Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010

2 I-80 CSMP Overview CMIA Requirements  CSMP requirement is noted in the Baseline Agreements of all projects receiving CMIA funding.  CMIA funding has been allocated for various elements of Active Traffic Management three on I-80.  The purpose of a CSMP is to ensure there are corridor-wide strategies in place to preserve the mobility gains of the CMIA projects. In that sense the CSMP is an accountability measure to ensure CMIA funds are well-spent.  An overarching objective of the CSMP has been for ACTC, CCTA, Caltrans, MTC and other key corridor stakeholders to engage in a constructive forum for corridor-based transportation planning.


4 I-80 ICM Project Vision To enhance the current Transportation Management System along the I-80 Corridor by using State of the Practice solution to build an integrated, balanced, responsive and equitable system that will monitor and maintain optimum traffic flow along the network to improve the safety and mobility for all users. The I-80 ICM will create a balanced network with an emphasis on system reliability and efficiency through a multi-modal solution

5 Project Goals Improve travel time reliability Create balance between the freeway and local system Create an equitable and environmentally sound system Create a system that is integrated, responsive & efficient Encourage the use of transit and HOV; and improve transit access and priority Emphasis on incident management Improve institution cooperation

6 Study Corridor I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project

7 I-80 CSMP Presentation  Existing Conditions  Near-Term-(2015) Conditions and Improvement Strategies  Intermediate-Term Improvements and Strategies 5-10 years (Beyond 2015)  Long-Term Conditions and Improvement Strategies 10-25 years (2035)

8 Improvement Timeframe Plan Near TermIntermediate TermLong Term Time Frame0 to 5 years5 to 10 years10 to 25 years Type of projects Secured funding or limited shortfall Has environmental clearance Been vetted with stakeholders Unsecured funding or large shortfall Needs environmental clearance or design Not fully vetted with stakeholders Unidentified funding source or needs major funding Planning stage Not vetted with stakeholders Proposed projects I-80 ICM Project, Traffic Light Synchronization Project (TLSP); adopt land use policies and strategies to reduce demand and increase transit mode share I-580 East to I-80 West Ramp Metering; Minor to moderate geometric improvements, Improved connectors from I- 580 WB/I-880 NB to I-80 EB, signalization of interchange intersections, increase in public transit service Major public transit expansion, additional roadway capacity where possible, revised goods movement strategies, large-scale ITS improvements

9 Existing Conditions Highway Travel Characteristics  117,000 to 288,000 vehicle per day; 1.8% to 5.4% are trucks  Morning peak is westbound and evening peak is eastbound  HOV 3+ vehicles represent 20% of auto trips the AM, and 15% in the PM  Accident rate in Berkeley/Emeryville segment is almost double the statewide average Transit Service  Transit split: 10 % to 20 % (2006 American Community Survey).  Average weekday ridership within corridor:  BART – 54,000 (at 9 stations within study corridor)  AC Transit – 25,000  WestCAT – 4,000

10 Near-Term (2015) Conditions

11 Near-Term (2015) Baseline Conditions  Freeway demand increases 13%  Transit Ridership increases by 17%  Corridor VMT increases by approximately 12% while the VHT increases by approximately 20%  Freeway vehicle hours of delay projected to increase by 50% for WB in the AM, and 100% for EB in the PM  Existing bottlenecks will still be present but with longer queues and longer time to clear

12 1.Freeway Management 2.Arterial Management 3.Transit Management 4.Traveler Information 5.Commercial Vehicle Operations 6.Traffic Surveillance and Monitoring 7.Incident Management

13 Near-Term (2015) Congestion Mitigation Strategies  I-80 Eastbound HOV Lane Extension – SR 4 to Carquinez Bridge  I-80 ICM Project: Freeway Management – adaptive ramp metering, variable advisory speed signs, lane use signs Arterial Management - coordinated traffic signal systems, TMC for local jurisdictions Transit Management - ramp meter HOV preferential lanes, TSP, transit traveler information at BART stations Traveler Information – 511 enhancement, CMS, HAR Traffic Surveillance and Monitoring - CCTV cameras, vehicle detection system Incident Management-Vehicle detection, incident response plan

14 Near-Term (2015) I-80 ICM Project  Findings Significant reduction in overall delay during both AM and PM peak – up to 9% Mainline delay reduction – up to 28% Slight increase in delay on San Pablo – 2% Typical meter delay is 30 seconds Ramp meter delay for many trips is offset by mainline speed improvement Insignificant diversion anticipated due to ramp metering

15 Intermediate-Term Improvements 5-10 Years (Beyond 2015) After I-80 ICM Project Implementation

16 Intermediate-Term 5-10 years Strategies 1.I-580 Connector Metering (AM Peak Period) 2.I-80/I-580/I-880 Split Restriping (4 lanes) 3.Capital Improvements

17 Intermediate-Term Improvements (5-10 years) Scenario 1: EB I-580 Connector Metering  Scenario 2015 AM Peak Period, metering all Westbound “Local” On- Ramps plus Eastbound I-580 Connector  Findings Reduce Delay to WB I-80, greatest from Central to the Maze Shift Delay from I-80 WB to I-580 EB Reduce Delay at Local On-Ramps on I-80 Significant queuing expected on I-580 EB – 4 to 5 miles  Recommendation Additional study – different design, expand ICM network

18 Intermediate-Term Improvements (5-10 years) Scenario 2: WB I-80 Re-Striping  Scenario Re-stripe WB I-80 approach to I-580/I-880 split to provide 2 lanes each for I-580 and I-880  Findings Increase delay during both AM and PM peak periods – 3 to 11% Reduce Traffic Flow/Throughput Increase Weaving  Recommendation Further study - refine/modify design to eliminate negative impact

19 Intermediate-Term Improvements (5-10 years) Scenario 3: Capital Improvements  Scenario Ramp Modifications, Interchange Modifications, Auxiliary Lanes, Mainline Modifications, Arterial Improvements  Findings Reduce overall delay during both AM and PM peak – up to 14% Reduce ramp delay during both AM and PM peak Reduce arterial delay during PM peak  Recommendation Conduct more detailed analysis of various capital improvements projects proposed in this scenario for 2015 Beyond; obtain funding and implement these projects concurrently with the I-80 ICM project by 2015.

20 Long-Term (2035) -Term 10-25 years Conditions

21 Long-Term 10-25 Years (2035) Baseline Conditions  Freeway demand increases by approximately 50% Transit Ridership increases by 60%  Corridor VMT increases by approximately 35% while VHT increases by over 90%  I-80 corridor is expected to operate under extreme congested conditions - more severe congestion associated with existing bottlenecks, new bottlenecks also emerge

22 Long-Term 10-25 Years (2035) Strategies  System Management Improvements  Transit Improvements/Enhancements  Demand Management  Goods Movement Policies  Freeway and Arterial Geometric Improvements

23 Long-Term 10-25 Years (2035) Demand Reduction Scenarios Summary Findings  Uneven trip reduction between freeway (less) and arterial (more)  With 10% auto trip reduction: Freeway delay decreases by 26% Freeway mainline demand still up to 60% greater than Existing Congestion levels will be significantly worse than Existing Compared to 2035 No Build, transit ridership will increase %65 in the corridor in response to auto trip reduction which will require significant additional transit capacity Finding/Conclusion: Analyzing and implementing additional improvements/strategies is Strongly recommended.

24 Questions?


Download ppt "I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google