2040 Regional Transportation Plan
Leadership Symposium
March 13, 2013
Chattanooga-Hamilton County/N. GA Transportation Planning Organization
TPO Structure & Plan Requirement
Chattanooga-Hamilton
County/North Georgia
Transportation Planning
Organization (TPO)
-29 member regional policy board (19 governments)
- staffed by the Regional Planning Agency
- new plan every four years with 20+ year horizon
- federally funded planning and implementation
- legislative requirements including air quality
standards
TPO Planning Area
Public Outreach
In just six months…
26 events/activities:
89 @ 1st Leadership Symposium
113 @ committee meetings
25 @ stakeholder discussion
groups
76 @ topic-based workshops
(climate change, transit, and call
for projects)
58 @ public workshops
+ 451 @ questionnaire
812 interactions
Information Gathering/Synthesis
Define Goals, Objectives, and
Performance Criteria
Identify Needs
Identify Solutions
Current and Projected Transportation Deficiencies
Public and Stakeholder Input
•Congestion
•Multimodal Connections
•Safety
•Environmental
•Access to Community Resources
•System Maintenance
Economic and Business
Considerations
build
roads
Call for Projects (Local and State)
road condition
Multimodal Gap Analysis
Additional Road and Transit
Capacity
Public and Stakeholder Input
25% Over Capacity
Slightly Over Capacity
traffic
flow
bikeways
sidewalks
neighborhood
traffic safety
2010
Transit Gaps
Plan Goals
Adopted 2040 Goals: A Scaled & Balanced Approach
Region to Region
Within Community
Community to Region
Investment Needs
That Support
• Local, multimodal
connections and access
to community
resources
• Advance livability and
quality of life principles
Investment Needs
That Support
• Strategic, multimodal
connections between
communities and
Regional activity/
economic centers
to support economic
development
Investment Needs
That Support
• Mobility and intermodal
improvements to ensure
region is well connected
within the state and
the nation
• Support economic
competitiveness and
advance overall economic
development potential
Within Community
Goal
Within Community
BUILD AND MAINTAIN SAFE
AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
Objectives
• Support walkable and bicycle-friendly communities that
promote safe connections to community resources
• Provide incentives for complete streets project design
• Encourage investments anchored in integrated transportation and land use planning
that support desired community character
• Improve safety through improved system operations, preventative maintenance,
and ADA compliance
• Prioritize investments in areas where local land use and development regulations support
healthy, safe communities
• Prioritize investment that improves multimodal access to existing or planned transit hubs or
that fills gaps in existing multimodal system
• Encourage connected street network
6
Community to Region
Goal
Community to Region
CONNECT COMMUNITIES IN THE REGION BY
PROVIDING MULTIMODAL TRAVEL OPTIONS TO
ACTIVITY AND ECONOMIC CENTERS
Objectives
• Preserve, maintain, and improve existing
infrastructure before adding new capacity
• Provide incentives for complete streets project design
• Encourage corridor improvements anchored in integrated transportation and land use
planning that support desired community character
• Improve mobility and support economic development by providing expanded set of travel
options, with emphasis on public transit
• Improve travel time reliability through improved system operations
• Incentive corridor protection plans
7
Region to Region
Goal
Region to Region
GROW ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
THROUGH STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN
CRITICAL REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Objectives
• Preserve, maintain, and improve existing
infrastructure before adding new capacity
• Support continued economic growth of the region by improving intermodal connections that
reduce delay for both people and goods
• Reduce delay on critical regional thoroughfares with minimal impact to community, historic
and environmental resources
• Improve the efficiency and reliability of freight, cargo, and goods movement by reducing
delay on corridors critical to freight movement
• Improve travel time reliability through improved system operations
8
Performance Evaluation
9
How pleased are you to be here today?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Extremely happy, can’t think of
anything you’d rather be doing
Pleased to be here but
concerned about how long it
will last
Are here because you were told
you had to be but don’t mind
participating
Are only attending to ensure
that the planners don’t screw
anything up
Would rather be at the dentist
getting a root canal…
2040 RTP Leadership Symposium
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
Steps of Plan Development Process
Define Goals,
Objectives, and
Performance
Criteria
Public and
Stakeholder
Input
Economic and
Business
Considerations
Identify
Needs
Current and
Projected
Transportation
Deficiencies
• Congestion
• Multimodal
Connections
• Safety/
Security
• Access to
Community
Resources
• Maintenance
• Operations
Identify
Solutions
Call for
Projects
(Local and
State)
Package
Solutions and
Evaluate
Alternative
Scenarios
Bypasses and
Connectors
Multimodal
Gap Analysis
Additional
Road and
Transit
Capacity
Public and
Stakeholder
Input
Constrain and
Draft Regional
Transportation
Plan
Project
Evaluation/
Rankings
Available
Revenue
Big Transit
Project Costs –
Capital and
O&M
Blend of the
Best
Project
Phasing
Evaluate and
Document
MAP-21
Performance
Demonstration
Conformity
Determination
Report
Public
Involvement
Process and
Report
12
Maintaining the System
• Bridge, current
conditions assessment
– 2012 National Bridge
Inventory (NBI) Database
Summary Bridge Conditions in Chattanooga Region
3%
Not Deficient
Functionally Obsolete
19%
Structurally Deficient
– Structural deficiency
status based on bridge
condition
– Functional obsolete status
based on geometrics, e.g.,
number and width of lanes
78%
– All bridges in region
greater than 20-foot
length
13
Maintaining the System (continued)
Average bridge health
index – 92%
14
Maintaining the System (continued)
• Pavement, current
conditions assessment
Summary Pavement Conditions in Chattanooga Region
– 2008 Highway
Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) database
17%
% Fair
% Poor
– Percent of lanes miles in
good/fair/poor condition
based on roughness
– Thresholds defined by
Federal Highway
Administration
% Good
51%
32%
– Sample data
15
Reducing Congestion
• Base-year congestion
analysis
– Worst congestion along
I-24 and I-75
– Severe congestion at
junction of I-24/I-75
– U.S. 27 north of river
– Hamilton Place Mall
– Northgate Mall
• Downtown relatively
uncongested
16
Reducing Congestion (continued)
• Future-year congestion
analysis
– U.S. 27 congestion relieved
(widening project
underway)
• Outward expansion and
general increase in
severity of general
congestion due to
population and
employment growth
over time
17
Reducing Congestion (continued)
• Mobility corridor analysis
– More detailed assessment
of 13 mobility corridors
– Geographic sample of
corridors with high
volume auto and truck
traffic (“scale 3”)
– Corridors evaluated
and scored
• Congestion Management
Process (CMP) route
• 2040 congestion levels
• Key freight route
• Supports high-volume
external to external
(through) trip movement
18
Improving Safety
• Systemwide safety analysis
450
– Traffic crashes leading cause
of death 5-34 years old
– 55 deaths; 330 injuries
annually in region
– $1,700 per person
350
• RTP Emphasis areas
– Roadway departure
– Aggressive driving
– Intersection crashes
80
71
400
300
58
62
56
47
60
49
44
50
250
40
200
30
150
20
100
50
70
404
386
366
319
261
252
332
0
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Serious Injuries
Roadway Departure
Aggressive
Intersection
Seat Belt Use
Young Drivers (15-24)
Motorcycles*
Alcohol Impaired
Older Drivers (65+)
Heavy Trucks
Pedestrian*
Work Zone**
Pedacylists/Bicyclists*
2008
2009
Fatalities
33.4%
33.3%
32.6%
25.2%
19.1%
12.5%
12.3%
8.7%
3.0%
1.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
19
Improving Security
• Climate adaptation analysis
– Critical transportation
assets defined
• Chickamauga Lock and Dam
• Chattanooga Airport
and SR 153 access
• Interchange of I-75/I-24
• Enterprise South road
and rail access
• Downtown bridges
• Sequoyah nuclear plant
– Redundant facilities and
evacuation routes identified
20
Providing Access
• Accessibility analysis to
measure proximity of
people and homes to
– Active transportation
facilities
• Bicycle facilities (B-LOS of B or
better)
• Parks and Open Space
• Trails
• CARTA Transit Stops
– Health-related destinations
• Healthcare Facilities
• Grocery Stores and
Supermarkets
• Farmers Markets /Community
Gardens/ Mobile Markets
• Public and Private Schools
21
Providing Access (continued)
Walk and Bicycle Access:
Percentage of Homes with Access to Active Transportation Facilities
Environmental Sustainability Needs
1/4 Mile Walk Access
1 Mile Bicycle Access
22
Connecting the System
• Transit Gap Analysis
– Locations of highest transit
demand
•
•
•
•
•
Population and household density
Land use mix
Intersection density
Distance to nearest transit stop
Jobs within one mile
– Mapped against existing and
planned infrastructure
– Low income, minority and
elderly population as overlay
23
Connecting the System (continued)
• Bicycle Gap Analysis
– Locations of highest bike
demand
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population and household density
Intersection density
Jobs within one mile
Distance to nearest transit stop
Distance to commercial store
Public/private schools within one
mile
• Parks and recreation facilities
within one mile
– Mapped against existing and
planned infrastructure
– Low income, minority and
elderly population as overlay
24
Connecting the System (continued)
• Pedestrian Gap Analysis
– Locations of highest pedestrian
demand
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population and household density
Intersection density
Jobs within one mile
Distance to nearest transit stop
Distance to commercial store
Public/private schools within one
mile
• Parks and recreation facilities
within one mile
– Mapped against existing and
planned infrastructure
– Low income, minority and
elderly population as overlay
25
Improving Livability and the Environment
• Livability corridor analysis
– More detailed assessment
of 24 livability corridors
– Geographic sample of
corridors with potential for
broad multimodal
enhancements and VMT
reduction (“scale 2”)
– Corridors evaluated and
scored in terms of:
• Potential complete streets
corridor, 2035 Plan
• Lack of bike/pedestrian/
transit infrastructure
• Population and employment
density
• Congestion levels
Operating the System
• Operations assessment
– Extensive ITS coverage on
freeways; opportunity to
extend into north Georgia
– Downtown Chattanooga has
extensive communication
network for managing key
arterials in real time;
opportunity to extend to
more corridors with
centralized management
center
– Opportunity for transit signal
priority for key corridors
27
Which of the following types of roadways
should be the highest priority for
improvements:
A.
Freeways (e.g. I-24, I-75,
US-27)
B. Major Arterials (e.g.
Amnicola Highway, Lee
Highway)
C. Minor Arterials (e.g.
Bonny Oaks, E. Brainerd
Road)
D. Collectors & Locals (e.g.
Snow Hill Rd, Mack
Smith Rd.)
What’s the most important transit trip for the
region?
A. Trips around town for
shopping or recreation
B. Trips to and from work
C. Trips that enhance
access to social
services
D. There are no
important trips
What’s more important to bicycle and
pedestrian travel?
A.
B.
C.
Connecting to places
within your town (parks,
schools, libraries, etc.)
Connecting to regional
destinations (other
towns and regional
parks, etc.)
Both
How important is walkability to the future of
the study area?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Extremely important, we
must have it no matter what
Important, but only in the
city limits
Somewhat important, but
primarily in transit corridors
and downtowns
Nice to have, but not
necessarily needed for the
area to be a future success
Unimportant
2040 RTP Leadership Symposium
FUNDING OUR NEEDS
Funding Needs
• Level of investment needed to:
– Maintain existing infrastructure
– Strategically expand and operate
• Define needs in context of projected revenue over
life of 2040 transportation plan
• Define gap/unmet needs
• Scenario discussion to support best use of available
funds given needs identified
33
Current Bridge Maintenance Funding Needs
Needs (Millions of 2012 Dollars)
125
100
$1.3
$7.3
Total current needs = $105M
75
50
25
$96.6
Maintain, Rehabilitate, and Repair
Widening
0
Replacement
34
Long Term Bridge Maintenance Funding Needs
Projected Bridge Conditions in 2040 Given Funding Level
Average Health
Index
100%
Baseline condition = 92%
80%
Flag for replacement (75 avg)
60%
40%
20%
Total needs over life of plan = $322M
0%
0
5
10
15
Annual Budget (Millions of 2012 Dollars)
20
25
35
Current Pavement Maintenance Funding Needs
Needs (Dollars in Millions)
500
400
$81
Total current needs = $429M
$348
300
200
100
0
Reconstruction
Resurfacing
36
Long Term Pavement Maintenance Funding Needs
Projected Conditions in 2040 Given Funding Level
Percent of Lane Miles in Good or Fair Condition
100
Baseline condition = 83%
80
60
40
20
Total needs over life of plan = $1.38B
0
0
20
40
Annual Budget (Dollars in Millions)
60
80
37
Total System Maintenance Needs
How much will it cost to maintain existing
transportation system, in current conditions, over life
of long-range plan?
$1.7 billion
More than doubling current spending levels from 2035 Plan
38
New Investment Needs
How much will it cost to build, operate, and maintain
all additional identified needs in the region?
$7.0 billion
39
Total Investment Needs
$1.7 billion
Existing System Maintenance
$7.0 billion
Additional Identified Needs
$8.7 billion
Total Needs
40
Revenue Availability
And how much funding is actually available between
now and 2040?
$5.7 billion
41
Spending the Money
$1.7B
$7.0B
(MAINTAIN)
(EXPAND)
42
Spending the Money (continued)
$5.7B
(AVAILABLE)
43
Spending the Money (continued)
$5.7B
(AVAILABLE)
FUNDED
$1.7B
UNFUNDED
$4.0B
$3.0B
44
Spending the Money (continued)
$5.7B
(AVAILABLE)
UNFUNDED
$1.7B
FUNDED
$1.3B
$5.7B
45
Spending the Money (continued)
$5.7B
$0.5B
FUNDED
$1.2B
$4.5B
UNFUNDED
UNFUNDED
(AVAILABLE)
$2.5B
46
$5.3B
(AVAILABLE)
Road Capacity
Transit Capacity
Spending the Money (continued)
$4.5B
(AVAILABLE)
$0.5B
$1.2B
$4.5B
$2.5B
47
Which approach do you believe is most important when
considering the management of our transportation
system?
A. “Fix it first,” fully
maintain what we
have before adding to
the transportation
system
B. Forego some
maintenance to allow
for more capacity
projects
With the understanding that there won’t likely be
sufficient funds for all identified needs, I’d be willing to
defer some transportation maintenance needs for other
transportation improvements.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2040 RTP Leadership Symposium
INTERMISSION
2040 RTP Leadership Symposium
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Alternatives Analysis
• Two “bookend” scenarios to illustrate benefits of
road investments and transit investments
• Includes road and transit capacity investments
– Includes “call for projects”
– Public involvement
– Technical analysis
• Approximately equal cost
• Want to use these to produce the “Blend of the
Best”
Remember This?
BYPASSES & CONNECTORS SCENARIO
Primary investments in expanding highway accessibility and improving
existing road corridors.
Bypasses and
Connectors Scenario
27 miles of New Roadways
•
Includes 16 mile Northern Hamilton
County connection between US 27 and
I-75 with new TN River Bridge
•
230 miles of Roadway Widening
•
Includes almost all of I-24 and I-75
•
Includes portions of US-27 and SR-153
•
Includes SR 321/SR 151 as Eastern
Bypass (4 lane arterial) between
Collegedale, TN and Ringgold, GA
23 miles of Safety/Preventative
Maintenance
15 miles of complimentary local bus routes
Bypasses & Connectors
Key Growth Drivers:
• Existing zoning & ordinances
• Proximity to major roads
• Interchanges & major
Intersections
• Large water & sewer service
area
• General preference for
greenfield development
patterns
Growth Characteristics
•
Low-density, decentralized growth
•
Greater maintenance cost
•
Expanding road network allows for increased distance
between new neighborhoods and existing centers
•
New commercial development follows along widened
corridors (linear development pattern)
•
Greater amount of land lost to new development.
BIG TRANSIT SCENARIO
Placing a greater emphasis on alternate travel modes
Big Transit Scenario
•“Chattanooga Way”
o 15 mile long new light rail line
o Connects Downtown, Airport,
Enterprise South
•SR 153/US 27 “Bus Plus”
o 19 mile long new Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) line
o Connects Hamilton Place, Airport,
Northgate, Soddy Daisy
• “Premium Bus” Express Service on
Interstates
o 24 miles of new routes/extension of
Route 4
o Connects Ringgold/Lookout
Valley/Collegedale to Downtown
Big Transit Scenario
•
Expanded Local Bus Routes
o 76 miles of new/extended routes
o Expands service area to include:
 Red Bank, East Ridge, Collegedale
in Tennessee
 Rossville, Fort Oglethorpe,
Ringgold in North Georgia
•
Improved Frequency of Existing CARTA
Routes
•
Free Circulator Shuttles
o Builds on success of downtown electric
shuttle
o East-west downtown shuttle (Aquarium,
Erlanger Hospital)
o New Hamilton Place Mall area shuttle
o Complimentary Roadway Projects (85
miles)
Big Transit Scenario
Key Growth Drivers:
• Premium transit service
(bus rapid transit & light rail)
• Station areas & existing centers
• Existing water & sewer service
area
• General preference for infill
development & redevelopment
• Protect environmentallysensitive areas & agriculture
Growth Characteristics
• New: compact, higher-density growth attracted
premium transit station areas (1-mile radius)
• Significant number of local farms protected from
new development
• Maintain small town feel to outlying areas
• Average household transportation costs reduced
• More efficient development pattern reduces
overall infrastructure cost
Comparison of Alternatives
Bypasses and
Measure of Effectiveness
Connectors
Big Transit
16,035,000
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
14,943,000
521,000
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
533,500
2,670
3,573,00
Delay (Hours)
Total Number of Trips
6,400
Transit Trips
28.7
Vehicle Miles Traveled / Capita
0.1%-0.3%
Percent of trips by transit
3,060
3,573,00
12,000
26.8
0.5%-1.5%
Overall, how attractive is the “Bypasses and
Connectors” Investment Scenario?
A. Very attractive
B. Attractive
C. Somewhat attractive
D. Neutral
E. Not very attractive at
all
Overall, how attractive is the “Big Transit”
Investment Scenario?
A. Very attractive
B. Attractive
C. Somewhat attractive
D. Neutral
E. Not very attractive at
all
Which scenario best supports quality of life?
A. Highways and
Corridors
B. Big Transit
C. Combined approach
D. Neither
Where should transportation investments seek
to encourage future growth?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Existing corridors
New corridors
Existing centers
New centers
Outlying areas
Grow anywhere we can
Lightening Round
CONSIDERING THE TRADEOFFS
What will provide the biggest bang for the
region’s bucks?
A. Widen existing roads
B. Build new roads
C. Expand transit service
D. Create more quality
walking and biking
choices
What’s the most important regional transit
corridor?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Light Rail (Chattanooga Way)
between downtown, airport,
and Enterprise South
SR-153/US-27 BRT route
between Hamilton Place,
Airport, Northgate, and
Soddy-Daisy
Express bus on I-75/I-24 to
the suburbs (Collegedale,
Ringgold, Lookout Valley)
Free Circulator Shuttles
(Downtown East/West,
Hamilton Place)
Regarding transit…Rank the following from
most important to least important.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Expand local bus service
to areas not currently
served (Red Bank, East
Ridge, Collegedale, North
Georgia)
Frequency of service
Length of weekday service
Weekend service
Low fare
Type of transit vehicle
Which intermodal facility should be the top
priority area for coordination and
collaboration?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Chattanooga Metropolitan
Airport passenger and/or
freight improvements and
expansion
Chickamauga Dam and Locks
Reconstruction
Development of a freight
intermodal
(rail/truck/waterway)
center/facility within
Chattanooga
Atlanta-Chattanooga High
Speed Rail
What do you believe best supports business
recruitment and retention?
A. Less congestion
B. Increased choice
(travel modes)
C. Increased accessibility
D. Attractive streets
E. Complete streets
It’s important to begin building a rapid transit
network in our region in the near future.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Neither
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Priority transit investments in the region
should include:
A.
B.
C.
Within community
(Service within the cities
and towns
Community to region
(Express bus from the
small towns to the large
employment centers)
Region to region
(Service connecting
between the cities and
towns)
What would it take to make your community
bicycle friendly?
A. Safe streets
B. Greenways
C. More signed routes
D. Better intersection
design
E. All of the above
What would help my daily commute most?
A. Widen existing roads
B. Build new bypasses
C. Add rapid transit
D. Quality housing
choices within close
proximity to
employment centers
Considering that our financial resources are
fixed; how would you prioritize the following
funding scenarios?
A.
Large/expensive transportation
improvements
B.
Smaller/less expensive local
transportation improvements
C.
System maintenance and
operation enhancements
(traffic control enhancements &
use of technology) with
remaining funds used for
system expansion
Considering that our financial resources are
fixed; how would you prioritize the following
funding scenarios?
A.
Regional congestions
solutions
B.
Project specifically
intended to spur
economic development
Projects that improve the
quality of life for local
residents
Other
C.
D.
If you had control over the transportation
budget, how would you rank the following in
importance?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Neighborhood traffic safety
& calming
Sidewalk construction and
repairs
Bikeway construction on
roads and greenways
Widening and building roads
Improving condition of
roadways
Improving traffic flow
Public transportation
Other
If additional funding for transportation
improvements is needed, would you support
any of the following sources?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Higher gas tax
Higher sales tax
Higher property tax
Toll roads
Development impact fees
Transportation bonds
(borrowing)
Other
Do not support additional
funding
Which of the following is most important when
considering which projects to fund?
A. Does the project open
up new land for
development
B. Does the project
reduce congestion
C. Does the project result
in travel time savings
Questions & Comments
CLOSING THOUGHTS AND REMARKS
Next Steps
• Draft Needs Plan
• Project Evaluation / Costing
• Policy Board Review and Endorsement of
Financial Constrained Project List
• Public Review and Comments
• Draft Final Plan