REAL-TIME SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM. Routes of Significance Memphis

Similar documents
Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

Toward Zero Deaths. Regional SHSP Road Show Meeting. Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan. presented by

Bus Rapid Transit ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. Open House

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

BIKE PLAN CONTENTS GATEWAY

Bicycle Master Plan Goals, Strategies, and Policies

5. Pedestrian System. Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning in a Historically Car-Centric Culture: A Focus on Connectivity, Safety, & Accessibility

WALKNBIKE DRAFT PLAN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

Living Streets Policy

Pedestrian Project List and Prioritization

The Florida Bicycle and Pedestrian Partnership Council

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

MnDOT Implementation of Complete Streets Policy. January 2014

PRELIMINARY DRAFT FIRST AMENDMENT TO VISION 2050: A REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSIT SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR EXISTING AND PLANNED SECTIONS OF US 19

APPENDIX D: Southwest Volusia Regional Transportation Study. Evaluation Criteria FINAL

Bicycling & Walking in the Twin Cities TPP Bike/Ped Chapter Overview. Land Use Advisory Committee September 21, 2017

Proposed. City of Grand Junction Complete Streets Policy. Exhibit 10

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Governor s Transportation Vision Panel

Community Task Force November 15, 2017

Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan. January 18, 2011

TRANSIT & NON-MOTORIZED PLAN DRAFT FINAL REPORT Butte County Association of Governments

Beyond First First Last Last Mile Strategies. APA National Conference April 3, 2016 Chelsea Richer, AICP Fehr & Peers

ADA Transition Plan. City of Gainesville FY19-FY28. Date: November 5, Prepared by: City Of Gainesville Department of Mobility

APPENDIX A: Complete Streets Checklist DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016

City of Memphis On-Street Parking Modification Guidelines

AMATS Complete Streets Policy

TULSA CITY COUNCIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TASK FORCE MEETING JANUARY

Rhode Island Bus Stop Design Guide

Part-time Shoulder Use Guide

Public Transportation and Bicycle & Pedestrian Stakeholder Webinar. April 11, :30 PM

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Incorporating Health in Regional Transportation Planning

TOWN OF PORTLAND, CONNECTICUT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

The City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

City of Jacksonville Mobility Fee Update

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

Part-time Shoulder Use Guide

Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter TPP Update Overview. TAB September 20, 2017

ROUTES 55 / 42 / 676 BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSIT SAFETY ASSESSMENT FOR EXISTING AND PLANNED SECTIONS OF US 19

Goodlettsville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Traffic Calming Policy

CITY MANUALS AND STANDARDS REVIEW

City of Hamilton s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Public Consultation 3 December 2015

Kelowna On the Move. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan

PEDESTRIAN ACTION PLAN

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

MASTER BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Chapter VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Vision. Mission. Goals and Objectives CONNECTING COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE ST.

SR 693 (Pasadena Avenue) Corridor Study from Shore Drive South to 66 th Street

122 Avenue: 107 Street to Fort Road

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Vision

PennDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Initiatives. Jonathan Heilman Roy Gothie Angela Watson

Bicycle RSAs: How to Conduct Road Safety Audits and How to Use Them to Promote Bicyclist Safety. Dan Nabors, PE, VHB Bill DeSantis, PE, VHB

Scope of Services BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MPO

Orange County s Transportation Planning and Multimodal Corridor Plan

Road Diets FDOT Process

DRAFT. Table of Contents. Background

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN LEON COUNTY FOR CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALKS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 1 P age

CITY OF BLOOMINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Study. Old Colony Planning Council

Bike/Multipurpose Trail Study for Glynn County, Georgia MAY 16, 2016

Goals, Objectives, and Policies

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Executive Summary

Rochester Downtown Bicycle Study 2009

Chapter PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Introduction

Chapter 2. Bellingham Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 2: Policies and Actions

Linking Transportation and Health in Nashville & Middle Tennessee

A Matter of Fairness: ROCOG s Environmental Justice Protocol. What is Mobility Limitation?

2. Vision & Goals. Vision. Santa Rosa is a community where walking and bicycling are comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.

City of Novi Non-Motorized Master Plan 2011 Executive Summary

NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION

BICYCLE FACILITIES INVENTORY: SUMMARY REPORT

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Goal 3: Foster an environment of partnerships and collaboration to connect our communities and regions to one another.

TSTC s analysis of federal transportation data reveals that in the three years from 2010 through 2012:

900 BICYCLE FACILITIES Traffic Engineering Manual

USDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Initiative: Safer People and Safer Streets. Barbara McCann, USDOT Office of Policy

Incorporating Health in Regional Transportation Planning

BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy

Attachment A: Columbus Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan Objectives, Performance Measures, and Targets

Transportation in Washoe County. Lee Gibson, Executive Director February 15, 2011

Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications

NM-POLICY 1: Improve service levels, participation, and options for non-motorized transportation modes throughout the County.

Thank you for attending

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #10. July 27, 2011

900 BICYCLE FACILITIES Traffic Engineering Manual

HARRISON STREET/OAKLAND AVENUE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Chapter 7: Six-Step Implementation Process

Route 7 Corridor Study

VILLAGE OF NILES TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY

Double the amount of bicycle ridership while at the same time reducing the number of bicycle crashes by one-third.

APPENDIX C. Systems Performance Report C-1

Non-Motorized Transportation 7-1

Transcription:

REAL-TIME SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM Routes of Significance Memphis

Introduction - RTSMIP In August 2005 federal legislation was enacted that required a Real-Time System Management Information Program (RTSMIP) to provide, in all states, the capability to monitor, in real-time, the traffic and travel conditions of the major highways, and to share that information in order to: improve the security of the surface transportation system address congestion problems support improved response to weather events and surface transportation incidents facilitate national and regional highway traveler information To facilitate the collection of this information, 23 CFR 511 was developed. This section requires each state to establish and operate a RTSMIP as part of its Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) capable of gathering and making available the data for traffic and travel conditions.

Introduction - RTSMIP The RTSMIP defines requirements for four types of traveler information: Construction Activities: All lane closures, excluding short-term or intermittent closures or activity that does not close a lane. Roadway or Lane Blocking Incident: All unplanned incidents that block a lane. Roadway Weather Observations: Adverse or hazardous driving conditions and lane closures or restrictions due to environmental conditions. Travel Time Information: only for limited access roads within specified metropolitan areas. Each of these categories includes requirements for information latency, accuracy, and availability. Information on construction, incidents, and road weather is to be provided on all Interstates statewide and select roads within urban or metropolitan areas, termed Routes of Significance (RoS).

RTSMIP Compliance Dates The deadline for fulfillment of RTSMIP requirements on all Interstate roadway segments was November 8, 2014. An FHWA/TDOT team reviewed all of TDOT s current policies, technology systems, and personnel/equipment levels that applied to capabilities under the RTSMIP FHWA determined that TDOT is in compliance with the current program requirements The deadline for fulfilled RTSMIP requirements on non- Interstate metropolitan RoS is November 8, 2016.

RoS Identification Process The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) surveyed stakeholders, including the Nashville and Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), to compile a list of possible routes for a significance determination. Eleven (11) routes were evaluated in the Memphis metropolitan area, which were then broken into 21 segments of like characteristics The lists were made up of routes that parallel interstates and/or are major arterials and collectors. After the initial meetings and data collection efforts, TDOT worked with the MPOs to identify factors to rank the list of routes. These preliminary factors included: 1) Volume 2) Volume to Capacity Ratio 3) Crash Rate 4) Economic Activity 5) Congestion Mitigation Plan 6) Diversionary Route Designation 7) Interstate Access Points 8) Heavy Vehicle Percent of Total Volume

Memphis Initial RoS - Shelby

Memphis Initial RoS - Fayette

Scoring Process After further assessment, it was decided that some factors had the potential to double count some criteria that was included in other factors. Their inclusion was ultimately dropped. The final list of factors that were used to rank the list of routes were: 1) Volume 2) Volume to Capacity Ratio 3) Crash Rate 4) Heavy Vehicle Percent of Total Volume Point values were assigned to the selected factors and applied to the route lists. Relevant data was collected on each route segment using the Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (TRIMS) database. A maximum of 56 points was made available through the four categories and a route that earned at least 25 points was deemed a Route of Significance.

Scoring Details Volume/Capacity Points Ratio < 0.5 0 0.5 0.75 5 0.76 1.0 10 > 1.0 15 Volume Points (thousands) < 10 0 10 20 5 20-30 10 > 30 15 % Heavy Vehicles Points of Total Volume 0-5 0 6-10 1 11-15 3 15-20 5 21-25 7 26-30 9 > 30 11 Crash Rate Points < 100 0 100-499 5 500-1000 10 > 1000 15

Final Scoring

Memphis Final RoS

Memphis Final RoS Route County Beginning Log Mile Ending Log Mile Termini SR 3 Shelby 0 9.9 From Mississippi State Line to SR 23 (Union Ave.) SR 4 Shelby 0 12.7 From Mississippi State Line to I-240 SR 15 Shelby 0 16.3 From SR 14 (Austin Peay Hwy.) to I-40 SR 23 Shelby 0 8.8 From SR 3 (Bellevue Blvd.) to I-240 SR 57 Shelby 0 16.98 From SR 14 (Jackson Ave.) to Houston Levee Rd. SR 177 Shelby 3.01 13.1 From SR 57 (Poplar Ave.) to SR 1

Crittenden County, Arkansas RoS

Crittenden County, Arkansas RoS Route County Termini Hwy 64 Crittenden From Hwy 70 to Cross County Line Hwy 70 Crittenden From I-55 to St. Francis County Line Hwy 77 Crittenden From Hwy 70 to I-55 Hwy 118 Crittenden From Hwy 70 to Hwy 64

What s Next? TDOT is finalizing a report for FHWA to demonstrate compliance with 23 CFR 511. The report will address: How TDOT has worked with the applicable Nashville and Memphis metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to designate Routes of Significance Routes of Significance designation methodology List of Routes of Significance Information dissemination strategy

QUESTIONS?

BUS STOP GUIDELINES ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, MEMPHIS MPO NOVEMBER 3, 2016 Bus Stop Guidelines

PURPOSE & NEED Provide relevant information in one reference guide Make it easier for planners and engineers to incorporate bus stops in designs Assist the Greater Memphis region in prioritizing infrastructure investment Reduce missed opportunities for improvement Bus Stop Guidelines 2

VALUE OF BUS STOP GUIDELINES DESIGN Transit needs are taken into account early in design of roadway projects Investments can more easily be made by private developers Prioritizing transit agency investments as stand-alone projects Cost estimates for improvements Branding Unify branding Standardize designs Bus Stop Guidelines 3

VALUE OF BUS STOP GUIDELINES ADA/Ped/Bike Satisfy ADA and other requirements Improve accessibility for those with disabilities Integrate transit with pedestrians and bicyclists Service Improve amenities Enhance customer experience Attract transit ridership bus stops are front door of transit system Operations Stop spacing Location Length Bus Stop Guidelines 4

WORK PLAN Memphis MPO led project Strong collaboration with MATA Started in April 2016 Completion by end 2016 Nelson\Nygaard as lead consultant HDR ACOT Associates Project Team Bus Stop Guidelines 5

TASKS Document review Complete Peer Review- Complete Classifying bus stops- Complete Find Examples- Complete Outreach Stakeholder Meetings Public Survey ETC & TPB Draft Manual- December 2016 Final Manual- Early 2017 Bus Stop Guidelines 6

OUTLINE OF FINAL GUIDE Chapter 1- Introduction Purpose and Need Overview of Remaining Chapters Review of Existing Documents Stakeholder Input Chapter 2 - Stop Siting/Footprint Choosing Locations Far-side, Near-side, Mid-block High or Low Boarding Volume Stop Spacing Special Cases Chapter 3 - Additional Preliminary Design Info Stops after Bus Turns Opportunities for Bus Lanes Transit Signal Priority Bus Turnouts Curb Extensions Superstop Locations Chapter 4 - Bus Stop Elements Shelters/Benches Trash Receptacles Signs/Maps/Info Lighting Bike Parking and Repair Fare Machines Art Pavement Markings Protective Bollards Chapter 5 - Other Related Topics System Branding Mitigation during Construction Role of Abutters Path of Travel Conditions Connectivity Parking Enforcement Public Involvement Placemaking Chapter 6 - Prioritizing Investments Funding and Costs Stop Inventory Evaluation System Ridership Key Corridors Conditions Demographics Transit Service Chapter 7 - Ongoing Procedures Living Document Info Maintenance Physical Maintenance Coordination with Roadway and Development Projects Appendices Bus Stop Guidelines 7

QUESTIONS? Contact Information: Greg Strangeways, Nelson\Nygaard gstrangeways@nelsonnygaard.com 857-305-9084 Melissa Kim, Nelson\Nygaard mkim@nelsonnygaard.com 857-305-9075 MATA John Lancaster, MATA jclancaster@matatransit.com 901-722-0307 Scarlet Ponder, MATA sponder@matatransit.com 901-722-7144 MPO Kwasi Agyakwa, Memphis MPO kwasi.agyakwa@memphistn.gov 901-576-7189 Mitchell Lloyd, Memphis MPO mitchell.lloyd@memphistn.gov 901-576-7146 Bus Stop Guidelines 8