1 / 24

Florida Department of Transportation District One Interstate Planning for I-4 and I-75

Florida Department of Transportation District One Interstate Planning for I-4 and I-75. October 30, 2012. Purpose. Define Deficiencies on the Interstate Mainline Capacity needs between 2012 and 2050 if no improvements were made Determine Years in which Interstate Mainline Widening is Needed

tamas
Download Presentation

Florida Department of Transportation District One Interstate Planning for I-4 and I-75

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. Florida Department of Transportation District OneInterstate Planning for I-4 and I-75 October 30, 2012

  2. Purpose • Define Deficiencies on the Interstate Mainline • Capacity needs between 2012 and 2050 if no improvements were made • Determine Years in which Interstate Mainline Widening is Needed • Provide Recommendations for Managed Lanes Study Limits in D1 • Determine feasibility of replacing bridge structures

  3. Traffic Methodology – Growth Rate Development • Available FDOT Traffic Data • FTI DVD • Recent and Current Studies • Central Polk Parkway IJR, I-75 SIMR, I-75/SR 951 IMR, I-75/Everglades IJR • Cost Feasible Models • CPP IJR , SR 951 IMR • Lee-Collier , Sarasota-Manatee-Charlotte • Population Growth and Projections Reviewed • Census Data from 2000 and 2010 • BEBR Medium Projections 2010 to 2035 • Recommended Growth Rate Selected • I-4 Growth Rate = 2.0% • I-75 Growth Rate = 2.5%

  4. Traffic Methodology – Capacity Analysis • Geometry and Functional Classification of Mainline Segments was Reviewed • LOS Standard Applied Segment by Segment • Rural Interstate – LOS C • Urban Interstate – LOS D • FDOT Generalized Tables used to Determine Capacity Thresholds • 6 lane • 8 lane • Recommended Growth Rate Applied to 2011 AADTs

  5. I-4 Future Capacity Assessment

  6. Results – County Line Road to US 98/SR 35 6 Lanes NA: This segment currently has 8 lanes (6 lanes plus 1 auxiliary lane in each direction)

  7. Results – US 98/SR 35 to Polk Pkwy West Urban LOS D

  8. Results – Polk Pkwy West to Champion’s Gate Blvd 6 Lanes

  9. Conclusions – Phase 1: US 27 to Champions Gate Blvd • 8 Laning: This segment currently exceeds the 6-lane LOS C threshold • 10 Laning: This segment requires widening to 10 lanes in 2021 Rural LOS C 6 Lanes

  10. Conclusions – Phase 2: County Line Rd to Polk Pkwy West • 8 Laning: This segment is currently 8 lanes. • 10 Laning: This segment requires widening to 10 lanes in 2029 Urban LOS D

  11. Conclusions – Phase 2: Polk Pkwy East to US 27 • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2017 and 2021 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2032 and 2036 6 Lanes

  12. Conclusions – Phase 3: Polk Pkwy West to N. Socrum Loop Rd • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2025 and 2030 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2039 and 2045 6 Lanes

  13. Conclusions – Phase 4: N. Socrum Loop Rd to Polk Pkwy East • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2035 and 2036 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2050 and 2051 Urban LOS D

  14. Summary – I-4 Capacity Analysis Phasing - 8 Lanes Widening Phasing - 10 Lanes Widening • 8 Lanes provide acceptable LOS for 15 years • Managed Lanes Feasibility can be examined up to Polk Pkwy East

  15. I-75 Future Capacity Assessment

  16. Conclusions – Phase 1: US 301 to US 41 • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2012 and 2020 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2023 and 2031

  17. Conclusions – Phase 2: US 41 to N River Rd • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2021 and 2027 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2033 and 2039 Requires 6 laning in 2012

  18. Conclusions – Phase 3: North of Moccasin Wallow Rd to I-275 • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes in 2034 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2045 and 2050 Urban LOS D NA: This segment currently has 8 lanes (6 lanes plus 1 auxiliary lane in each direction)

  19. Conclusions – Phase 3: N River Rd to Choctaw Blvd • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2033 and 2036 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2044 and 2048 Rural LOS C

  20. Conclusions – Phase 3: SR 80 to Pine Ridge Rd • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2026 and 2035 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2037 and 2047

  21. Conclusions – Phase 4: Choctaw Blvd to SR 80 • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2037 and 2048 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes between 2048 and 2059

  22. Conclusions – Phase 5: Pine Ridge Rd to SR 29 • 8 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 8 lanes between 2040 and 2077 • 10 Laning: • This segment requires widening to 10 lanes beyond2051 Urban LOS D 6 Lanes

  23. Summary – I-75 Capacity Analysis Phasing - 8 Lanes Widening Phasing - 10 Lanes Widening

  24. Summary Contd. • 8 Lanes provide acceptable LOS for 11 to 12 years • Managed Lanes Feasibility can be extended to • US 301 to US 41/SR 681 • US 41/SR 681 to N. River Rd

More Related