Final 360 stakeholder_presentation_110515

Loop 360 Improvement Study

LOOP 360 IMPROVEMENT STUDY

November 2015


Loop 360 Study Overview

Loop 360:

– serves a wide range of users

– has sections that rank #76 and #94 on Texas’ Most Congested Roadways list

– has recently received some minor improvements, but more short-term fixes are needed

– lacks a long-term plan/vision

2

The current study:

— will identify potential short and

long-term solutions

— is actively engaging the

community throughout the

process


Loop 360 in the Region

4


Loop 360 Improvement Study Process

4


Stakeholder Engagement

Who are the Loop 360 stakeholders?

– Residents and homeowners associations

– Businesses

– Commuters

– Bicyclists/pedestrians

– Environmentalists

– Others

How are stakeholders invited to participate?

– Online survey

– Written comments

– Meetings with the study team

– Section working groups

– Kiosks/other project meetings

5


Who Responded to the Loop 360 Survey?

6

3,641 completed surveys from 85

unique zip codes

57% came from the five zip codes

directly surrounding the study area

(78730, 78731, 78746, 78750,

78759)

39% stated they live along the Loop

360 corridor, while 61% stated they

do not


How Does Loop 360 Traffic Affect Survey Respondents who Live Along the Corridor?

7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Loop 360 traffic does not affect my neighborhood

directly

Other

Difficulty walking or biking to and from my

neighborhood

Increase in traffic violations due to traffic congestion

Difficulty crossing Loop 360 to get to schools or other

destinations

Cars cutting through neighborhoods to avoid

mainlane traffic

Longer wait time to enter/exit your community

Longer travel times along 360

How does the traffic on Loop 360 impact you?


How are Problems Perceived Along Loop 360?

8

Least Significant Problem

Most Significant Problem

8

1

Rank the order of each of the problems listed below.Average

Score*

Percentage Who

Ranked this #1

1 - Overall traffic congestion along the corridor 2.1 43%

2 - Traffic backups at specific Loop 360 intersections 2.1 37%

3 - Difficulty turning/merging onto Loop 360 mainlanes 4.1 3%

4 - Difficulty/delay turning onto cross streets from Loop 360 4.6 2%

5 - Overall safety along the corridor 5.1 5%

6 - Difficulty crossing Loop 360 5.3 2%

7 - Conflicts between auto and bicycle/pedestrian traffic 5.6 5%

8 - Difficulty accessing businesses or residences from Loop 360 5.8 1%

* Average score determined by

multiplying the score value by the

number of people who selected that

score, and dividing by total responses


How Should These Problems Be Solved?

9

Least Effective

Most Effective

5

1

Rank the effectiveness of each of these options for improving Loop 360

safety and mobility.

Average

Score*

Percentage Who

Ranked this #1

1 - Eliminate traffic signals and build over/underpasses at intersections 1.8 54%

2 - Intersection improvements that reduce travel time along Loop 360 2.4 18%

3 - Add more lanes to Loop 360 2.9 13%

4 - Intersection improvements that improve access to/from cross streets 3.4 6%

5 - Add a separate bicycle/pedestrian path along the entire corridor 4.0 9%

* Average score determined by

multiplying the score value by the

number of people who selected that

score, and dividing by total responses


Scenario Development

What is a scenario?

– Models/assesses the possible outcomes of

implementing a certain set of improvements

– Represents a broad range of possible improvement

options for comparison purposes only

– Is not a specific project recommendation

How were the scenarios developed?

– Data analysis of projected traffic volumes, levels of

service, travel times

– Stakeholder input

– Best practices from across the state and nation

10


Scenarios Considered

11

Intersection Improvements

•Optimize signal timing, turn lanes, intersection design, etc. along entire corridor

2

No Build (Do Nothing)

•No improvements other than those in regional transportation plan (out to 2040)

•Included as a baseline against which all scenarios are compared

1

Add Four Grade-Separated* Tolled/HOV/Transit Lanes5

Add Two Lanes, Keep Existing Traffic Signals (six lanes at-grade*)3

Grade-Separate* Existing Four Lanes4

Add Four Grade-Separated* Non-Tolled Lanes6**

* “At-grade” improvements are those where Loop 360 and the cross-streets are at the same level. “Grade-separated”

improvements, such as overpasses/underpasses, are those where one roadway passes over or under the other.

** Scenario 6 is a “hybrid” of Scenarios 4 and 5, and was modeled to provide an additional comparison of potential mobility

impacts if flyovers and additional non-tolled lanes are added to Loop 360.


What is Induced Demand?

Additional travel on a roadway that

results from implementation of a

transportation improvement

Reflects changes in peoples’ travel

decisions based on improved travel

conditions, including:

– Route changes

– Changes in travel mode (auto, bus,

bicycle, etc.)

– Increase/decrease in number of trips

Incorporated into Loop 360 “Build”

scenarios that include flyovers and

additional lanes

12


Scenario Assumption Summary

13

Scenario

Optimized

Traffic

Signals

Optimized

Intersections

Total At-

Grade,

Signalized

Non-Tolled

Lanes

Total Grade-

Separated

Non-Tolled

Lanes

Total Grade-

Separated

Tolled/HOV/

Transit

Lanes

Flyovers at

US 183N

and South

MoPac

Induced

Demand

from Added

Capacity

Scenario 1 – No Build 4

Scenario 2 – Intersection

Improvements 4

Scenario 3 - Add Two

Lanes, Keep Existing

Traffic Signals 6

Scenario 4 – Grade-

Separate Existing Four

Lanes* * 4

Scenario 5 - Add Four

Grade-Separated

Tolled/HOV/Transit Lanes* * 4 4

Scenario 6 - Add Four

Grade-Separated Non-

Tolled Lanes* * 4 4

* Traffic signals at the intersections of the ramps and the crossing routes at overpasses and underpasses would be optimized to the greatest extent

possible.


How Were the Scenarios Evaluated?

Local and Regional* Mobility

Safety

Cost

Feasibility

Aesthetics/Visual, Environmental,

and Other Impacts

Longevity

Transit/Emergency Access*

Implementation Time*

14

* The “Transit/Emergency Access,” “regional mobility,” and “implementation time” criteria were added based on citizen and agency input.


Traffic Condition/Mobility Measures

Traffic volumes

Levels of Service

(LOS)

Travel times

Travel speeds

15

LOS Example

A/B

C/D

E/F


Preliminary Scenario Evaluation Results Summary

16

Evaluation

CriteriaScenario 1

No Build

Scenario 2Intersection

Improvements

Scenario 3Add 2 Lanes,

Keep Existing

Signals

Scenario 4Grade-Separate

Existing Lanes

Scenario 5Add 4 Toll/

HOV/Transit Lanes

Scenario 6Add 4

Non-Tolled Lanes

Local Mobility

Regional Mobility

Safety

Cost $ $$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$

Feasibility

Aesthetics/

Environmental/

Other Impacts

Longevity

Transit/

Emergency

Access

Implementation

Time

DRAFT


Next Steps

17

Develop draft study report:

November 2015 – January 2016

Release draft study report for public

review and comment:

February-March 2016

Prepare and present final study

report: May 2016


QUESTIONS?

www.Loop360Study.com

18

Final 360 stakeholder_presentation_110515

Government & Nonprofit