Top Banner
59
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Crpc
Page 2: Crpc

Transportation Planning Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area

Huey P. Dugas

Center for Planning ExcellencePublic Forum

Lod Cook Conference CenterJuly 21, 2011

Page 3: Crpc

Louisiana Association of Planning & Development Districts, Inc.

Page 4: Crpc

District 2 – Capital Region Planning Commission Area

Page 5: Crpc

Transportation Planning

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Page 6: Crpc
Page 7: Crpc

Metropolitan Planning Area

Metropolitan Population 742,186Metropolitan Population 742,186

MPO Population 707,600MPO Population 707,600

115 Directional Miles of Interstate115 Directional Miles of Interstate

220 Directional Miles of Principal Arterial220 Directional Miles of Principal Arterial

515 Signalized Intersections515 Signalized Intersections

Page 8: Crpc

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Transportation Policy Committee (TPC)Transportation Policy Committee (TPC)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Funding – Federal-State-LocalFunding – Federal-State-Local

Transportation Planning for Baton Rouge Transportation Planning for Baton Rouge Metropolitan AreaMetropolitan Area

ISTEA, TEA21 and SAFET-LUISTEA, TEA21 and SAFET-LU

Page 9: Crpc

MPO Transportation Planning

Twenty-five year Long Range PlanTwenty-five year Long Range Plan

Review and Update Every Four Years in Non-Review and Update Every Four Years in Non-Attainment AreaAttainment Area

2008 Long Range Plan 2008 Long Range Plan

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Review and Update every YearReview and Update every Year

2012 TIP Update2012 TIP Update

Page 10: Crpc
Page 11: Crpc

384Text Pages 65 Maps (Graphics)449 Total Pages

www.crpc-la.org

Page 12: Crpc
Page 13: Crpc

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Funding Source

FY2010-2011

(000)

FY2011-2012

(000)

FY2012-2013

(000)

FY2013-2014

(000) TOTALCMAQ 13,096$ 18,490$ 3,950$ 1,450$ 36,986$ DEMO 12,480 11,750 -- -- 24,230FBR 3,184 37,015 6,378 28,175 74,752IM 2,690 5,180 -- -- 7,870NHS -- -- -- -- 0NFA -- 5,156 2,879 3,760 11,795STPFLEX 4,357 1,488 13,748 14,669 34,262STP>200K 14,898 11,820 3,430 14,710 44,858STPHAZ -- -- -- -- 0SAFETY 4,250 6,300 1,950 -- 12,500STPENH 4,512 -- -- -- 4,512STGEN 17,501 3,000 -- -- 20,501STCASH 4,450 -- -- -- 4,450STBONDS 3,750 4,700 -- -- 8,450TSM 200 -- -- -- 200OTHER -- 38,000 -- -- 38,000LOCAL 123,788 96,127 43,832 41,472 305,219TOTAL 209,156$ 239,026$ 76,167$ 104,236$ 628,585$

Page 14: Crpc

Model Trips by PurposeTRIP PURPOSE 2009 2012 2022 2032 APRHBW 433,515 449,359 471,938 510,074 0.71%HBO 1,141,594 1,182,518 1,241,813 1,342,283 0.70%NHBW 415,458 430,373 453,165 490,761 0.72%NHBO 572,839 597,062 641,252 703,935 0.90%CV 243,739 254,647 275,157 303,893 0.96%EI 216,272 234,696 282,218 331,220 1.85%HBS 165,394 171,361 179,871 194,381 0.70%EE 37,190 40,305 48,484 56,691 1.83%TOTAL 3,226,001 3,360,321 3,593,898 3,933,238 0.86%Population 687,294 711,840 747,889 808,906 0.71%Trips/Pop 4.69377 4.72061 4.80539 4.86242 0.15%

Page 15: Crpc

Model Trips by PurposeTRIP PURPOSE 2009 2012 2022 2032 APRHBW 433,515 449,359 471,938 510,074 0.71%HBO 1,141,594 1,182,518 1,241,813 1,342,283 0.70%NHBW 415,458 430,373 453,165 490,761 0.72%NHBO 572,839 597,062 641,252 703,935 0.90%CV 243,739 254,647 275,157 303,893 0.96%EI 216,272 234,696 282,218 331,220 1.85%HBS 165,394 171,361 179,871 194,381 0.70%EE 37,190 40,305 48,484 56,691 1.83%TOTAL 3,226,001 3,360,321 3,593,898 3,933,238 0.86%Population 687,294 711,840 747,889 808,906 0.71%Trips/Pop 4.69377 4.72061 4.80539 4.86242 0.15%

Page 16: Crpc

Model Trips by PurposeTRIP PURPOSE 2009 2012 2022 2032 APRHBW 433,515 449,359 471,938 510,074 0.71%HBO 1,141,594 1,182,518 1,241,813 1,342,283 0.70%NHBW 415,458 430,373 453,165 490,761 0.72%NHBO 572,839 597,062 641,252 703,935 0.90%CV 243,739 254,647 275,157 303,893 0.96%EI 216,272 234,696 282,218 331,220 1.85%HBS 165,394 171,361 179,871 194,381 0.70%EE 37,190 40,305 48,484 56,691 1.83%TOTAL 3,226,001 3,360,321 3,593,898 3,933,238 0.86%Population 687,294 711,840 747,889 808,906 0.71%Trips/Pop 4.69377 4.72061 4.80539 4.86242 0.15%

HBW + NHBW Trips in 2009 = 26.3%

Page 17: Crpc

REDWOOD CREEK

AMITE RIVER

AMITE R

IVER

AMITE RIVER

REDWOOD CREEK

COMITE

RI VER

BATO

N R

OUG

E HA

R BOR

REDWOOD CREEK

AMITE RIVER

AMITE R

IVER

AMITE RIVER

BAYOU MANCHAC

COMITE

RI VER

987-3

987-3987-3

AMITE RIVER

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

STAGE I

MAY 2008

Project s Let 2006 – 2010144 Projects303.3 Miles$617,297,721

Page 18: Crpc
Page 19: Crpc
Page 20: Crpc
Page 21: Crpc
Page 22: Crpc
Page 23: Crpc

Transit in CRPC Planning

Page 24: Crpc

MTP – BRT Analysis (Route A & B Schematics)

Page 25: Crpc

Commuter Rail Ridership ForecastsResults of the 2032 travel demand model runs for the Denham Springs to Baton RougeCommuter Rail showed an estimated forecast year ridership of approximately 130 dailyriders. There are several reasons why the Commuter Rail line did not attract a higherlevel of ridership. Only three station locations were provided. In addition, the downtownstation was isolated and did not provide direct access to the primary activity centers thatwould be of interest to the majority of commuters.Although a financial analysis of the Commuter Rail alternative was not a part of thecurrent work effort, given the typical costs for service of this type and given the lowridership estimates obtained from the travel demand model, inclusion of the commuterrail alternative in the financially constrained plan does not appear to be justified at thistime. It is probable, however, that identification of additional stations and theoptimization of station locations could appreciably improve ridership results. It would beworthwhile to continue feasibility analysis of Commuter Rail service with a variety ofstation plans to determine if there are viable strategies for increasing ridership.

Page 26: Crpc
Page 27: Crpc
Page 28: Crpc
Page 29: Crpc

Air Quality In CRPC Planning

Page 30: Crpc

Ozone Non-Attainment Area

Livingston

Iberville

East Baton Rouge

Ascension

West Baton Rouge

Page 31: Crpc

Conformity Analysis Report

Page 32: Crpc

Population and Growth

Page 33: Crpc

Item 1990 – 2000 2000 - 2010

Type Change POS NEG POS NEG

Parishes49 15 40 24

76.6% 23.4% 62.5% 37.5%

MPO % State Gains 27.1% 33.5%

MPO + St. Tammany 43.5% 48.3%

Population Change (1990 - 2000)200000

100000

50000

Blue - GainRed - Loss

46768

398398

398

15443

Claiborne Morehouse

E Carroll

BienvilleJackson

Franklin

Tensas

Rapides

Vernon

De Soto

Webster

Orleans

St. Mary

Concordia

Catahoula

3908390839083908390839083908CaddoBossier Lincoln

Union

MadisonOuachita

W Carroll

Red River

Winn

La SalleGrant

Natchitoches

Sabine

Caldwell

Richland

Beauregard AllenEvangeline

Avoyelles

Calcasieu

Jefferson Davis

Cameron

Acadia

Vermilion

Lafayette

St. Landry

Iberia

St. MartinIberville

WBR EBR

Livingston

Ascension

Tangipahoa

W Feliciana E Feliciana St. Helena

Washington

St. Tammany

AssumptionSt. James

St. John

Terrebonne

Lafourche

St. Charles

Jefferson

Plaquemines

St. Bernard

Pointe Coupee

Population Change (2000 - 2010)200000

100000

50000

Blue - GainRed - Loss

522522522

522

Webster

Claiborne

Bienville

Red River

Jackson

Morehouse

W Carroll

E Carroll

MadisonRichland

Franklin

TensasCaldwell

Winn

La Salle

Catahoula

Concordia

Vernon

Cameron

Jefferson Davis

St. Mary

Iberville

Pointe Coupee

E Feliciana

St. Bernard

Jefferson

Plaquemines

Assumption

CaddoBossier

LincolnUnion

Ouachita

De Soto

Sabine

Natchitoches

Grant

RapidesAvoyelles

EvangelineAllenBeauregard

CalcasieuAcadia

St. Landry

Lafayette

Vermilion

W FelicianaSt. Helena

Tangipahoa

Washington

LivingstonEBRWBR

Ascension

St. James

St. John

St. Charles

Lafourche

Terrebonne

St. Martin

Iberia Orleans

St. Tammany

140845

20509

Page 34: Crpc

Place 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Louisiana 3,257,022 3,641,306 4,205,900 4,219,973 4,468,976 4,533,337MPO 329694 406374 526310 559,313 636,214 742,186Share 10.12% 11.16% 12.51% 13.25% 14.24% 16.37%

Change in MPO Population Shares

Page 35: Crpc

Change in Shares: CRPC PopulationPlace 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Louisiana 3,257,022 3,641,306 4,205,900 4,219,973 4,468,976 4,533,337CRPC 497386 575208 716288 752,747 850,487 970,749Share 15.27% 15.80% 17.03% 17.84% 19.03% 21.41%

CRPC Pop Share of State

201001980

Page 36: Crpc

Livingston Parish Population

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

130000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Popu

latio

n

2.84%

Page 37: Crpc

MPO Population

600000

620000

640000

660000

680000

700000

720000

740000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Popu

latio

n

1.38%

Between 2000 and 2009 the MPO increased its share of state population from 14.24% to 16.07%.

Page 38: Crpc

Louisiana Population

4,150,000

4,200,000

4,250,000

4,300,000

4,350,000

4,400,000

4,450,000

4,500,000

4,550,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Popu

latio

n

2.26%

% of LA Growth 07-09Jefferson 7.07%EBR 4.27%St. Tammany 2.16%

Page 39: Crpc

Livability

Page 40: Crpc
Page 41: Crpc
Page 42: Crpc

Fig. 2.3D. Scenario C – Shared-use Path

In this scenario, off-road shared-use paths are provided on Principal and Minor Arterials. Bicycle lanes or designated paved shoulders are provided on Collectors. Some collectors may also have shared-use paths. Driveways crossing shared use paths are modified to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

Evaluation Results:

Road Classification Pedestrian Q/LOS

On-road Bike Q/LOS

Notes

Principal Arterial 3.05 = C 4.69 = E Worst Bike Q/LOS Minor Arterial 2.32 = B 4.38 = D Worst Bike Q/LOS Collector 2.39 = B 3.89 = D Tied for worst Bike Q/LOS w/ Scenario A

Advantages: • Similar to many of the Capital Region’s existing non-motorized facilities. • Do not have to modify existing roadways. • Facilities separate from busy roads appeal to novice users and those with slower reflexes. Disadvantages: • Off-road facilities such as sidewalks and pathways are statistically the most dangerous places to

bike due to conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections and driveways. • Increased number of conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians on pathways. • Some bicyclists will still choose the roadway rather than a Shared-use Path. • Few of the region’s existing shared-use paths meet current AASHTO guidelines. • Off-road facilities will need to be cleared of snow and have a higher maintenance standard than

is currently in place to be considered a transportation facility. • Transition between Shared-use Paths and Bike Lanes are awkward.

Page 43: Crpc
Page 44: Crpc

Green Light Plan - Local Initiatives

In 2005 Local Election to Make ½ cent Sales Tax Permanent

Voted on Each 5 Years Prior to That Time

44 Projects Proposed to Voters in Unusual Detail

Approved by 70% of Voters – 100% Council Members

Will Generate $2/3 bil Bond Sales to Investment Bankers in New York

Even Though Local Money - 40% Projects and Funds on State Routes

Accounts for 27% of $1.2 Billion of MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Adopted in 2008

Page 45: Crpc
Page 46: Crpc
Page 47: Crpc
Page 48: Crpc

Seven Oaks 1

Swan Av

Brightside Sidewalks

Brightside Sidewalks

Swan Av

Page 49: Crpc

E Brookstown

Perkins Rd

Page 50: Crpc
Page 51: Crpc

Capital Heights

Page 52: Crpc

Regional Planning

FutureBR and Rail

Page 53: Crpc
Page 54: Crpc

Complete Streets Locationse

Complete Streets Travel Realms

Page 55: Crpc

Proposed Rail Line

Example of Connectivity

Before

After

Page 56: Crpc

CATS Connectivity

NORTA Connectivity

Route

Page 57: Crpc

Baton Rouge – KCS Yard Office

Page 58: Crpc

New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal

Page 59: Crpc

Transportation Planning Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area

Huey P. Dugas

Center for Planning ExcellencePublic Forum

Lod Cook Conference CenterJuly 21, 2011