1 / 36

Solving the SR-520 Problem prepared for UTRAN

Solving the SR-520 Problem prepared for UTRAN. prepared by INSTEP LLC IN telligent S olutions for T ransportation E ngineering and P lanning Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners CEE 416 / CEE 580 / URBPD 598 2005.12.05. Overview.

holcombj
Download Presentation

Solving the SR-520 Problem prepared for UTRAN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Solving the SR-520 Problemprepared forUTRAN prepared by INSTEP LLC INtelligent Solutions for Transportation Engineering and Planning Chaisy, Hurvitz, Jiang, Jun, Shinners CEE 416 / CEE 580 / URBPD 598 2005.12.05 Slide 1 (of 31)

  2. Overview • Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) • Alternatives • Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) • Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) • Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) • Final Recommendation (Jun) Slide 2 (of 31)

  3. Overview • Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) • Alternatives • Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) • Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) • Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) • Recommendation (Jun) Slide 3 (of 31)

  4. Background: Current Problems • Safety/reliability • Congestion • Public transit • Environmental impacts • Community connection Slide 4 (of 31)

  5. Background: Safety/reliability Slide 5 (of 31)

  6. Background: Congestion Slide 6 (of 31)

  7. Background: Other Concerns • Public Transit • Speed • Connection • Ridership • Environmental impacts • Runoff • Noise • Community connections Slide 7 (of 31)

  8. Background: Future needs • Increase safety • Congestion relief • Public transit improvement • Environmental mitigation Slide 8 (of 31)

  9. Background: Goals To improve mobility for people and goods across SR 520 corridor in a manner that is safe, reliable, and cost effective while minimizing impacts on affected neighborhoods and the environment Slide 9 (of 31)

  10. Background: Objectives • Phase one: rebuilding the bridge • Phase Two: capacity expansion General purpose lane: LOS C HOV lane: LOS B Connections with other corridor runoff and noise level Are these phases orobjectives? Slide 10 (of 31)

  11. Overview • Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) • Alternatives • Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) • Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) • Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) • Recommendation (Jun) Slide 11 (of 31)

  12. Six-lane Alternative: Introduction Slide 12 (of 31)

  13. Six-lane Alternative: Primary Benefits • Congestion Relief • Safety • Environmental Mitigation • Community Development Slide 13 (of 31)

  14. Six-lane Alternative: Environmental Impacts and Constraints • Wetlands • Noise Pollution Slide 14 (of 31)

  15. Six-lane Alternative: Public Opinion • What does the public want? • Roadway Capacity vs. Mass Transit? • Toll Concerns • Environmental Concerns Slide 15 (of 31)

  16. Six-lane Alternative: Administrative/ Organization Impacts, Concerns, and Issues • Implementation of tolls • Metro/ Sound Transit Slide 16 (of 31)

  17. Overview • Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) • Alternatives • Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) • Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) • Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) • Recommendation (Jun) Slide 17 (of 31)

  18. Six-lane + Transit Alternative : Introduction • Similar to basic six lane alternative • Adds light rail on opposite side as pedestrian/bikeway • Terminals on both sides of Lake • University Hub of Sound Transit (near Husky Stadium) • SR-520/I-405 interchange • Variable tolling method/rates • RFID • Automated coin counter Slide 18 (of 31)

  19. Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Primary Benefits • Increased Congestion Relief • Increased capacity for vehicles • Dedicated transit for passengers • Increased Safety • Added shoulders • Increased Environmental Mitigation • Surface runoff treatment • Increased Community Development • “Smart Growth” near transit hub • Increased Reliability • Light rail will not be subject to delays Slide 19 (of 31)

  20. Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Environmental Impacts and Constraints • Wetlands • Six-lane construction will impact wetlands on both sides of the Lake • Will require mitigation (construction of new wetlands elsewhere) to comply with Federal regulations • Noise Pollution • Increased traffic will cause more noise • May include a cap to reduce noise for North Capitol Hill Slide 20 (of 31)

  21. Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Public Opinion • Better than a compromise • Provides increased roadway capacity • Provides increased transit capacity & reliability • Toll Concerns • Legalities of RFID and license plate photos must be addressed • Not specifically prohibited under RCW, but likely to be challenged • Environmental Concerns • Local Neighborhoods Affected • Montlake, University, Laurelhurst • Eastside (Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, Kirkland) Slide 21 (of 31)

  22. Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Administrative/ Organization Impacts, Concerns, and Issues • Same issues as basic six-lane alternative • Implementation of tolls • Metro/ Sound Transit • Requires integration with Sound Transit • SR-520 light rail will share station with Sound Transit at Husky Stadium Slide 22 (of 31)

  23. Six-lane + Transit Alternative: Applicable/Likely Funding Mechanisms • Costs (high estimate): $3.4 billion • Basic six-lane alternative cost: $2.90 billion • Light rail: $0.39 billion • RFID, cameras, software, etc: $20 million • RFID, etc. transaction costs: $7.1million • Revenues • Tolls (calculated at current volume): 115,000 v/d * $4.00/crossing * 365 d/y *20 y = $3.275 B • 2005 Gas Tax • $500 K • Does not require additional taxes Slide 23 (of 31)

  24. Overview • Background: current problems, goals, objectives (Jiang) • Alternatives • Basic six-lane alternative (Shinners) • Six-lane alternative with light rail transit and variable tolls (Hurvitz) • Four-lane alternative with higher transit support (Chaisy) • Recommendation (Jun) Slide 24 (of 31)

  25. Increase Transit Use: Plan Details • Increase capacity of movement of people by increasing bus ridership • Construct Large P&R at each end of SR-520 • Encourage higher density and mixed use near P&R • Create Incentives to take Transit • Rebuild of SR-520 using 4 Lane Plan outlined by WSDOT • Create Dis-incentives to take SOV ?? Slide 25 (of 31)

  26. Increase Transit Use: Primary Benefits • Buses move 30% more people using 1% of vehicles • Congestion Reduction • Pollution Reduction • P&R costs are lower than capacity increase costs ?? Slide 26 (of 31)

  27. Increase Transit Use: Public Opinion • Low approval ratings for transit (Sound Transit = 55%, King County Metro = 62%) • Low current ridership (4.4% of commuters use transit across US) • 19% of people view Puget Sound as more transit as most important issue Source? Slide 27 (of 31)

  28. Increase Transit Use: Major concerns • Can ridership be increased? • Is added capacity for movement of people enough to offset growth/congestion in region? • Will a plan that does not increase roadway capacity be accepted by voters? Slide 28 (of 31)

  29. Increase Transit Use: Funding Sources • Gas Tax, Nickel Funding • Vehicle Tax increases • Parking taxes Slide 29 (of 31)

  30. Final Recommendation • Six-lane + Transit Alternative Slide 30 (of 31)

  31. Final Recommendation • Benefit • Increased Congestion Relief • Increased Safety • Increased Environmental Mitigation • Increased Community Development • Increased Reliability • Concern • Environmental Impact on Wetland • Noise Pollution • Tolling Issues • Impact on Local Neighborhood

  32. Final Recommendation: Comparison • Vs. Basic Multi-Lane Alternative • Vs. Increase Transit

  33. Final Recommendation: Financing • Estimated Cost of the Project = $3.4 billion • Revenue from Tolling = $3.275 billion • Gas Tax = $500k

  34. Final Recommendation: Implementation Strategy • Get all the necessary Data/prediction • Get EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) • Inform and get feedback from decision makers and public • Get political and public acceptance/support • Get initial financing • Construction • Enforcement

  35. Final Recommendation: Organization and Political Buy-In • Metro • University of Washington • Political Party Who's Against putting RFID tag for Privacy issue • WSDOT

  36. Questions? INSTEP LLC INtelligent Solutions for Transportation Engineering and Planning Slide 31 (of 31)

More Related