2040 improved to about 8 minutes per trip for EJ and 13.5 minutes per trip for Non-EJ. Thus, both sets of travelers are shown to benefit from overall savings in travel time and resulting speeds. The results of the analysis suggest that environmental justice populations do benefit from the toll/managed lane facilities. Other improvements such as VIA s modern streetcar system and additional Express Bus routes using the managed lane system are proposed to serve both the urban core and major transportation corridors thereby improving mobility for significant environmental justice populations. As stated previously, mitigation measures for the environmental justice communities, with respect to the regional toll system, include the availability of free travel lanes within the alignment of each of the proposed toll/managed lane facilities. As currently proposed, the San Antonio toll/managed lane system will include and incorporate non-toll capacity within the same corridor as toll capacity. No corridor in which non-toll traffic exists today will be converted to a toll-only traffic scenario in the future. Under this approach, EJ communities will see a benefit from the proposed improvements as congestion would decrease on non-toll facilities based on drivers choosing to use the toll facility. Implementing tolled/managed lane facilities results in travel time savings to those who choose to use the tolled/managed lane facilities and travel time savings to the adjacent non-tolled highway facilities. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

27 MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

28 Cumulative Economic Effect The economic impact of choosing to travel on toll/managed lane facilities may have a greater impact on low-income individuals and families because the cost may be of greater proportion of their income than median or high income users. However, strategies to minimize possible negative effects of tolling on low-income persons include waiving tolls for transit vehicles on managed lanes and maintaining the non-toll capacity in the same corridor as currently exits to ensure viable non-toll alternatives. Also, there are no limitations on providing additional travel capacity in parallel travel corridors. Analysis of the economic impact of paying for the use of toll/managed lanes upon EJ vs. Non-EJ populations. The financial impact of paying for the use of toll/managed lanes can be estimated by comparing the financial resources (from zonal household incomes) to the estimated yearly costs of tolls (as a percentage of income) for EJ vs. Non-EJ work travel. The first step (using the regional travel demand model) is to look at the characteristics of the EJ workers and work trips as compared to those of the Non-EJ workers and work trips. Home based work vehicle trips are used for this analysis because the work trip purpose is the most likely to occur in congested travel times and most likely to require specific arrival times and thus most likely to benefit from using the toll/managed lane facilities. For the 2040 horizon year, as shown in Table 7.11, EJ zones generate 1,334,549 (vehicle) work trips, based upon average household income of $44,999 from 907,407 households within the 841 EJ TAZ. Non-EJ zones generate 763,199 work trips, based upon average household income of $80,682 from 468,288 households within the 363 Non-EJ TAZ. Lower income households typically have fewer workers in the household (as estimated by the Tripcal5 trip generation model) and therefore generate fewer work trips per household. The 2040 EJ work trips are somewhat shorter (10.3 miles) compared to the Non-EJ work trip length (13.7 miles). The shorter EJ work trips are less likely to use the toll/managed lanes because the likelihood of sufficient travel time savings is diminished and the general location of the proposed toll/managed lanes may not be as handy to the EJ zones (see Figure 7.5). To further estimate possible toll/managed lane usage, both the EJ and Non-EJ work trips were individually assigned to the 2040 (with Toll/managed) network (with the tolls turned off) to establish an upper bound of eligible toll trips. Looking at the assigned VMT for specific tolled facility types, the assignments show that for EJ work travel, about 8.3% (1,146,980/13,566,782) of VMT or about 111,357 equivalent 10.3 mile work trips would be eligible to use toll/managed facilities. For this same comparison for Non-EJ work trips, about 20.7% (2,162,929/10,455,826 VMT) or about 157,878 equivalent 13.7 mile work trips would be eligible. This relationship shows that by 2040, for both EJ and Non-EJ populations, the option of using the proposed toll/managed lane facilities is certainly available for both groups. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

29 Applying the proposed $0.17 per mile toll charges to the toll eligible VMT provides some insight as to the estimated daily toll charges and the financial impact that might be incurred by the EJ and Non-EJ populations. From Table 7.11, (assuming that an eligible EJ work trip (and return home) would use a toll/managed lane facility for 200 days per year), the EJ toll user would pay an average of $1.75 toll per trip (for the 10.3 mile work trip) or about $700 per year (0.17*10.3*2*200), while the Non-EJ toll user would pay an average of $2.33 toll per trip (for the 13.7 mile work trip) or about $932 per year. In summary, because the potential EJ user of toll/managed lane facilities would typically be making shorter toll eligible work trips, the estimated yearly toll costs ($700) would be significantly less than those for Non-EJ ($932) but the financial impact (based upon household income) would be slightly higher. For the EJ toll user the $700 in toll charges represents about 1.6% of the average $44,999 gross yearly income for EJ populations. For the Non-EJ toll user the $932 in toll charges is significantly higher but still only represents about 1.2% of the average $80,682 gross yearly income for NEJ populations. Conclusions Congestion on the region s roadways is expected to increase in the future, despite the investment made through the projects, policies and objectives outlined in this long range transportation plan. The roadway projects included in Chapter 11 Financial Information do begin to mitigate the expected growth in congestion. However, to accommodate the higher burden that will be placed on the transportation system, not just expansion of the roadways, but operational improvements (such as signal retimings and intersection modifications) and enhancements to the transit system must occur. Other potential improvements to relieve congestion and improve quality of life are documented in Chapter 10 Congestion Management Process. MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014

30 MOBILITY Adopted on December 8, 2014