Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro
Beltway Feasibility Study
MTMUG
March 19, 2009
Courtney Sokol and Greg Youell
Purpose of this Study
™ To determine the need for and
feasibility of an outer loop freeway
AND
™ Determine if land use patterns or
other transportation network
options alter the answer
1
Study Sponsors
What is a Beltway &
What Would it Do?
™ A major, limited access roadway
around a metropolitan area
™ Maintain a quality transportation
system
ÆHistory of the beltway concept in
Omaha
2
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
730
730 Original
Original TAZs
TAZs ++
132
132 Expanded
Expanded TAZs
TAZs
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
™
™
External
External Stations:
Stations:
–– 15
15 moved
moved
outward
outward
–– 22 remain
remain the
the same
same
–– 11
11 new
new locations
locations
3
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
™
™
No
No Area
Area Codes
Codes
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
™
™
Area
Area Codes:
Codes:
–Created
–Created to
to establish
establish
varying
varying production
production
and
and attraction
attraction rates
rates
in
in the
the urban
urban versus
versus
rural
rural areas
areas
4
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
™
™
With
With Area
Area Codes
Codes
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model
™
Production
Production
Rates
Income in
1000s
5 (Minimum)
20 (Low)
50 (Mid)
70 (High)
100+ (Max)
New
Code
0, 1, 2
1
6.5
11.5
14
15
New
Code 3
1
4.5
7
10
11
New
MAPA
Old
1.01
6.63
12.89
15.4
16.82
1 (Urban Core)
NonRetail Retail
1.6
1.6
1.5
8
1
0.6
2.5
1
HHs
™
™
Rural
Rural TAZs
TAZs (3)
(3) and
and Rural
Rural Enclave
Enclave
TAZs
TAZs (4)
(4) have
have lower
lower production
production
rates
rates
™
™
Attraction
Attraction rates
rates by
by Area
Area Code
Code
helped
helped reduce
reduce previous
previous
imbalance
imbalance between
between P’s
P’s and
and A’s.
A’s.
HDR
NCHRP
Expanded
365
4
6
7.89
8.9
10.4
11.5
11.82
13
Rates
0 (CBD)
NonRetail Retail
1.6
1.6
4
1
1.5
1
Code
4
1
3.5
5.5
8
10
™Attraction
Attraction
Rates
Trip
Purpose
HBW
HBNW
NHB
Rates
2 (Non-Rural, Non-CBD/Core)
3 (Rural)
NonNonRetail Retail
HHs
Trip Purpose
Retail Retail
HBW
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
12
1.25
1.5
HBNW
11
0.9
0.6
3.5
1
0.6
NHB
3.25
0.8
HHs
4 (Rural Enclaves)
NonRetail Retail
1.4
1.4
1.25
10
0.8
0.6
3
0.6
HHs
HHs
1
0.5
5
Travel Demand Model Enhancements:
Expanded 2004 Base Year Model Results
Final Expanded 2004 Model Stats
Total Area (MAPA Original + Expanded Beltway Area)
RMSE
R Squared
Selection
Observations
RMSE
GOAL
%Flow/
Count
R Sq.
GOAL
All Roads Counts
4027
29.77
29.71
-1.85
0.927
0.929
Freeways
178
13.42
13.87
-1.22
0.970
0.967
Arterials
2632
26.46
27.2
-1.96
0.915
0.908
Collectors Locals
1195
73.21
73.55
-1.84
0.596
0.604
Final Expanded 2004 Model Stats
MAPA Original Area Only
RMSE
R Squared
Selection
Observations
RMSE
GOAL
%Flow/
Count
R Sq.
GOAL
All Roads Counts
3951
29.68
29.71
-1.9
0.926
0.929
Freeways
158
13.02
13.87
-1.13
0.966
0.967
Arterials
2576
26.28
27.2
-2.03
0.914
0.908
Collectors Locals
1195
73.21
73.55
-1.84
0.596
0.604
2004 High Volume or Free Flow Corridors
6
2030 High Volume or Free Flow Corridors
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
7
2030 Over Capacity Links With Long Range Plan Built
2030 High Volume Corridors Over Capacity
8
What does this change from today?
By 2030, even with 2030 LRTP built:
™ Delay will increase by more than 160%
™ Miles of congested roads will increase 190%
™ Delay on the freeways will increase 340%
™ Congested freeway miles will increase 260%
What Other Metro Areas have Done
™ Review of 58 metro areas between
500,000 and 1.5 million population
– 22% No Beltway
– 74% Partial Beltway
– 4% Full Beltway
™ Of 26 cities between 1.0 & 1.5
million population all had partial or
full beltway systems in place
9
What Other Metro Areas have Done
Transportation Network Alternatives
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Future Base (LRTP only)
Outer Beltway
Inner Beltway
Radials
Super Arterials
Transit
10
Outer Beltway
Outer Beltway Travel Demand
11
Outer Beltway Performance
™ Outer Beltway Compared to Base LRTP
– VMT +3.5%
– Average Speed +1.4%
– VHT -0.9%
– Total Delay -8.1%
– Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -9.8%
Inner Beltway
12
Inner Beltway Travel Demand
Inner Beltway Performance
™ Inner Beltway Compared to Base LRTP
– VMT +3.8%
– Average Speed +1.4%
– VHT -0.9%
– Total Delay -7.2%
– Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -13.7%
13
Other Options
™ Radial Freeways
– South / northwest
™ Super Arterials
– Illustrative projects and additional arterials
™ Transit
– Light rail system
Radial Freeways
14
Radials Performance
™ Radials Compared to LRTP Base
– Total Delay -1.2%
– Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -3.5%
– VMT +1.0%
– Average Speed +0.8%
– VHT -0.4%
Super Arterials
15
Super Arterials Performance
™ Super Arterials Compared to LRTP Base
– Total Delay -10.0%
– Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -22.5%
– VMT +1.6%
– Average Speed +2.1%
– VHT -1.4%
Transit System
16
Transit “Model”
™
™
Goal = 5% Mode
Share to Light Rail
– 3 Tiers
– Reduced the
HBW Trip Matrix
to take trips off
the network
before
assignment
HBW
Reductions comparison
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
50%
40%
20%
Tier 2
40%
40%
10%
Tier 3
20%
10%
10%
Transit Performance
™ Transit Compared to LRTP Base
– Total Delay -18.6%
– Lane-Miles of Links over Capacity -26.3%
– VMT -4.4%
– Average Speed +1.8%
– VHT -8.6%
™ Assumptions
– 5% ridership (0.5% today)
– Any land use variations?
17
Summary of Transportation
Alternatives
2030 LRTP
Outer Beltway
Inner Beltway
Radials
Super Arterials
Transit
Delay
reduction (%)
Congestion
Reduction (%)
Approx.
Cost (mil)*
8.1
7.2
1.2
10.0
18.6
9.8
13.7
3.5
22.5
26.3
$3,200
1,400
750
660
1,400
2,500
*Alternative approximate costs are in addition to the 2030
LRTP Base costs
Alternative Land Uses
™ Base Scenario
– Current forecast based upon Comprehensive
Plans
™ Targeted Density
– Densification at nodes
™ Transit Oriented Development
– Densification along transit lines
™ Sprawl
– Low density through the region
18
Future Base
Targeted Density
19
Transit Oriented Development
Sprawl
20
Analysis Matrix
Analysis Matrix
21
Land Use Alternative Findings
Targeted Density
™ Targeted Density land use improved
results on all transportation
networks
Land Use Alternative Findings
Transit Oriented Development
™ Transit Oriented land use improves
results for both Outer Beltway and
Transit networks
22
Land Use Alternative Findings
Sprawl
™ Sprawl land use caused significant
increases in VMT, VHT and delay on
the transportation networks
Economic Analysis
™ Question: Do economic benefits outweigh
economic costs?
Benefits
••
••
••
Reduced
Reduced congestion
congestion
Improved
Improved travel
travel time
time
Job
Job creation
creation
Costs
•• Construction
Construction costs
costs
•• Yearly
Yearly operating
operating expenses
expenses
23
Economic Analysis
Economic Analysis
™ Highest Benefit-Cost Ratio
– C2: Inner Beltway with Targeted Density Land Use
• B/C = 6.8
• Present Value of Total Costs = $447 M
• Requires 7 years of construction
24
Study Conclusions
™ Something is needed beyond the LRTP to
address future transportation needs
™ Both beltway systems relieve traffic volumes
on key corridors, with reduced delay and
congestion throughout the transportation
network
™ Inner Beltway alternative with targeted density
land use
Possible Next Steps
™ Focused study on refining a solution
– Inner Beltway
– Targeted Density
– Include Transit system enhancements
™ Consideration to Future Policy Changes
™ Consideration to timing for Corridor
Protection
25
Omaha-Council Bluffs Metro
Beltway Feasibility Study
Study Findings - Q & A
26