REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This document is available in accessible formats when requested ten (10) calendar days in advance. This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is prepared in cooperation with and financial assistance from the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), as well as the City of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee and DeSoto County, Mississippi. This financial assistance notwithstanding, the contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the funding agencies.
It is the policy of the Memphis MPO not to exclude, deny, or discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, sex, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, veteran status, familial or marital status, disability, medical or genetic condition, or any other characteristic protected under applicable federal or state law in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to, access to, or operations of its programs, services, or activities.
All inquiries for Title VI and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act, contact Alvan-Bidal Sanchez at 901-636-7156 or [email protected]. Acknowledgments The Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would like to acknowledge its members and partnering agencies, who helped with the development of the Livability 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Update: MEMBERS Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority (MSCAA) Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission TENNESSEE Shelby County, Tennessee Town of Arlington City of Bartlett Town of Collierville City of Germantown City of Lakeland City of Memphis City of Millington Fayette County, Tennessee Town of Braden City of Gallaway Town of Oakland City of Piperton Town of Rossville MISSISSIPPI DeSoto County, Mississippi City of Hernando City of Horn Lake City of Olive Branch City of Southaven Town of Walls Marshall County, Mississippi Town of Byhalia PARTNERING AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS Federal Highway Administration—Tennessee Division Federal Highway Administration— Mississippi Division Federal Transit Administration— Region IV US Environmental Protection Agency—Region IV Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Acknowledgments Shelby County Health Department (SCHD) West Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) i LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 1.1 Regional and Transportation Context for the Memphis MPO Region 3 1.2 The Memphis Urban Area MPO 4 1.3 Federal Transportation Plan Requirements 8 1.4 Planning Context 11 1.5 Travel Demand Model Enhancements 12 1.6 Key Outcomes 14 1.7 Plan Development and Document Outline 15 1.8 RTP Revisions 17 2.0 Public Participation 21 2.1 Participation Activities 21
2.1.1 Introduction 21 2.1.2 Livability Campaign Kickoff 21 2.1.3 Stakeholder Identification and Meetings 22 2.1.4 Public Outreach 22 2.1.5 Online Outreach 27 2.2 Plan Review and Approval Milestones 33 3.0 Performance-Based Plan Approach 37 3.1 Performance-Based Planning 37
3.1.1 National Goal Areas and Measures 38 3.1.2 Federal Requirements 39 3.2 Livability 2050 Performance Framework 40 4.0 System Conditions and Investment Needs 49 4.1 Roadway Preservation 51
4.1.1 Pavement 51 4.1.2 Bridge 54 4.2 Roadway Congestion 56
4.2.1 Existing Congested Conditions 56 4.2.2 Future Congested Conditions 58 4.3 Safety and Security 68
ii 4.3.1 Crash Analysis 68 4.3.2 Roadway-Rail Grade Crossings 71 4.3.3 Strategic Highway Safety Plans 73 4.3.4 Transit System Safety and Security 76 4.3.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 77 4.3.6 Highway and Freight Rail Security 79 4.3.7 Airport Security 81 4.3.8 Port Security 81 4.3.9 National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) Grant 82 4.3.10 Security Related to Seismic Events 83 4.4 Multimodal Access and Connectivity 85
4.4.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian 85 4.4.2 Transit 90 4.4.3 Complete Streets 93 4.4.4 Intercity Passenger Rail and Bus 94 4.5 Transportation Disadvantaged 96
4.5.1 Environmental Justice Communities 96 4.5.2 Persons with Disabilities 98 4.5.3 Persons 65 or Older 100 4.5.4 Multimodal Access for the Transportation Disadvantaged 102 4.6 Economic Growth/Freight Movement 108 4.7 Travel and Tourism 113 4.8 Land Use — Mobility and Livability Corridor Assessment 113 5.0 Investment Solutions 119 5.1 Livability 2040 RTP and Project Identification 119 5.2 Public and Stakeholder Input 119 5.3 Congestion Analysis 120 5.4 Transit Assessment 120 5.5 Mobility/Livability Corridor Assessment 121 5.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Assessment 121
5.6.1 Introduction and Purpose 121 5.6.2 Hot Spot Analysis 122 5.6.3 Using the Hot Spot Analysis 126 Contents
iii LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
6.0 Alternative Investment Concept Analysis 131 6.1 Regional Roadway Connections 131 6.2 Expanded Travel Options 133 6.3 Comparison of Alternatives 134 7.0 Financially Feasible Plan 139 7.1 Project Prioritization Methodology 139 7.2 Revenue Projections 142
7.2.1 Summary of Revenues 143 7.2.2 Revenue Forecast Methodology 144 7.2.3 Capital Roadway Revenues 145 7.2.4 Operations and Maintenance Roadway Revenues 146 7.2.5 Transit Revenues 147 7.3 Project Costs 147
7.3.1 Roadway Projects 148 7.3.2 Transit Projects 148 7.3.3 Multimodal (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Complete Streets) 148 7.4 Fiscal Constraint 148 7.5 Potential Alternative Funding Strategies 151
7.5.1 Fuel Tax Related 151 7.5.2 Vehicle and Driver Related 151 7.5.3 Tolling, Road Pricing, and Other User Fees 151 7.5.4 General Taxes 152 7.5.5 Specialized Taxes 152 7.5.6 Beneficiary Charges and Value Capture 152 7.5.7 Freight-Related Taxes and Fees 152 8.0 Investment Priorities 155 8.1 Investment Summary 155 8.2 Livability 2050 Project List 157
8.2.1 Vision Project List 174 9.0 Plan Performance 183 9.1 Summary of System Impacts 183 9.2 Environmental Consultation and Mitigation 185
iv 9.2.1 Purpose 185 9.2.2 Environmental Screening of Proposed Livability 2050 Projects 185 9.2.3 Environmental Mitigation Strategies 190 9.2.4 Climate Change 193 9.3 Transportation Disadvantaged Analysis 194
9.3.1 Identification of Environmental Justice Communities 195 9.3.2 Analysis of Benefits and Burdens of Livability 2050 200 9.4 Performance Measurement 202
9.4.1 Safety Performance Management (PM1) 202 9.4.2 Infrastructure Condition (PM2) 204 9.4.3 System Performance 206 9.4.4 Transit Asset Management & Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) 213 9.4.5 Target Setting Timeline 214 10.0 Congestion Management Process 217 10.1 CMP Summary 217
10.1.1 Future Year Congested Network 218 10.1.2 Identification of CMP Strategies 218 10.1.3 Effectiveness of CMP Strategies 219 10.1.4 Project Evaluation and Project List 224 11.0 Air Quality 229 11.1 Introduction 229 11.2 Background 229
11.2.1 Attainment Status 230 11.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation 232 11.4 Methodology and Results 232 11.5 Conclusion 233 Contents
v LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
List of Figures Figure 1.1 Memphis Urban Area MPO Planning Boundary 5
Figure 1.2 Travel Demand Model Geography 13
Figure 1.3 Funding Split by Investment Category, Livability 2050 14
Figure 1.4 Steps of Livability 2050 Development 16
Figure 2.1 Public Meeting Locations 23
Figure 2.2 Survey Responses by Home Zip Code 30
Figure 2.3 Map Markers Placed by Survey Participants 31
Figure 3.1 Steps of a Performance-Based Planning Process 37
Figure 4.1 National Highway System in Memphis MPO Region 52
Figure 4.2 National Highway System (2016) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 53
Figure 4.3 Bridges by Ownership 54
Figure 4.4 Existing Bridge Deficiency Status 54
Figure 4.5 2017 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Bridge Condition 55
Figure 4.6 2017 Congestion, Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model 57
Figure 4.7 2017 Employment Density 59
Figure 4.8 2050 Employment Density 60
Figure 4.9 2017 Population Density 61
Figure 4.10 2050 Population Density 62
Figure 4.11 Functional Classification of Existing 2017 Network 66
Figure 4.12 Future Year (2050 E+C) Congestion, Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model 67
Figure 4.13 Roadway Crash Density (All Crashes) 69
Figure 4.14 Roadway Crash Density (Fatal and Injury Crashes Only) 70
Figure 4.15 Fatal and Injury Crashes Reported at Roadway-Rail Grade Crossings 2008 through 2017 72
Figure 4.16 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crashes by Year (2014-2017) 77
Figure 4.17 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crash Density (2014-2017) 78
Figure 4.18 Strategic National Security Networks Versus Congestion 80
Figure 4.19 NDRC Grant Project Locations 82
Figure 4.20 New Madrid Seismic Zone Activity 84
Figure 4.21 Existing Bicycle Network in the Memphis MPO Region 88
Figure 4.22 Existing Pedestrian Network in the Memphis MPO Region 89
Figure 4.23 Memphis 3.0 Transit Vision Plan DRAFT Recommended Network 91
vi Figure 4.24 Existing Transit System 92
Figure 4.25 Complete Streets Example Roadway Cross Section 93
Figure 4.26 High-Speed Rail Concept by the Federal Railroad Administration, 2009 95
Figure 4.27 Combined Environmental Justice Areas Minority, Low Income, and Limited English Proficiency Areas 97
Figure 4.28 Areas with Persons with a Disability 99
Figure 4.29 Areas with Persons 65 or Older 101
Figure 4.30 Environmental Justice Communities in Relation to Transit and Nonmotorized Networks 103
Figure 4.31 Locations of Persons Age 65 and Older in Relation to Transit and Nonmotorized Networks 105
Figure 4.32 Major Connections for the Greater Memphis Region 109
Figure 4.33 Modal Freight Summary Between Megaregions and Memphis FAF Zone 110
Figure 4.34 Mobility and Livability Corridor Designations 115
Figure 5.1 Memphis MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Hot Spots 125
Figure 5.2 Street Networks in Bicycle and Pedestrian Focus Areas 126
Figure 6.1 Potential Investment Areas — Regional Roadway Connections Concept 132
Figure 6.2 Potential Investment Areas — Expanded Travel Options Concept Fiscally 133
Figure 8.1 Constrained Projects — 2021 through 2030 157
Figure 8.2 Fiscally Constrained Projects — 2031 through 2040 158
Figure 8.3 Fiscally Constrained Projects — 2041 through 2050 159
Figure 9.1 Identified Natural Resources 186
Figure 9.2 Cultural/Historic Resources 187
Figure 9.3 Community Resources 188
Figure 9.4 Locations in Environmental Monitoring Programs 189
Figure 9.5 Minority Populations 196
Figure 9.6 Low-Income Populations 197
Figure 9.7 Populations with Limited English Pro iciency (LEP) 198 Figure 9.8 Combined Environmental Justice Populations Minority, Low Income, and Limited English Pro iciency Populations 199
Figure 9.9 2017 Interstate Travel Time Reliability 207
Figure 9.10 2017 Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability 208
Figure 9.11 2017 Truck Travel Time Reliability 210
Figure 10.1 Percent of Non-Single Occupant Vehicle Travel 217
Figure 10.2 Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) Ridership 223
Figure 11.1 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 8-Hour Ozone Non-Attainment Area 231 Contents
vii LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
List of Tables Table 1.1 Local Member Agencies 6
Table 1.2 Existing Plans and Studies Reviewed 6
Table 1.3 Federal Planning Factors 9
Table 1.4 Partnership for Sustainable Communities Livability Principles 10
Table 2.1 Public Meetings and Dates 24
Table 3.1 Livability 2050 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures 44
Table 4.1 Summary of Key Needs and Gaps 50
Table 4.2 Socioeconomic Data from Travel Demand Model 58
Table 4.3 E+C Project List 64
Table 4.4 Crashes in the Memphis MPO region by Location and Severity 2014 through 2017 71
Table 4.5 Top 10 Roadway-Rail Grade Crossings Ranked by Predicted Accidents per year (FRA) 73
Table 4.6 SHSP Critical Emphasis Areas Relevant to the Memphis MPO Region 74
Table 4.7 Examples of Countermeasures Used to Improve Safety 75
Table 4.8 Transportation Mode to Work by Environmental Justice Communities 98
Table 4.9 Transportation Mode to Work for Persons with a Disability in Shelby County 100
Table 4.10 Transportation Mode to Work for Elderly and Nonelderly Population 102
Table 4.11 Cargo Tonnage Traded in Memphis MPO Region, 2015 110
Table 4.12 Mobility and Livability Corridors 114
Table 5.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Hot Spot Analysis Criteria and Weights 122
Table 5.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Land Use Category 124
Table 6.1 Alternative Investment Concept Performance Assessment 135
Table 7.1 Project Prioritization Focus Areas 141
Table 7.2 Revenue Summary 143
Table 7.3 DifferentAssumptions Between Previous Plan and Current Plan Update 144
Table 7.4 Tennessee Capital Roadway Revenues 145
Table 7.5 Mississippi Capital Roadway Revenues 145
Table 7.6 Tennessee Operations and Maintenance Revenues 146
Table 7.7 Mississippi Operations and Maintenance Revenues 146
viii Table 7.8 Transit Revenues 147
Table 7.9 Tennessee Revenue Balance Table 149
Table 7.10 Mississippi Revenue Balance Table 150
Table 8.1 Highlights of Major Investments 156
Table 8.2 Fiscally Constrained Project List 160
Table 8.3 Vision Project List 175
Table 9.1 Summary of Plan Performance, in Relation to Key Performance Measure Categories 183
Table 9.2 Summary of Modeled Plan Performance by Functional Classification 184
Table 9.3 Number of Projects with Potential Direct Impacts by Resource Type 190
Table 9.4 Potential Mitigation Activities 192
Table 9.5 Poverty Thresholds for 2016 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years 195
Table 9.6 PM1 Safety: Tennessee 203
Table 9.7 PM1 Safety: Mississippi 203
Table 9.8 PM1 Safety Project Examples 203
Table 9.9 PM2 Pavement Condition Tennessee and Mississippi 205
Table 9.10 PM2 Bridge Condition Tennessee and Mississippi 205
Table 9.11 PM2 Infrastructure Conditions Examples 205
Table 9.12 PM3 Travel Time Reliability Targets 206
Table 9.13 PM3 Freight Reliability Targets 209
Table 9.14 PM3 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 211
Table 9.15 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions 212
Table 9.16 PM3 System Performance Examples 212
Table 9.17 Transit Asset Management Performance Measures 213
Table 9.18 PM4 Transit Asset Management Examples 214
Table 10.1 2017 Memphis Area Rideshare Program 220
Table 11.1 Shelby County Mobile Source Emissions and MVEBs 233
Table 11.2 DeSoto County Mobile Source Emissions and MVEBs 233 Contents
ix LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
x
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
2 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Regional and Transportation Context for the Memphis MPO Region
Transportation is an integral part of the identity and the continued success of the Memphis region. The region’s location on the bluffs of the Mississippi River, midway between St. Louis and Vicksburg, has allowed Memphis to be viewed as an ideal location for a variety of transportation options. Today, transportation takes on multiple forms, including automobiles, airplanes, trains, bikes, walking, trolleys, and barges. These transportation elements are a result of the plans and actions of the area’s earlier residents. The region’s rich and long history is highlighted with countless instances of people coming to the area and discovering a great base for travel across the state, region, and nation.
In 1818, a treaty between The Chickasaw Nation and the United States was signed, granting land in western Tennessee to the U.S. government. Shortly thereafter, James Winchester recommended the formation of a new county in western Tennessee. On November 24, 1819, the State General Assembly created Shelby County—30 miles wide and 25 miles long bordering the Mississippi River. Memphis (named for the ancient Egyptian city) was laid out on the banks of the Mississippi around 1819. The town had 362 lots with broad avenues, public squares, and a public promenade along the river. Though the surveyed lots and new town were advertised in newspapers throughout the South, the first lots were purchased by settlers who already resided on the land. Memphis was incorporated as a town on December 9, 1826.
To the south, DeSoto County in Mississippi formed with 140 residents in February 1836. The county steadily added people to its tax rolls and by 1837, 204 settlers lived in and paid taxes to the new county. Settlement in the area that would become Fayette County, Tennessee began as early as 1820. Within a few years, enough settlers called the land home to justify forming a new county. Fayette County, named for a French general and statesman, was established by the Tennessee General Assembly on September 29, 1824. Marshall County, Mississippi, named for Chief Justice John Marshall, was founded in 1836. The economy for the region was driven by river transportation that eventually spawned additional trade and industry growth. By operating as the South’s newfound economic hub, business and economic opportunities spurred growth throughout the region. With its strategic location on the Mississippi River, the Memphis region positioned itself as one of the nation’s crossroads, where multiple transportation options allow people and freight to travel north to the Midwest, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and all points between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Chapter 1 - Introduction
3 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Within the region, daily travel was usually on foot or by horse in the early to mid-19th century, with streetcars emerging in the later 19th century. This meant trips were close to home. Much has changed in transportation since the 19th century. In 30 minutes, a vehicle can cover distances not imagined by earlier settlers to the region. Whereas trips a century ago were taken almost entirely within the bounds of one neighborhood or community, now regional, multi-jurisdictional trips are the norm. Residents travel to their destinations not knowing or caring which jurisdiction owns the road on which their car, bus, or bike is riding, but just that they have a seamless and safe trip.
In this context, planning at a regional level is critical. Investments need to be driven by local input but with a regional perspective. The Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, “Livability 2050” is a planning document that guides the expenditure of federal transportation funds for all modes of transportation over the next 30 years throughout the greater Memphis area. The RTP Update is more than a document—it’s a process by which local, state, and federal policy-makers and the residents, business owners, and stakeholders who are most impacted by transportation decisions come together to create a vision for the region’s future transportation system.
As in the 19th century, with its central location and position on the Mississippi River, the Memphis region continues to be a major transportation and logistics center from a national—and increasingly international—perspective. With the world’s second busiest air-cargo airport, railyards and intermodal terminals, multiple trucking terminals, the nation’s fifth-largest inland water port, and 12 Interstate and U.S.-designated highways, the region is a national distribution hub.
The Memphis region is centrally located on the inland waterway system, 600 river miles north of New Orleans and 400 river miles south of St. Louis and possesses the fifth largest inland water port in the United States.1 Memphis is also central in the national rail network (with over 100 trains per day traveling through Memphis) and is served by five Class I railroads: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, Canadian National (CN) Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Union Pacific (UP) Railroad.2 In addition to its position in the nation’s waterways and railroad systems, Memphis is pivotally positioned in the national highway network and in the nation’s highway freight corridors. This includes six Interstate corridors—I-40, I-55, I-69, I-22, I-240, and I-269—that all provide major connections to the rest of the country. Major U.S.-designated highways include U.S. 51, U.S. 61, U.S. 64, U.S. 70, U.S. 72, U.S. 78, and U.S. 79. The region is home to nine public airports that serve commercial passenger service, freight, military operations, and general aviation needs with the most notable including Memphis International Airport, Millington Jetport, and the Olive Branch Airport. The FedEx global hub is located at the Memphis International Airport.3 Additionally, the region is home to the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), one of the largest public transit providers in the state of Tennessee.
In an increasingly competitive global economy, it is critical that a region work together with a single voice and a single vision. The health or failure of a single community can greatly influence the health or failure of the region. As a result, the regional transportation planning process is crucial to the continued success of the Memphis region. 1.2 The Memphis Urban Area MPO
Created in 1977, the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for the transportation policy development, planning, and programming for the counties of Shelby County, Tennessee and DeSoto County, Mississippi and portions of Fayette County, Tennessee and Marshall County, Mississippi, as shown in Figure 1.1. This is defined as the “Memphis MPO Region”. The mission of the Memphis MPO is “to encourage and promote the development of a balanced, efficient, and affordable regional transportation system to meet the needs of people and goods moving within and through the region, while minimizing the effect of transportation- related air pollution.”
1 http://portofmemphis.com/about/ 2 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis 3 Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan
4 The Memphis MPO consists of elected officials from the jurisdictions shown inTable 1.1, the Governors of Tennessee and Mississippi, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (MSCAA), Memphis-Shelby County Port Commission (MSCPC), and representatives from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT). The Shelby County Department of Regional Services provides staff to the Memphis MPO and serves as its fiscal and administrative agent.
Figure 1.1 Memphis Urban Area MPO Planning Boundary Chapter 1 - Introduction Source Data: U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefile
5 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 1.1 Local Member Agencies
Tennessee Mississippi Shelby County, TN DeSoto County, MS Arlington Hernando Bartlett Horn Lake Collierville Olive Branch Germantown Southaven Lakeland Walls Memphis Marshall County, MS Millington Byhalia Fayette County, TN Braden Gallaway Oakland Piperton Rossville
Federal Regulations require that an MPO be designated to carry out a comprehensive, continuing, and cooperative (“3 C”) transportation planning process for urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or more. Using federal regulations for guidance, short and long-term transportation plans that meet community objectives are developed and implemented. A multimodal planning approach is used to assure a vibrant and growing system of roads, rail, transit systems, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, airports and waterways. In particular the Memphis MPO is responsible for developing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the region.
In preparation for developing the Livability 2050 RTP Update, a review of a wide array of existing plans and studies in the Memphis MPO region was conducted. Table 1.2 shows selected key studies reviewed and maps them to the goal areas described in Section 1.4. These studies vary in geography from broad regional plans, such as the Mid-South Regional Greenprint and Sustainability Plan, to project-specific and topic-specific studies. Appendix A provides a literature review of these documents.
Table 1.2 Existing Plans and Studies Reviewed
Study Safety Maintenance Economic Vitality Congestion Mobility/ Accessibility Environmental Land Use Aerotropolis ● ● ● ● ● ● Bike Share Feasibility Study ● ● ● ● Bus Stop Design and Accessibility Guidelines ● ● ● ● ● Bus Transit to Workplace Studies ● ● Complete Streets Delivery Manual — City of Memphis ● ● ● ● Congestion System Management ● ● ● ● Coordination Public Transit–Human Services Transportation Plan ● ● ● ●
6 Study Safety Maintenance Economic Vitality Congestion Mobility/ Accessibility Environmental Land Use DeSoto County I-69/I-269 Corridor Stewardship Plan ● ● DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan ● ● ● ● ● DeSoto County Transit Feasibility Study ● Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Edge Innovation District ● ● ● Environmental Reports ● ● ● Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (Mid-South Regional ● ● ● Greenprint) FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Greater Memphis Neighborhoods Plan ● ● Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan ● ● ● Health Impact Assessment (Mid-South Regional Greenprint) ● ● ● ● Houston Levee Road/Center Hill Road Alternatives Study ● ● I-269 Small Area Plan – Town of Collierville ● ● I-269 Tennessee Corridor Study: A Regional Vision Study ● ● ● ● Lamar Avenue ● ● Livability 2040 Regional Transportation Plan ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Main to Main Project ● ● ● MATA Short-Range Transit Plan ● MDOT Transportation Alternative Program ● Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan and Transit Vision Plan ● ● ● ● (underway) Memphis and Shelby County Economic Impact Study ● Memphis MPO Household Travel Survey ● ● (January – June 2014) Memphis Regional Freight Infrastructure Plan ● ● Memphis Urban Area Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems ● ● (ITS) Architecture and Deployment Plan Mid-South Regional Greenprint and Sustainability Plan ● ● Midtown Alternatives Analysis ● Mississippi State Freight Plan ● ● ● ● Mississippi State Highway Safety Plan ● ● ● Other Local Plans ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Poplar Southern Corridor Study ● ● ● ● ● ● Public Participation Plan ● ● Chapter 1 - Introduction
7 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Study Safety Maintenance Economic Vitality Congestion Mobility/ Accessibility Environmental Land Use Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ● ● ● ● Sears Crosstown Redevelopment ● ● Shelby Farms Master Plan ● ● ● Southern Gateway Project (Mississippi River Crossing Feasibility ● ● and Location Study) State of Employment (Mid-South Regional Greenprint) ● TDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ● TDOT Extreme Weather Vulnerability Report ● ● ● ● TDOT Intercity Bus Study ● ● TN-385/I-269 Corridor: Economic Development/Environmental ● ● ● Study Tennessee State Freight Plan ● ● ● ● Tennessee State Highway Safety Plan ● ● ● Transportation Demand Management Strategies ● ● West Memphis-Marion Area Transportation Study ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
1.3 Federal Transportation Plan Requirements
Priority and regionally significant transportation projects and programs are allocated Federal, state, and local transportation dollars via the RTP and TIP. Regional transportation plans must be updated at a minimum every four years in air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas. If an area is not a maintenance or non-attainment area, the plans must be updated at a minimum every five years. The Memphis MPO is subject to the four year requirement. Regional transportation planning by legislative definition must be comprehensive (including all modes), cooperative (involving a broad array of stakeholders and other interested parties), and continuous (ever improving and evolving). Regional transportation plans must also address a broad set of planning factors, outlined in Federal transportation funding legislation, the most recent being the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). These planning factors are defined in Table 1.3.4 Table 3.1 shows the direct relationship between the federal planning factors and the goals and objectives set forth in Livability 2050.
4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.306
8 Table 1.3 Federal Planning Factors
As Required by the FAST Act 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight. 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements, and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns. 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation. 10. Enhance travel and tourism.
This trend in Federal guidance—along with practical, changing needs “on the ground” across the United States— Over time, Federal requirements has resulted in regions slowly shifting their investments have moved to better support a to be more comprehensive. The Memphis MPO Region balanced, multimodal network, started this in the previous Regional Transportation developed through transparent, Plan, Livability 2040, and continues to do the same with performance-based planning. Livability 2050. The ten federal planning factors in Table 1.3 directly influence the goals and objectives of Livability 2050, which guided project selection and evaluation.
The Livability 2050 RTP Update serves as the RTP within the Memphis MPO region through the planning horizon year of 2050.5 Livability 2050 was adopted by the Memphis MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) on September 12, 2019, and the associated RTP conformity determination was approved by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), in consultation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), in November 2019. Livability 2050 establishes the need for major transportation investments, identifies activities to address major transportation and growth issues, and prioritizes investments to improve system condition and performance.
While it is a federal requirement for regional transportation plans to be updated a minimum of every four years in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, there are opportunities to amend or adjust the plan prior to the adoption of the next regional transportation plan. The RTP is a planning document looking at the next 30 years, but priorities for the region can change. For example, funding could become available for a project that is not included in the plan. In this case, the RTP would need to be amended so that the project could be added to the regional transportation plan and subsequently, the short-range plan (the TIP). Once the Memphis MPO is aware of the change that needs to be made, the MPO would begin by conducting air quality modeling analysis to ensure that the changes to the plan do not cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See Chapter 11 Air Quality for more information regarding conformance with NAAQS.
5 Guiding regulations: 23 CFR 450.324 Chapter 1 - Introduction
9 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Once the modeling is complete, the results are submitted to the Interagency Consultation Committee (IAC), who provides assistance to the MPO with air quality monitoring and compliance efforts. The IAC is made up of local representatives, state and federal agencies responsible for air quality control programs and regional representatives from FHWA, EPA, and FTA. Once the TPB approves the amendment and accompanying Air Quality Conformity Reports it is submitted to FHWA for a final review period along with EPA and FTA. The RTP amendment is considered approved once the final concurrence letter is received from FHWA. Additionally, there are opportunities where revisions are minor and can be processed as an administrative modification, which do not require a formal action to be taken from the TPB. Reference Section 1.8, Administrative Modification for additional information and examples of these types of changes.
The Livability 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Update is an update of the Livability 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted on January 28, 2016. It meets all Federal transportation planning requirements including:
• Includes a minimum 20-year plan horizon
• Reflects best available land use, population and employment, travel and economic activity assumptions
• Identifies long-range transportation goals and specific long- and short-range investment strategies Livability is supporting and across all modes of transportation to support enhancing communities with meeting those goals more affordable and reliable transportation choices that • Supports regional land use and economic provide access to employment, development policies and plans education, and other basic needs. • Demonstrates fiscal constraint for all funded projects
• Demonstrates air quality conformity
• Reflects a broad set of public and stakeholder input
As shown in Table 1.4, Livability 2050 also is guided by the six livability principles supported at the Federal level through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency partnership between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. DOT defines livable communities as “places where transportation, housing and commercial development investments have been coordinated so that people have access to adequate, affordable, and environmentally sustainable travel options.”
Table 1.4 Partnership for Sustainable Communities Livability Principles
1. Support existing communities. 2. Provide more transportation choices. 3. Promote equitable, affordable housing. 4. Enhance economic competitiveness. 5. Coordinate policies and leverage investment. 6. Value communities and neighborhoods.
10 1.4 Planning Context
Livability 2050 reflects the performance-based planning approach that is required by the FAST Act and best Vision: The RTP aims for a future suited for the region. This approach is guided by the Greater Memphis region with a region’s vision for transportation. high quality-of-life, economic and The vision, along with the transportation goals of the plan environmental sustainability, and and the region, help guide transportation investments access to prosperity—in short, a when there is limited transportation revenue. The region where people choose to live. following goals, described more in Chapter 3 (and mapped to the FAST Act national goals in Table 3.1), were created using input from Memphis MPO members and the general public, legislation, and past planning initiatives:
• Improve multimodal access to residential, community, and employment resources
• Support a fully integrated multimodal network that advances the concept of complete streets
• Ensure the region is well positioned to remain a leader in global logistics and freight movement
• Enhance travel and tourism
• Increase the safety of the transportation system for all users
• Advance corridor and community redevelopment opportunities to improve economic development, public health, and quality of life
• Minimize adverse impacts of transportation investment on the (social, natural, historic) environment
• Reduce travel delay for people and goods
• Maintain existing transportation assets and infrastructure
Livability 2050 has been developed in a planning environment with several key elements that are impacting regional transportation plans across the nation, and similarly serve as key context for this plan:
• Transportation needs are increasing, while funding streams remain steady or decreasing in real terms and can be unstable.
• MAP-21 introduced a number of program changes designed to provide for additional flexibility, transparency, and accountability within the plan development process, and placed clear emphasis on the need to first maintain and preserve existing assets before expanding the system. The FAST Act defined these program changes and provided a framework for implementation. This emphasis on asset management, when coupled with less revenue, has serious implications on revenue availability for new infrastructure.
• The FAST Act requires states and regions to use a transparent, performance-based process for preparing transportation plans and identifying investments. Chapter 1 - Introduction
11 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
In response to these challenges, the Memphis MPO has continued to shift its investment focus from one that prioritizes new roadway capacity to one that ensures existing transportation assets are managed, maintained, and maximized to the extent possible, before the system is expanded. To support these advances, the Memphis MPO implemented a number of innovative planning and technical methods, including:
• Applying an updated comprehensive travel demand model (Section 1.5);
• A broad stakeholder and public engagement process that included establishing an RTP Advisory Committee (RTPAC), multiple rounds of public meetings, and the use of several online tools, such as MetroQuest, to build upon input received in the Livability 2040 planning process (Chapter 2); and
• Using performance-based planning methods to understand project-level performance evaluation in the context of long-range goals and objectives, as an input into project selection (Chapter 3). 1.5 Travel Demand Model Enhancements
The Memphis MPO Regional Travel Demand Model supports the RTP development through the assessment of needs (e.g., congestion, multimodal access, and environmental justice) in the present and future, and by testing the impacts of projects and sets of projects on regional performance. A Travel Demand Model is a software tool that incorporates networks for the transportation system, as well as existing and projected population, employment, and other socioeconomic data. The Model estimates the amount of travel within, into, and out of the region, calibrated to actual existing conditions. With such a tool, the transportation network in the model can be modified to include new projects or sets of projects; when running the model, one can see how travel patterns, transportation modes utilized, and congestion change under these new conditions.
The Memphis MPO travel demand model is a state-of-the-practice four-step model. The four steps include trip generation, distribution, mode choice, and assignment steps. The model is calibrated to, and validated against, a base year of 2010. It produces highway and transit travel information for peak and off-peak periods of travel for nine trip types: journey to work, home-based school, home-based university, home-based shopping, home-based social recreational, home-based escort, home-based other, work-based other, and non-home/non-work based. A total of 54 external stations were applied to estimate vehicle traffic entering, exiting, and traveling through the region. The following transportation data sources were used to support the development of the travel demand forecasting model:
• Household Travel Survey – A household travel survey was conducted in the Memphis MPO modeling area, from the second week of January 2014 until the end of the second week of June 2014. It obtained a representative sample of the region’s 450,000 households using an address-based sample, along with a multimodal recruit and retrieval effort to improve response rates.
• Transit On-board Survey – A transit on-board survey was conducted on MATA’s 35 bus routes and three trolley lines in fall 2013. It collected 3,277 surveys to represent more than 10 percent of riders.
• Freight/Truck Survey Data – TDOT provided a variety of freight data from a multiuse dataset, including truck GPS data from the American Transportation Research Institute and TRANSEARCH commodity flow information. Additionally, telephone interviews were conducted with industry experts in special generator locations.
The travel demand model boundary extends beyond the MPO boundary to incorporate Tipton, Fayette, and Shelby County, Tennessee; Crittenden County, Arkansas; and DeSoto, Marshall, Tate, and Tunica County, Mississippi to better account for regional growth and travel across the region. The model uses income as a key segmentation variable in the model to help with environmental justice assessments. The model has a freight component that used state-of-the-art GPS-based data to better capture freight data. Results from the regional land use model were used to support future year forecasts. The Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model was most recently updated and approved for use in regional planning by TDOT on July 2, 2018.
12 A map of the model geography is shown in Figure 1.2. A description of the development and validation of the updated model is described in greater detail in Appendix B. Figure 1.2 Travel Demand Model Geography
Source Data: Memphis MPO’s Travel Demand Model Chapter 1 - Introduction
13 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
1.6 Key Outcomes
Figure 1.3 summarizes the funding split across major investment categories in the Livability 2050 RTP Update. The funding allocations represent a strategic shift, in line with public and stakeholder input and with the principles of livability, away from purely building new roadway capacity in the region. In particular, Livability 2050 represents an emphasis on system preservation through its funding allocation to reflect the region’s emphasis on the existing transportation system as a priority investment. In line with this focus on preservation—where new road and transit capital investments are proposed—preservation needs are considered as well: long-term operations and maintenance costs are incorporated into project-level cost estimates.
Figure 1.3 Funding Split by Investment Category, Livability 2050 i d t o t tr t ci tudi
Int rc n cit
r n it r tion int n nc nd it t int n nc
o d cit
Roadway maintenance consisted of 46.1 percent of the funds are allocated, illustrating the focus on maintaining and operating the existing system. Roadway maintenance and other roadway improvements may also help improve transit operations. Transit operations and capital funds account for approximately 16.4 percent of funds, supporting not only capital enhancements and operating support for the existing system but also ongoing high- capacity transit initiatives. About 6.4 percent of funds are dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian improvements as a set aside for communities to build these types of livability-focused projects, with guidance from the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Additionally, many of the proposed roadway capacity capital projects include bicycle and pedestrian improvements (such as new sidewalks or bike lanes) as part of the design.
In Chapter 8 of the plan, specific roadway and transit major capacity projects are shown. They represent strategic improvements to ensure the efficient movement of people and goods at critical locations in the region, in keeping with the community and context of the improvements.
14 1.7 Plan Development and Document Outline
The basic steps of plan development are summarized in Figure 1.4. The steps reflect the traditional steps of most long-range planning processes and have been used as part of Livability 2050. Chapters 3 to 9 of this document summarize the results of these steps, with public engagement activities occurring throughout development of the plan and informing each of these steps.
An overview of each chapter of this Livability 2050 report is below.
Chapter 2.0 — Public Participation: Summary of public and stakeholder outreach activities that informed plan development.
Chapter 3.0 — Performance-Based Plan Approach: Using input from Memphis MPO members and the general public, legislation, and past planning initiatives; a performance-based framework consisting of goals, objectives; and performance measures was created to guide the development of the RTP.
Chapter 4.0 — Investment Needs: Detailed examination of existing conditions and future challenges to identify investment needs over the life of the plan.
Chapter 5.0 — Investment Solutions: Overview of various methods used to identify project solutions to address transportation needs.
Chapter 6.0 — Alternative Investment Concept Analysis: Summary of process used to bundle solutions into high level investment concepts to help determine the region’s preferred funding allocation.
Chapter 7.0 — Financially Feasible Plan: Detailed overview of project evaluation approach, including the evaluation of all projects identified by MPO jurisdictions, according to scoring criteria and the RTP goals and objectives; process for projecting transportation revenue and developing project costs; and developing a fiscally constrained plan.
Chapter 8.0 — Investment Priorities: Summary of the investment strategy that achieves the RTP’s goals and objectives, including a fiscally-constrained list of all funded projects.
Chapter 9.0 — Plan Performance: A summary of the performance impacts of Livability 2050 investment priorities from Chapter 8, across a select set of performance categories that align with FAST Act national transportation goals and regional goals established as part of the RTP.
Chapter 10.0 — Congestion Management Process: A summary of the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and integration with Livability 2050.
Chapter 11.0 — Air Quality Conformity: RTP compliance with the federal regulations that govern air quality requirements. Chapter 1 - Introduction
15 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 1.4 Steps of Livability 2050 Development
Define Goals, Identify Needs Identify Solutions Objectives, and Performance Criteria
Current and Project Projected Identification Transportation Public and Deficiencies Stakeholder Input Congestion Gap Analysis Multimodal (Multimodal, Connections Freight, etc.) Safety/Security Access to Additional Road Community and Transit Resources Capacity Economic and Business Maintenance and Considerations Operations Freight / Economic Public and Growth Stakeholder Input
Package Solutions Constrain and Evaluate and and Evaluate Draft Regional Document Alternative Scenarios Transportation Plan
FAST Act Systemwide Available Revenue Performance Performance Demonstration
Project Costs – Capital and O&M Conformity Financial Plan Determination Report Project Evaluation/ Rankings
Public Involvement Deliverability Project Tiering Process and Report
16 1.8 RTP Revisions
Periodically, as needs and conditions change, it becomes necessary to revise the Regional Transportation Plan. There are two forms of revision — an administrative modification and an amendment.
An administrative modification is to clarify language in the text of the plan due to the following: a change in legislation or governmental responsibility; when there becomes a need to be clearer about the type of project to ensure consistency with the Transportation Improvement Program; or to correct an error or discrepancy that has no effect on plan outcomes. These instances are minor in that fiscal constraint and public review are not required and the changes do not change the integrity of the plan recommendations, the evaluation of a project, the evaluation of the transportation network or regional system, and/or the results or system wide outcomes of the travel demand model or CMP. Nor does the revision alter a project’s design scope, description, or termini to the extent that the aforementioned evaluation or travel demand results would produce different results or that the project is no longer consistent with the plan.
For this type of revision, the process does not involve any formal action by the Memphis MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and the MPO staff is responsible for preparing the administrative change to the document, submitting it to state and Federal partners, submitting the prepared material to TDOT and MDOT—which will then be shared with Federal partners, and updating the MPO’s website with the prepared materials and updated document. The Memphis MPO will work with TDOT and MDOT on formalizing the process requirements. Below are examples of these types of revisions.
• Revision to a project description that clarifies the type of work, but does not affect the evaluation or travel demand modeling results, typically these are non-capacity related changes or clarifications: “intersection improvement” revised to “intersection improvement with a turn lane and signal upgrade.”
• Revision to the length of a project within less than a mile or an error in the text that is not consistent with the travel demand model: “4.2 miles” revised to “4.4 miles” or “.10 miles” revised to “1.0 miles” and confirmed model shows project length as 1.0 miles.
• Revision to correct a map or text: “The Memphis MPO is no longer subject to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard” revised to “Due to South Coast Air Quality Management District vs. EPA, the Memphis MPO continues to be subject to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and its corresponding transportation conformity requirements.”
• Revision to clarify funding source where the programmatic eligibility remains predominately the same: “Surface Transportation Program” (STP) to “Surface Transportation Block Grant” (STBG).
• Revisions to the Chapter 9 Plan Performance to provide updates to existing targets, add new targets, or new clarifications.
An amendment means a revision that involves a major change to a project included in the regional transportation plan, TIP, or STIP, including the addition or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., changing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes or changing the number of stations in the case of fixed guideway transit projects). Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do not require an amendment.
An amendment is a revision that requires public review and comment and a redemonstration of fiscal constraint. If an amendment involves “nonexempt” projects in non-attainment and maintenance areas, a conformity determination is required. Chapter 1 - Introduction
17 LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
18
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
20 media platforms. shared throughFacebookandothersocial subtitles. Additionally, thevideoclipswere page inbothEnglishandwithSpanish uploaded ontheMemphisMPO’s YouTube to the Livability videos. The videos were is aclipfromtheMPO’s websitewithlinks over 450viewers. The imagetotheright of the region. The videos were watched by andresidents agencies, regional officials, elected region’s the – perspective different Each videoapproachedthesubjectfroma awareness oftheregionalroleMPO. 2050 RTP Updateandtobuildgreater for theplanningprocessofLivability livability videostobeginaregionaldialogue Livability Campaign with a series of three In January2018,theMPOlaunched 2.1.2 time, butalsotobemorespecificindirectingattentiontowardsissuesaffectingtheirdailylives. members ofthepublictobeablestayinformedandinvolvedinRTP processontheirownschedulesatany Facebook. Inexpandingtheprocesstoincludenewplatformsforfeedback,planallowednotonlyindividual project website,onlinesurveys,anincreasedvisualpresenceoftheMemphisMPOincommunity, Twitter, and Livability 2050 public engagement process provided for an increased onlinepresence, including a regularly updated the participationofmanymemberspublic.Buildingonworkpreviousregionaltransportationplan, meetings, whereconstraintsonpersonalschedulesandresponsibilities,includingworkchildcare,oftenlimit of times specific highly the to involvement Hall-typepublic Town limit sometimes can outreach Traditionalof forms enforcement, schooldistricts,andotherinterestedparties. users ofpedestrianwalkwaysandbicycletransportationfacilities,representativesthedisabilitycommunity, law services, privateprovidersoftransportation,representativesuserspublic agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, public ports, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation public affected individuals, included Update Plan Transportation Regional the in engaged parties The the FederalrequirementsofMAP 21/FAST-Act andtheMPO’s publicparticipationplanrequirements. communities for which the plan is being developed. the Additionally, with the MPO engaged stakeholders in ways that meet interaction inclusive and effective ensure to methods outreach new of advantage taking of goal the with Outreach fortheRegional Transportation PlanUpdate(Livability2050)involvedamultiplatformapproachdesigned 2.1.1 2.1 2.0
Participation Activities
Introduction Livability CampaignKickoff Public Participation 21
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
2.1.3 Stakeholder Identification and Meetings Regional Transportation Plan Advisory Committee The Regional Transportation Plan Advisory Committee (RTPAC) was formed with representatives from various governmental and transportation agencies in the Memphis MPO region. The committee met on the following dates to be apprised of the progress of the Livability 2050 RTP Update (including public outreach efforts) and to discuss and provide input on the direction of the plan. The presentations and minutes, from the RTPAC meetings, were made available to the public via postings on the MPO’s website:
• January 18, 2018 — Planning process and schedule, goals and objectives, public engagement
• May 31, 2018 — Initial engagement summary and existing conditions review
• July 26, 2018 — Alternative funding scenarios, funding availability, project review, and prioritization process
• October 16, 2018 — Plan project review, prioritization results, and financial constraint overview
Stakeholders Meetings As part of the RTP public outreach plan, the MPO engaged the general public and also took steps to specifically reach minority and low income communities, elderly populations, and community groups servicing persons with disabilities. Once these groups were identified, meetings were set up to engage with one or more representatives from each group. Each of these meetings provided an opportunity to share information about the development of the Livability 2050 RTP Update and solicit feedback on the issues of greatest interest to each group.
2.1.4 Public Outreach Public outreach was utilized to provide opportunities for public review and comment by the community at key decision points during the creation of the Livability 2050 RTP Update. This dialogue naturally evolved over the life of this project. The process began with an exchange of information about the steps of the plan and insight into issues and concerns raised by local neighborhoods and residents in regard to their current and future transportation system. In establishing the story of the local communities with an extensive series of round one meetings and additional outreach, the MPO gained valuable information which guided the determination of local issues and objectives.
By utilizing technology, the MPO expanded the timeframe in which community feedback could be collected, allowing for this information to be collected up to the establishment of finalized objectives and goals. The MPO then conducted a second round of public outreach designed to continue the dialogue and keep the public engaged. This second round of public meetings provided the communities of the Memphis MPO region with information about the current progress and the next steps of the RTP process, including the goals of the plan, the findings for project recommendations, and the decision-making processes associated with the adoption of the Plan. A third series of public workshops gave attendees an opportunity to view and comment on the results of the financial constraint process. Importantly, this dialogue incorporated feedback to the public about how their prior involvement helped to shape the process and contributed to a plan responsive to the communities’ needs.
Three rounds of general public meetings were utilized in the development of Livability 2050 to ensure that the community could review and comment on the plan at key milestones. The meetings were spread geographically across the region and held at locations on transit routes whenever possible to provide greater accessibility to stakeholders in all areas of the MPO region. Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 detail the locations and dates of the public meetings for the multiple rounds of outreach.
22 Figure 2.1
Public MeetingLocations 23
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 2.1 Public Meetings and Dates
Public Meeting Meeting Number Date Public Meeting Round 1 — Bartlett City Council Chambers 1 February 5, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — MATA Airways Transit Center 2 February 5, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — DeSoto County Board of Supervisors 3 February 6, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — Orange Mound Community Center 4 February 6, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — Oakland Town Hall 5 February 6, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — Collierville Town Hall Board Room 6 February 6, 2018 Public Meeting Round 1 — Byhalia Town Hall 7 February 7, 2018 Engineering and Technical Committee 8 February 8, 2018 Transportation Policy Board 9 February 22, 2018 Engineering and Technical Committee 10 August 2, 2018 Transportation Policy Board 11 August 23, 2018 Public Meeting Round 2 — MATA Airways Transit Center 12 October 23, 2018 Public Meeting Round 2 — DeSoto County Board of Supervisors 13 October 23, 2018 Public Meeting Round 2 — Collierville Town Hall Board Room 14 October 23, 2018 Public Meeting Round 3 — Byhalia Town Hall 15 August 5, 2019 Public Meeting Round 3 — Oakland Town Hall 16 August 6, 2019 Public Meeting Round 3 — DeSoto County Board of Supervisors 17 August 6, 2019 Public Meeting Round 3 — Hickory Hill Community Center 18 August 7, 2019 Public Meeting Round 3 — Bartlett City Hall 19 August 7, 2019
Note: All public presentations were posted on the website and were easily accessible to the public seeking more information on the development of the RTP.
Public Outreach Round 1 Meeting Advertisement and Outreach Notification of the public meetings was distributed by postal and electronic mail. Over 4,200 postcards were mailed to local businesses, community groups, and residents located within a ½ mile radius of the meeting locations. In addition, email blasts were sent to individuals and neighborhood associations across the region. The meetings were also publicized on the Memphis MPO’s website, Twitter, and Facebook accounts. 100 posters describing the meeting were distributed to area businesses and community centers. Other member jurisdictions also shared the advertisement with their residents via social media and online platforms.
Postcard mailer to local residents, businesses, and community groups.
24 on time,orwhich, duetotheirschedule,does notallowthemaviablereturn trip. also notingtheunreliabilityof thecurrentmasstransitsystem,whichdoesnotallowthem toreachworkorclasses As with the survey, audience respondents indicated a lack of alternative options to driving to reach their destination, improve multimodaltransportation andmaintainlocalroadways. of thecommentsindicateda need toimprovethepublictransportationsystem. The publicalsoindicatedaneedto question andanswersessions conductedaftereachpresentationalsovariedbylocation; however, alargenumber Results from the Turning Point surveys for each meeting are included in transportation reliabilitywasmostimportanttothem. multimodal options such biking,walking,andtakingtransit,60%ofparticipantsshared thatimprovingpublic in creatingabalancedmultimodalnetworkwithsafeandreliable accesstoemploymentcenters.Whendiscussing improvements. Membersofthecommunitythatparticipated intheRound1publicmeetingsshowedagreatinterest acknowledge that limited transportation funding is the greatest challenge when considering transportation who primarily valued safe and well-maintained roadways. Survey data also indicated that community members Feedback fromthepublicmeetingsvariedbylocation. As awhole,thereal-timesurveyshowed anaudience person. Meetingnotesareincludedasapartof website and YouTube channeltoprovideaninformationalopportunityforthosewhocouldn’tattendthemeetings in to gainfeedbackandsegueintodiscussion. A narratedvideoofthepresentationwasalsopostedtoMPO’s the discussion. Turning Pointisaninteractivemeetingtoolwhichallowsforreal-timeaudiencepollingasameans followed byaquestionandanswersessionwhichincorporatedtheresultsofjustcompletedsurveytoguide with the public, which was conducted via a real-time survey utilizing the touch-pad system known as Turning Point, as membersofthepublic,canprovidegeolocatedcomments.Eachmeetingalsoincludedaninteractivesession allows participants to answer a series of questions, as well as an integrated mapping application where users, such Section 2.1.5 for additional informationabout the online survey). MetroQuest is an online surveyplatformthat throughout theprocess,includingMPO’s websiteandtheMetroQuestonlinesurveymappingtool(see methods available to stay informed and remain involved concept of livability. Residents were introduced to the various the discussed officials elected region’s the which in video brief was givendetailingtheLivability2050processalongwitha At thebeginningofRound1publicmeeting,apresentation Meeting PresentationandCommunicationTools Round 1PublicMeetingLocationsIncluded: and MarshallCounties,MS( Shelby andFayetteCounties, TN andDeSoto throughout theMemphisMPOregion,including with aseriesofsevenpublicmeetingsheld Round 1ofthePublicOutreachprocessbegan General PublicMeetings Input Meetings • • • • • • •
Byhalia Town Hall,Byhalia,MS. Collierville Town HallBoardRoom,Collierville, TN; and Oakland Town Hall,Oakland, TN; Orange MoundCommunityCenter, Memphis, TN MS; DeSoto CountyBoardofSupervisors,Hernando, MATA Airways Center, Memphis, TN; Bartlett CityCouncilChambers,Bartlett, TN; Figure 2.1). Appendix Cofthisdocument. played duringthepublicmeetings. Above: ExcerptsfromtheMPOLivabilityvideos Appendix C, as well. Comments during the 25
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Environmental Justice Special Outreach
Additional meetings were conducted by the MPO between Round 1 and Round 2 public meetings to engage communities of color, low income communities, people with disabilities, and Limited English Proficiency communities. Environmental justice outreach meetings included presentations with the Memphis Center for Independent Living, the Aging Commission of the Mid-South, and Latino Memphis. These meetings included a presentation on the role of the MPO and the Livability 2050 RTP Update, and a discussion of the major issues the groups experienced with the transportation system. The MPO also solicited feedback from participants via the survey available online and in paper format. The feedback demonstrated a strong desire for improvements to the public transportation system through better or expanded bus services, light rail, and park/ride facilities.
Public Outreach Round 2 Meeting Advertisement and Outreach Round 2 of the Public Outreach process began in October 2018, with a series of three public meetings at locations in the Memphis MPO region. The meeting locations were: Email blast sent by the Memphis MPO inviting • DeSoto County Administration Building, Hernando, MS; individuals to the second round of public outreach for Livability 2050. • MATA Airways Transit Center, Memphis, TN; and
• Collierville Town Hall Board Room, Collierville, TN.
The DeSoto County meeting was held during the day, and the other two in the evening to reach a broader range of residents.
A campaign was kicked off to inform the public about these meetings, utilizing email blasts, postcards, the placement and distribution of 100 posters, and press releases. Over 19,000 postcards were mailed to residents and businesses in areas surrounding the meeting locations based on zip code and individual postal route using the United States Post Office’s Every Door Direct Mail service. This campaign was conducted in English and Spanish.
Input Meetings During this portion of the outreach, the public was briefed on the progress and draft recommendations of the RTP as well as how their participation in the various forms of public engagement helped guide the process. Through the course of the Round 2 meeting presentations, the public was presented with a snapshot of the Round 1 public outreach results. The specific improvements documented via MetroQuest were also noted to the public as having been considered in the plan’s recommendations as potential needs. In addition to reviewing public feedback, the project team shared a series of existing conditions and an overview of future funding availability for maintenance, capital, and set-aside funds (bicycle, pedestrian, and safety projects).
The presentation of the analysis’ key aspects, such as pedestrian and bicycle mobility, highway performance now and in the future, and other topics then led into a discussion of the projects and tradeoffs in funding. An important aspect of the funding breakdown was the tradeoff between various projects based on limited revenues and transportation priorities. Along these lines, the MPO utilized these meetings as a forum where the public could be educated about funding and the decision-making processes related to various competing interests and the metrics for project evaluation.
To further transparency in the public engagement process, details of the evaluation metrics, such as safety, land use, and economic viability, along with others, were presented to the attendees, allowing them to better understand the relationship between the Livability 2050 goals and objectives and the final recommendations.
26 2050-regional-transportation-plan) Livability 2050ProjectPage: (http://memphismpo.org/plans/livability- the in locations at 2019 August, Memphis MPOregion. early The meetinglocations were: in meetings public five of series a by followed was This review. public for The final Round of the Public Outreach process began in late July, 2019 with the release of the Draft RTP document Meeting Advertisement andOutreach Public OutreachRound3 2 PublicOutreachandareincludedin have beendocumentedaspartoftheminutesforRound person. Commentsprovidedbyattendeesatthesemeetings opportunity forthosewhocouldn’tattendthemeetingsin website and YouTube channeltoprovideaninformational narrated A video of the presentation was also posted to the MPO’s study. the within steps next the on clarification involved funding and project selection procedures or a the Livability2050recommendations.Mostofquestions MPO, to specific feedback about additional considerations in clarify how the planning and funding processes work for the Feedback fromtheaudiencerangedquestionsaskingto • • • • •
Bartlett CityHall,Bartlett, TN. Hickory HillCommunityCenter, Memphis, TN; DeSoto CountyBoardofSupervisors,Hernando,MS; Oakland Town Hall,Oakland, TN; Byhalia Town Hall,Byhalia,MS; Appendix C. of interestwiththeprojectteam. plan’s listofprojectsanddiscuss also hadtheopportunityto reviewthe recommendations. Attendees document’s findings of the analyses, and themes of the and inputreceivedfromthepublic,key general overview of the plan’s development presentation duringthemeetingsincludeda the MPO’s Transportation PolicyBoard. The of the review final complete draftplanbeforeitsadoptionby a public the allow to The purposeoftheRound3meetingswas Input Meetings English andSpanish. This campaignwasconductedinboth distribution ofposters,andpressreleases. meeting location,theplacementand businesses withinone-halfmileofeach email blasts,postcardstoresidentsand meetings inJuly2019. The MPOutilized these about public the inform to kicked-off previous tworounds. A campaignwas was conductedinasimilarfashionasthe Outreach fortheRound3publicmeetings 27
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
2.1.5 Online Outreach Dedicated Webpage An project webpage (http://memphismpo.org/plans/livability-2050-regional-transportation-plan) was launched on the Memphis MPO’s website. With regular updates, the website provided the public with the ability to remain involved in the process, even if they were unable to attend the public meetings. By maintaining an online presence, public engagement was accessible anytime during any day of the week. Input received online is included in Appendix C.
By visiting the website, the public could obtain information including updates on key decisions, overviews and narrated presentations from the public meetings, and contact information of staff.
Online Survey To provide a platform for public feedback as part of the outreach plan, the MPO developed a questionnaire which was available online and also printed for distribution at events. The online survey portion of this outreach, with a series of interactive activities through Metroquest and English and Spanish versions were active between December 26, 2017 and April 30, 2018.
Above: Livability 2050 MetroQuest Survey. The survey garnered over 350 responses
The survey was available online and in a printed format at meetings. Over 350 responses were collected during the
28 The final screen of the survey gave participants the option to share demographic information, share additional information, sharedemographic to option the comments, connectwiththeMPOviasocialmedia,andsignupforprojectmailinglist. gaveparticipants the survey of screen final The survey participants. 14% asatransitneed,and5%freightneed. The maponthefollowingpageshowsmarkersplacedby were classified as a roadway need, 19% as a pedestrian need, 18% as a specific safety need, 17% as a bike need, additional informationabouteach.Surveyparticipantsplaced735mapmarkers.Ofthemarkersplaced,27% tosee like Memphis MPOarea,categorizeeachmarkerasroadway,would bicycle,pedestrian,freight,transit,orsafetyandprovide they MPOregion the throughout considered for transportation improvement projects. They were given the option to drop markers on a map of the locations specific show to asked were participants Finally, would benefitmostfromimprovedtransportationconnectivity. about wherethefeltinvestmenttoenhanceconnectionsandchoicesshouldbespent,whichtypesofplaces concerns existed.SimilarlyindividualswhoselectedConnectionsandChoiceswereaskedtoprovideinformation modes they thought would benefit most from safety improvements, as well as where the biggest safety and security For exampleifanindividualselectedSafety&Securityastheirtopprioritytheywouldhavebeenaskedwhich The prioritysurveyquestionstookadeeperdiveintothetopicsthatindividualsselectedastheirtopthreepriorities. economic vitalityalsoremainedimportantissues. system. the transportation of efficiency the improve to The needstoimprovethequalityorconditionofinfrastructure,maintainsustainablegrowth,and need the emphasized also public The concern. biggest was consistentwiththeguidingprinciplesofpreviousregionaltransportationplan,safetyremaining shifted sincethecompletionof2040plan,aswellinformprojecttypeandfundingsplits. The publicfeedback Security) andaskedtoselectranktheirtopthree. This exercisewasdesignedtounderstandifprioritieshad themes (Connections&Choices,EconomicVitality, SustainableGrowth,SystemPreservation,andSafety planning different 5 shown were participants exercise, ranking priority the of exercise. part mapping As interactive The surveywasorganizedaroundthreeprimaryactivities:priorityranking,questions,andan following sectionhighlightskeytakeawaysfromtheonlinesurvey, fullsurveyresultsareincludedin Appendix C. 55 yearsofage. The maponthefollowingpageshowsdistributionofsurveyrespondentsbyhomezipcode. The survey period.Fortypercentof persons did not disclosetheirage;however, of thosewhodid,26% were older than 29
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 2.2 Survey Responses by Home Zip Code
30 reported in Comments and suggestionssubmittedonline, whichwerelocatedthroughout theMemphisMPO region,are Figure 2.3 This featurewasactiveduringthedurationofonlinesurvey. Surveyparticipantsplaced750mapmarkers. In addition to answering survey questions, MetroQuest allows users to place location-specific comments on a map. Online Mapping Appendix C.
Map MarkersPlacedbySurveyParticipants 31
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Twitter and Facebook Public outreach was also conducted via Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube with links to the survey, the public outreach meeting locations, and other aspects of the Livability 2050 plan. Meeting announcements were posted to Twitter and Facebook in both English and Spanish.
32 responses tothosecommentscanbefoundin Changes will occur to this document to address comments received during review. All public comments and MPO revised accordinglybeforebeingadopted. The reviewandadoptionprocesshasadheredtothefollowingkeysteps: Livability 2050hasundergonearobustprocessofreviewandcomment,withcommentsdocumentedtheplan 2.2 • • • • • •
from EPA. September, 2019–FinaladoptedplansubmittedforconformityfindingfromFHWA andFTA, withassistance September, 2019—PlanapprovedbyEngineeringand Technical Committee(ETC)andadoptedby TPB; July–August, 2019—Federalreviewwithpublicandcommentperiod; June 2019–Inter-agencyconsultationgroupreview; May 2019—ReviseddraftprovidedtoFHWA andpublicforreview; March 2019—Draftprovidedto TDOT andMDOT forreview;
Plan ReviewandApprovalMilestones Appendix C. 33
Chapter 2 - Public Participation LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
34
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
36 Source: FHWA Transportation Safetye-Guidebook,https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa15089/chap3.cfm Above: Flowchartdescribing the processforPerformanceMeasurement Figure 3.1 specific measuresandsettargets—andtomeettheuniqueplanningneedsofregion. The MemphisMPOisnowupdatingitsPBPP processtomeetfederalrequirements—includingrequirementstrack RTPs fordeveloping also responsible and approach toplanning. TIPs outcome-based through aperformance-driven, resources inprojectstoachieveindividualtargetsthatmakecollectiveprogresstowardnationalgoals.MPOsare term programming—dependontheabilitytomeetestablishedgoals. As afederalrequirement,stateswillinvest The goalofPBPP istoensurethattransportationinvestmentdecisions—bothlong-termplanningandshort- in theirplanningandprogrammingprocesses. (PBPP) referstothemethodstransportationagenciesuseapplyperformancemanagementasstandardpractice the multimodaltransportationsystemsinanMPOstudyarea.Performance-BasedPlanningandProgramming Performance managementusessysteminformationtomakeinvestmentandpolicydecisionsachievegoalsfor 3.1 3.0
Performance-Based Planning
Steps ofaPerformance-BasedPlanningProcess Approach Plan Performance-Based 37
Chapter 3 - Performance-Based Plan Approach LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
3.1.1 National Goal Areas and Measures Highway Performance Through the federal rule-making process, the FHWA requires state DOTs and MPOs to monitor the transportation system using specific performance measures associated with the national goal areas prescribed in MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The following list describes these national goal areas for highway performance as well as performance measures. However, the Memphis MPO may choose to take on additional measures beyond what is described.
Safety—to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
• Number of fatalities
• Fatality rate (per 100 million vehicle miles traveled)
• Number of serious injuries
• Serious injury rate (per 100 million vehicle miles traveled)
• Number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries
Infrastructure Condition—to maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair
• Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in good condition
• Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in poor condition
• Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) in good condition
• Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in poor condition
• Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in good condition
• Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in poor condition
System Reliability—to improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system
• Percent of person miles traveled on the Interstate System that are reliable
• Percent of person miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality—to improve the National Highway Freight Network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development
• Truck Travel Time Reliability Index
Congestion Reduction—to achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System
• Annual hours of peak-hour excessive delay per capita
• Percent of non-single-occupant vehicle travel
38 Reporting Targets 3.1.2 TransitManagement Asset Safety measures. rule fortransitassetmanagement. The MemphisMPOisrequiredtocoordinatewithMATA tosettargetsforthese identifies performancemeasuregoalsoutlinedintheFTA NationalPublicSafety Transportation Planandinthefinal share informationwithMPOsandstatessothatallplansperformancereportsarecoordinated. The listbelow and safetyplans,toreporttheirprogresstowardachievingtargets.Publictransportationoperatorsmust required toestablishperformancetargetsforsafetyandstateofgoodrepair, todeveloptransitassetmanagement Public transitfundrecipients—whichcanincludestates,localauthorities,andpublictransportationoperators—are Transit Performance *Only appliesinnon-attainmentormaintenanceareasoveraprescribedpopulationthreshold. enhancing thenaturalenvironment Environmental Sustainability* • • • • • • • • • • • • • • anticipated effectoftheprogram onachievingestablishedtargets. The TIP mustlinkinvestmentprioritiestothetargets inLivability2050anddescribe,totheextentpracticable, the of thetransportationsystem, and reportonprogressmade. The Livability2050RTP Updatemustdescribe theperformancemeasuresandtargets,evaluate consistency totheextentpracticable. TDOT, MDOT, theMemphisMPO,andMATA mustcoordinateperformancemeasuretargetsto ensure a quantifiabletargetspecifictotheplanningarea. For eachperformancemeasure,thepolicycommitteewilleither decidetosupportastatewidetargetorestablish MATA setsperformancetargets. The MemphisMPOisrequiredtoestablishperformancetargets nolaterthan180daysafter Requirements Modelscale Facilities: Percentageoffacilitieswithinanassetclassratedbelow3.0ontheFT their ULB Rolling Stock:Percentageofrevenuevehicleswithinaparticularassetclassthathavemetorexceeded Equipment: PercentageofvehiclesthathavemetorexceededtheirUsefulLifeBenchmark(ULB) to havearatinglessthan3.0onthe Infrastructure Condition:Percentageoftracksegments(bymode)thathaveperformancerestrictions,considered Mean distancebetweenmajormechanicalfailuresbymode( Total numberofreportableeventsandratepertotalvehiclerevenuemilesbymode(TBD) Total numberofreportableinjuriesandratepertotalvehiclerevenuemilesbymode(TBD) Total numberofreportablefatalitiesandratepertotalvehiclerevenuemilesbymode(TBD Total emissionsreduction*
Federal Requirements —to enhancetheperformanceoftransportationsystemwhileprotectingand TERM Scale TBD) A Transit Economic ) TDOT, MDOT, or 39
Chapter 3 - Performance-Based Plan Approach LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
• The Memphis MPO must also report to TDOT and MDOT the baseline roadway transportation system condition, performance data, and progress toward achieving targets.
Assessments • FHWA and FTA will not directly evaluate the Memphis MPO’s progress toward meeting performance measure targets. Instead, the Memphis MPO’s performance will be assessed as part of regular cyclical transportation planning process reviews, including Transportation Management Area certification reviews and the Federal Planning Finding, which is associated with approval of the STIP.
• FHWA and FTA will determine if TDOT, MDOT, and MATA have met or made significant progress toward selected targets for the transportation system. 3.2 Livability 2050 Performance Framework
The first step in creating a regional transportation plan is to establish planning themes that will provide direction for the entirety of the planning process and will serve as a tool for prioritizing recommendations—an important step as the Memphis region faces a shortage of transportation dollars to fund identified needs. Planning themes for the Livability 2050 RTP Update were developed with stakeholders and the public and reflect the community’s vision for the future of the transportation system. The planning themes combine guidance given through FAST Act federal legislation with localized goals and objectives to provide the framework for transportation decision-making. Livability 2050 goals and objectives were updated and modified from the previous regional transportation plan goals and objectives to be in line with updated federal guidance and performance measure requirements. Table 3.1 shows the Livability 2050 planning themes, goals, objectives, and how they relate to the previous regional transportation plan’s goals.
During the previous regional transportation plan’s process, much of the public input received during initial outreach efforts was very consistent in relation to investment goals for the Memphis MPO region. Several key themes were repeated and focused around investments to improve the condition, quality, and efficiency of the existing transportation system. This input was consistent regardless of the jurisdiction or demographic providing feedback. These themes orient towards the user experience of the current transportation system and were almost universally voiced through the outreach efforts. While these themes were largely consistent, initial input on how to address these challenges varied. A spectrum of potential investment strategies was discussed, either through public outreach or through the outcomes and recommendations of key studies. Strategies were often discussed from a perspective of advancing either regional mobility or local livability considerations, but not both. A general summary of this input can be categorized into mobility and livability issues. Elements of the 2040 survey that continued to resonate with the public during the 2050 RTP Update include a heavy emphasis on the condition of existing transportation infrastructure and provision of more modal choices. Additionally, the concept of mobility and livability issues are being carried forward in the Livabilty 2050 RTP Update, as discussed in Section 4.8.
40 choices thatprovideaccessto employment,education,andotherbasicneeds.” definition oflivabilityas“supporting andenhancingcommunitieswithmoreaffordable and reliabletransportation as residentshaveindicateda needfortheseadditionaltransportationoptions. This isconsistentwiththeregion’s motorized transportationina context sensitivemanner, faster traveltimesbutmustbebalancedwithnon- and morerapidfreightmovementgenerallymeans activities and neighborhood quality of life. More efficient it iscrucialtoachievecompatibilitybetweenthose employment opportunitiesandforeconomicsuccess, depends heavilyonthefreightsectortoprovide From alivabilityperspective,thoughtheregion economic gap. mobility oftheregion’s workforcetoavoidnegativeeconomicramifications,andexacerbatingafast-growing to areaswherenon-motorizedtransportationisverydifficult. Improvementsareneededtoensurethemultimodal based onagrowthpolicyofsuburbansprawlandannexation. This growthpolicyhascausedjobstodecentralize implies theneedformajorroadandintermodalimprovements. Additionally, theregionhashistoricallydeveloped maintain acompetitiveeconomicadvantage,inparticularasitrelatestothemovementoffreightandgoods. This From amobilityperspective,trafficflowto,from,andwithintheregionisessentialifMemphisMPOto (and desired)formandfunction of aroadwaywillbecriticalto advancing bothmobilityand Understanding theexisting livability objectives. 41
Chapter 3 - Performance-Based Plan Approach LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
The feedback gathered through the previous regional transportation plan’s public outreach activities was used to shape the goals and objectives for it and served as the foundation for the performance-based planning approach. The performance framework developed for the previous regional transportation plan was specifically designed to support an investment decision-making process that effectively and fairly navigates these types of regional mobility and local livability trade-offs, while being compliant with proposed MAP-21 and ASTF Act Federal rules, thereby supporting the national transportation system as well. To operationalize this approach within the performance framework, a set of five investment context types was defined during previous regional transportation plan and carried forward in the update to infuse land use context and a sense of investment “scale” into the plan development process. This scale supports livability considerations at the community level without impeding mobility considerations at regional level. It helps support more targeted investment decisions that better match a broad range of transportation solutions to a broad range of transportation needs.
The following investment contexts were applied within the performance framework to help balance consideration of regional and local needs. Potential projects were assigned to a context based on their function within the region and then evaluated by criteria tailored to reflect the appropriate balance between livability and mobility:
1. Interregional — Investments aligned with big-ticket capital or maintenance needs to ensure the region is well connected within the Southeast and the nation to maintain regional economic competitiveness. Investments support interstate mobility, intermodal connections, and freight/logistics hubs.
2. Regional Centers — Investments support strategic connections between regional activity and economic centers through improved mobility and travel time reliability on corridor connections to key centers and last-mile connectivity to ensure effective access to a regional system.
3. Town Centers — Investments support economically viable and thriving community centers; specifically, redevelopment opportunities, multimodal connections and access to a mix of business, retail, and residential uses.
4. Neighborhood Communities — Investments support healthy, thriving communities through improved system operations and multimodal access to community resources within primarily residential areas.
5. Undeveloped — Investment strategies protect and preserve undeveloped or environmentally sensitive areas.
42 February 22,2018. by theETConFebruary8,2018andwereapprovedMemphisMPO’ project levelevaluation,wasreviewedbytheRTPAC inJanuary2018. The goalsandobjectiveswere approved The Livability2050PerformanceFramework,inclusiveofgoals/objectivesandperformancemetricsforsystems Livability 2050isprovidedin performance measures.Detailonevaluationcriteriaandtheprojectprocessappliedfor plan’s goals,theupdatedLivability2050planningthemes,andobjectives,aswellapplicableFederal Table 3.1onthefollowingpagessharesmatrixofnationalgoalareas,previousregionaltransportation Chapter 7.Individualperformancetargetsaresharedindetail s Transportation PolicyBoard(TPB)on Chapter 9. 43
Chapter 3 - Performance-Based Plan Approach LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 2 Percentage of Interstate System mileage providing reliable truck travel time
Freight Reliability • Federal Performance Measures access to educational, health, and recreational opportunities regional employment markets transportation services into areas not currently served implementation transit improvements as incidental improvements as roadway improvements occur. greenway/multiuse plans freight corridors and within key freight hubs benefits associated with travel and tourism when prioritizing transportation projects. Improve bicycle and pedestrian Expand transit service to unserved Expand rural human services Support complete streets Support bicycle, pedestrian, and Support integrated and expanded Reduce truck delay on critical Include the economic development support last mile connections for key employment origins and destinations Advance TDM strategies to 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.2 2.3 3.2 Reduce intermodal conflict and delay 3.3 Advance an Airport/Aerotropolis TMA 2.1 4.1 Livability 2050 RTP Update Livability 2050 RTP Objectives 1.1 3.1 AST Act legislation. AST Goal 2: Support a fully integrated multimodal network that advances the concept of complete streets Goal 4: Enhance travel and tourism Livability 2050 RTP Livability 2050 RTP Update Goals Goal 1: Improve multimodal access to residential, and community, employment resources Goal 3: Ensure the region is well positioned to remain a leader in global logistics and freight movement 2040 RTP Goal 6: 2040 RTP Improve multimodal access to community and employment resources No relevant goal statement Livability 2040 Goals RTP Goal 6: 2040 RTP Improve multimodal access to community and employment resources 2040 RTP Goal 5: 2040 RTP Ensure the region is well positioned to remain a leader in global logistics and freight movement 1 1 Enhance travel and tourism FAST Act Federal FAST Planning Factors Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency Livability 2050 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
The blue box indicates a new national planning emphasis area identified in the F 1 Planning Theme Connections and Choices Economic Vitality Table 3.1
44 FAST Act Federal Livability 2040 Livability 2050 RTP Livability 2050 RTP Update Federal Performance Planning Theme Planning Factors RTP Goals Update Goals Objectives Measures2 Increase the safety of the 5.1 Support projects that address an transportation system for existing, identified safety or security Safety (5-Year Rolling Average) motorized and nonmotorized need • Number of Fatalities users. 2040 RTP Goal 2: Goal 5: 5.2 Support projects, programs, and • Fatality Rate (Per 100 million VMT) Safety and Increase the safety Increase the safety policies that advance safe and • Number of Serious Injuries Security Increase the security of the and security of the and security of the secure travel for all users over the transportation system for transportation system transportation system for plan horizon • Serious Injury Rate (Per 100 million motorized and nonmotorized for all users all users VMT) 5.3 Continue coordination with TDOT users • Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and MDOT to meet federal safety and Serious Injuries performance targets Goal 6: Protect and enhance the 2040 RTP Goal 4: 6.1 Encourage access management environment, promote energy planning and design to maintain Advance corridor and Total Emissions Reduction conservation, improve the Advance corridor minimum level of service (on community redevelopment quality of life, and promote and community regional mobility corridors) opportunities to improve • Total emissions reductions by consistency between redevelopment economic development, applicable pollutants under the CMAQ transportation improvements opportunities to 6.2 Encourage context-sensitive public health, and quality program and State and local planned improve economic solutions derived from integrated of life growth and economic development and transportation/land use planning development patterns quality of life efforts
Sustainable 7.1 Preserve and protect natural Growth resources 2040 RTP Goal 3: Goal 7: 7.2 Provide multimodal, active Improve the resiliency and Minimize adverse transportation options that reduce reliability of the transportation impacts of Minimize adverse vehicle miles travelled and air system and reduce or mitigate transportation impacts of transportation pollution and improve public health stormwater impacts of surface investment on the investment on the transportation (social, natural, (social, natural, historic) 7.3 Design the transportation network historic) environment environment in a way that protects air and water and public health quality, manages storm water runoff and preserves green space 45
Chapter 3 - Performance-Based Plan Approach LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 2 Percent of the Person-Miles Traveled Traveled Percent of the Person-Miles on the Interstate that are reliable Traveled Percent of the Person Miles on the Non-Interstate National Highway System that are reliable Congestion Traffic Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita Percentage of Non-Single Occupancy Travel Vehicle Percent of revenue vehicles exceeding useful life benchmark (ULB) Percent of non-revenue vehicles exceeding useful life benchmark (ULB) Percent of facilities rated under 3.0 on Economic Requirements Transit FTA’s Model (TERM) scale Percent of track segments by rail mode that have performance restrictions Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in good condition Percentage of pavements on the Interstate System in poor condition Percentage of the non-interstate National Highway System in good condition Percentage of the non-interstate National Highway System in poor condition Percentage of National Highway System bridges classified as in good condition Percentage of National Highway System bridges classified as in poor condition
NHS Travel Time Reliability Time NHS Travel Pavement Conditions • • • • • Asset Management Transit • • • • • • • • Bridge Condition • • Federal Performance Measures corridor connections to regional employment centers technology applications before system expansion is priority, considered manage travel demand on existing infrastructure before adding new infrastructure techniques, materials, and practices that minimize maintenance needs over the plan horizon Focus capacity investment on Improve system operations through Maintain existing assets as a Prioritize strategies to better Promote construction/maintenance bottlenecks as a priority Address critical highway
8.2 8.3 9.2 9.3 8.1 9.1 Livability 2050 RTP Update Livability 2050 RTP Objectives
people and goods Goal 9: Maintain existing transportation assets and infrastructure Livability 2050 RTP Livability 2050 RTP Update Goals Goal 8: Reduce travel delay for 2040 RTP Goal 1: 2040 RTP Maintain existing transportation assets and infrastructure Livability 2040 Goals RTP Goal 7: 2040 RTP Reduce travel delay for people and goods Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system FAST Act Federal FAST Planning Factors Promote efficient system management and operation 2Performance Measures shown are only those being considered at a federal level. You can read more at the MPOs website: http://memphismpo.org/resources/ You 2Performance Measures shown are only those being considered at a federal level. trends/performance-measures Planning Theme System Preservation
46
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
48 specific needsorgapsisprovidedin Each ofthesethemesisdescribedingreaterdetailthefollowing sections. A briefsummaryofsomethekey including thefollowing: in thepreviousregionaltransportationplanwererevisited.Duringthisprocess,severalkeytakeawaysemerged, In theprocessofdevelopingLivability2050RTP Update,theexistingconditionsandidentifiedneedsdeveloped recommendations havebeencarriedforwardtoLivability2050. corridors intheregionbasedondesiredmobilityorlivabilityfunctionofcorridor. This assessmentand conducted aspartoftheneedsanalysistodefineinvestmentandstrategiesforasamplestrategic As partofthepreviousregionaltransportationplan,aMobilityandLivabilityCorridor Assessment wasalso Goals andObjectivescanbefoundin multimodal accessandconnectivityfortransportationwithindisadvantagedcommunities. A completelistofthe roadway performanceintermsofcongestion,safety/security, andfreightmovement;multimodalmobility; Transportation PlanUpdate(RTP) goalsandobjectivesto include:roadwayconditionsforpavementandbridge; The analysisfocusedonanumberofplanningemphasisareasthatalignwiththeLivability2050Regional analysis wasusedtoidentifyandevaluatepotentialtransportationinvestmentstrategies: of thetransportationsysteminMemphisUrban Area MetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO)region. This Transportation PlanUpdatedevelopment. The analysisincludedanevaluationofexistingandfutureconditions An analysisofexistingandfuturetransportationsystemneedswasconductedasparttheLivability2050Regional Source Data: Planning BoardinFebruary2018. • • • • • • • 4.0
freight movementandrelateddevelopment. Freight logisticsandgoodsmovementiskeytotheregion; thereisaneedtofocusonremovingbarriers ensure safeandcomfortabletravelforallsystemusers; to focuslessonhowmuchthesystemisexpandedandmore onhowthesystemisconnectedandenhancedto There aresignificantopportunitiestoadvancemultimodal options intheregion;investmentshouldbetargeted travel needs; is changingintheregion;thereaneedtobetteraligntransportationservicestravelpatternsand The distributionofhowpopulation(includingtransportationdisadvantagedpopulations)andemployment without additionalfunding; important totheregion:roadwaysystemperformswelltoday, butwilldeterioratebelowacceptablelevels As expressedduringthepreviousregionaltransportationplan,preservationofexistinginfrastructureremains Chapter 8.0thenliststheprioritized,fiscallyconstrainedsetofprojectrecommendations. Chapter 7.0describeshowthe could beevaluatedthroughtheperformance-basedprocessoutlinedin Chapter 5.0describeshowtheresultsfrom
1 Livability2050RTP Updategoalsandobjectiveswere adoptedbytheMemphisMPOTransportation Investment Needs System Conditionsand Chapter 4conditionsanalysissupportstheprojectevaluationprocess;and Table 4.1. Chapter 3ofthisdocument. Chapter 4wereusedtoformulateadditionalprojectconceptsthat Chapter 7; 49
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 4.1 Summary of Key Needs and Gaps
Topic Selected Needs/Gaps Roadway preservation 80% of NHS pavement good or fair Bridge preservation 93% of NHS bridge deck area non-structurally deficient Most congested segments currently include: I-40, I-240, Poplar Avenue, Roadway congestion Germantown Parkway, Goodman Road Higher crash rates at intersections and involving vulnerable road users.High crash corridors include: • US 72/Poplar Avenue • MS 302/Goodman Road • Winchester Road • U.S. 78/Lamar Avenue Safety/Security • U.S. 51/Elvis Presley Boulevard • SR 14/Austin Peay Highway • TN 177/Germantown Parkway • Airways Boulevard • Hacks Cross Road • Highland Street Transit
• Connections to major employment centers, particularly from population centers and major environmental justice (EJ) populations
North-south connectivity
• Access for large EJ populations outside MATA’s service area, including Lakeland, Gallaway, Braden, east of Millington, less urbanized portions of east central Shelby County, Horn Lake, Lynchburg, and Marshall County west of Cayce Road
Bicycle Multimodal mobility/access • Only 1/3 of bicyclists feel safe, and most prefer separate paths/protected lanes • Links to more densely populated areas such as Southaven, Horn Lake and Olive Branch. • Marshall County portion of the MPO lacks formal bicycle infrastructure to serve the EJ communities
Pedestrian
• Whitehaven, the Raleigh community, Bartlett, Germantown, the Capleville community, Lakeland, Gallaway, and Braden have portions with limited or no pedestrian infrastructure • Modest growth in freight activity to occur between 2015-2025 Freight movement • Last mile connectivity to intermodal facilities, particularly port and airport Raleigh-Millington, Bartlett-Braden, and Olive Branch-Walls corridors have Mobility/livability corridors limited congestion (i.e., not a commute-oriented corridor), town center and complete streets connections, and redundant (parallel) capacity; may benefit from complete streets improvements
50 these resultsarepresentedasnetwork-levelsummaries. condition ( miles ontheNHS,51percentareingoodcondition,29faircondition;and20poor and principalarterialswithasmallamountofmileageonlowerroadtypes( The NHSintheMemphisMPOregionconsistsofapproximately2,400lane-miles,whicharemainlyoninterstates The followingdefinitionsareused: performance measures. used toevaluatethesystem’s infrastructurecondition Roughness Index(IRI). This dataisthesame in good/fair/poorconditionbasedontheInternational Pavement conditionisreportedaspercentoflane-miles collector networks. Federal-aid eligiblesystem,forInterstate,arterial,and HPMS dataissampledata,collectedacrosstheentire operating characteristicsofthenation’s highways. data ontheextent,condition,performance,use,and national-level highwayinformationsystemthatincludes Highway Administration (FHWA). The HPMSisa Department of Transportation (TDOT)totheFederal Department of Transportation (MDOT)and Tennessee System (HPMS)datasubmittedbyMississippi complete (2016)HighwayPerformanceMonitoring region wasdeterminedusingthelatestavailable, Roadway pavementconditionintheMemphisMPO 4.1.1 4.1 • • •
Poor Condition:IRI>170 Fair Condition:IRIbetween95and170,inclusive Good Condition:IRI<95
Pavement Roadway Preservation Figure 4.2),foratotalof80percentthesystemingood/faircondition.BecauseHPMSissampledata,
Above: Maintainingtheexistingroadwaynetworkin Memphis region. Figure 4.1).Outofthese2,400lane- 51
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.1 National Highway System in Memphis MPO Region
52 Figure 4.2
System (HPMS) National HighwaySystem(2016)PerformanceMonitoring 53
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.1.2 Bridge Inventory and condition data for bridges in the Memphis MPO region were assembled from the 2017 National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data submitted by TDOT and MDOT to FHWA as part of their requirements for the National Bridge Inspection Standards.
Currently, there are 1,454 structures in the Memphis MPO region. Of these, 1,037 are bridges and the remaining 417 are culverts at or exceeding 20 feet in length (a requirement for inclusion in the NBI database). It is important to note that the existing condition assessment and future needs in this section pertain to bridges only. Of the 1,037 bridges in the Memphis MPO region, the majority are owned and maintained by TDOT (462 bridges), along with local agencies (277 bridges), county agencies (156 bridges), while MDOT owns and maintains a smaller portion (131 bridges), and 11 bridges are owned and maintained by other agencies, as shown in Figure 4.3. As of 2017, the average age of the bridges in the Memphis MPO region was 40 years.
FHWA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 5886) a final rule establishing performance measures for bridge and pavement conditions. This rule modified the definitions of how bridges have traditionally been classified. The term functionally obsolete has been phased out of deficiency ratings, and categories are now as follows:
• Structurally Deficient (Poor) — Bridges are considered structurally deficient if significant load carrying elements are found to be in poor condition due to deterioration and/or damage. A structurally deficient bridge requires significant maintenance and repairs to remain in service. The classification of a bridge as “structurally deficient” does not imply that it is unsafe for travel.
• Good or Fair — Bridges that are not structurally deficient.
• Of the 1,037 bridges in the Memphis MPO region, 5 percent are structurally deficient and 95 percent are not deficient Figure( 4.4). Figure 4.5 on the following page shows the location of structurally deficient bridges.
Figure 4.3 Bridges by Ownership Figure 4.4 Existing Bridge Deficiency Status 1 5
27 44 34
15 61 13
Co nty o a t e ood ai St t a y e i ient oo
Source: 2017 National Bridge Inventory
54 Figure 4.5
2017 NationalBridgeInventory(NBI)Condition 55
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.2 Roadway Congestion
Roadway congestion occurs regularly on numerous roads in the region as traffic approaches and exceeds the roadway’s carrying capacity. Roadway congestion has significant implications for the environment, residents’ health, employee commute travel time, efficient freight and goods movement in and through the region, and overall quality of life for the residents of the Memphis MPO region; all factors that can directly impact overall economic and community stability.
Transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft are beginning to influence travel patterns and habits. These impacts, as well as those expected in the future resulting from autonomous, connected, and electric vehicles, are explored in the recommendations sections of Livability 2050. Above: Roadway congestion has been identified at 4.2.1 Existing Congested Conditions several key hotspots around the Memphis region. The Memphis MPO’s Travel Demand Model was used to define areas of existing, as well as projected, congestion. Figure 4.6 illustrates estimated congestion levels derived from the regional travel model for 2017. The travel demand model produces congestion levels for four weekday time periods – AM Peak (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), Mid- day (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), PM Peak (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), and Overnight (7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). The AM peak is represented here as an illustration of the worst-case congested conditions.
Traffic congestion in Figure 4.6 is described in terms of Level of Service. The value for Level of Service is denoted with a letter from A (free-flow conditions) to F (over capacity). The Memphis MPO defines congestion as those roadways that operate with a Level of Service E or F, where the traffic volume approaches or exceeds the capacity of the roadway.
56 Figure 4.6
2017 Congestion,MemphisMPOTravelDemandModel 57
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Current congestion hot spots according to the travel demand model, as shown in Figure 4.6, include:
• I-240 in Shelby County
• I-40 northeast of I-240 in Shelby County
• SR-385 southeast of I-240 in Shelby County
• Lamar Avenue in Shelby County
• I-55 in Shelby and Desoto County and
• Several arterial roadways in Shelby County east of I-240. 4.2.2 Future Congested Conditions Population and Employment Growth The base year control totals for population and employment were developed from Census data and Infogroup data, respectively. The future year control totals for both population and employment were based on a combination of base year data and TDOT county-level forecasts for population and employment. The future year control totals were vetted through the MPO’s Planning and Land Use Advisory Committee (PLAC) and ETC. The Transportation Policy Board reaffirmed the use of the population and employment control totals in development of the 2050 LivabilityTP R on February 8, 2018. Additional information on the methodology used to develop base and projected population and employment in the region can be found in Appendix B, Section 3.1, and in the report entitled “Memphis MPO Land Use Model Update,” which is available on the Memphis MPO website.2
The results of the population and employment projections show that the Memphis MPO region is expected to experience moderate growth over the plan horizon. As shown in Table 4.2, the socioeconomic projections being used for the travel demand model show about 33.55% growth in employment, 19.70% growth in total households, and 20.03% in total population between 2020 and 2050. Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 show employment density in employees per square mile for 2017 and 2050, respectively. In general, the trend for employment growth shows increasing densities around current employment centers, such as those in Midtown and Downtown Memphis, with continued decentralization of employment activity near the Memphis International Airport and along regional corridors such as Lamar Avenue and along I-40 heading to the northeast. Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 show population density in persons per square mile for 2017 and 2050, respectively.
Table 4.2 Socioeconomic Data from Travel Demand Model
Memphis Travel Demand Model Region Total Employment Total Households Total Population 2020 736,971 526,369 1,412,115 2030 849,890 564,872 1,517,389 2040 973,918 606,419 1,631,200 2050 1,109,097 655,469 1,765,774 Percent Change 2020 to 2050 33.55% 19.70% 20.03%
Source Data: 2 http://www.memphismpo.org/sites/default/files/public/01%20-%20Memphis_LUM_MDR_ 03-23-2015.pdf
Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model
58 Figure 4.7
2017 EmploymentDensity 59
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.8 2050 Employment Density
60 Figure 4.9
2017 PopulationDensity 61
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.10 2050 Population Density
62 be dedicatedforaspecificproject,theplanningprocessrequiresthatprojectsin within agroupingaresmallenoughinscalethattheydonotwarrantindividualidentification.Whilefundsmay or airqualityimprovements. A groupingisaset-asideoffundsforsimilartypeprojects.Projectsthatarefunded of thecurrent TIP cycleortheyrepresentagroupingoffundingforvariousprograms,suchasmaintenance,safety, Improvement Program(TIP)projectsnotlistedin of allroadwaysonthisnetwork. The E+Cprojectlistisprovidedin referred toasthe2050E+Cnetwork. This providesabaselineforcomparisonofvariousfutureinvestmentscenarios. The 2050baselinenetworkis open fortrafficbeforetheendofcurrent TIP cycle. those thatareidentifiedinthe Transportation ImprovementProgram(TIP)withconstructionfundinganticipatedtobe improvements areimplemented. The roadwaysintheE+Cnetworkarethosecurrentlyopenfortrafficand (E+C) roadwaynetworkisusedtoestimatewherecongestionlikelyoccurinthefutureifnoothertransportation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/. urban creating14possiblefunctional classificationtypes.Forfurtherinformation,please visittheFHW Major Collector, Minorcollector, andLocal. Thesesevenroadwaycategoriesarefurtherclassifiedas eitherruralor 4 Source Data: but withincreasedintensity. Also, afewnewhotspotsshowupincluding: congestion hotspotspredictedbythemodel’s E+Cnetworkaresimilartothemodel’s currentcongestionhotspots, Figure 4.12showsthecongestionresultsfromMemphisMPO Travel DemandModel’s E+Cnetwork.Future is availableontheMemphisMPO’s website(www.memphismpo.org). TIP. Formoreinformationaboutthefundingthatisavailableorcommitted,refertolatestcopyof TIP, which expenditures inthe TIP tobeconsistentwiththeRTP andtheRTP willserveastheguidetodevelopmentof the FiscallyConstrainedProjectList, such aswidening,realignment,majorintersectionimprovements,andnewroadwaysmustfirstbeincludedin At thetimeofRTP adoption,theMemphisMPOisalsoadoptingFY 2020-2023 TIP. Majorroadprojects, possible fundingsources. 2050 RTP horizon,otherthanthose projectsdefinedas“ExistingandCommitted.” population andemploymentgrowth. The 2050congestionanalysisassumednoadditionalinvestmentoverthe The traveldemandmodelwasusedtoforecast2050congestionlevelsintheregion,accountingforanticipated for bothautoandtrucktravelovertheplanhorizon. Population andemploymentgrowthwillexacerbatecongestionchallengesintheregionbyincreasingdemand Future Congestion are sevenroadwaycategories, whichinclude:Interstate,Freeway/Expressway according totheroleitplaysin theoverallsystemoflocal,stateandnation’ open totrafficbeforetheendofcurrentTIP cycle. in 2010baseyearmodel)plusnewregionallysignificantcapacity programmedforconstructionandanticipatedtobe Functionalclassificationistheprocessbywhichstreetsand highwaysaregroupedintoclasses,orsystems, • • • •
Several arterialroadwaysnearBartlett, TN northeastofI-240 Several arterialroadwaysinsouthernShelbyCounty/northernDesotoCountyand US-61 insouthernShelbyCounty/northernDesotoCounty US-78/Lamar Avenue 3 TheE+Cprojectlistincludesallexistingregionallysignificant transportationinfrastructure(asshown Table 8.2oftheRTP, priortoinclusioninthe TIP. Federallawrequires Figure 4.11 showstheexisting2017networkandfunctionalclassification Table 4.3includeprojectsthatwouldnotbecompletedbytheend TableTransportationremaining 4.3.The s streetandhighwaynetwork. There , Principal 3 The ExistingandCommitted TIP provideeitherproposedor Arterial, Minor Arterial, A websiteat 4
63
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Full Project Description Replace or repair overhead bridges. Interchange modification Widen from 2 lanes to 4 and 5 Widen from 2 lanes to 4 divided typical section Reconstruct and widen from 4 lanes to 6 (divided) Intersection improvements to include channelization at the exit ramps onto SR-302. WB left turns to Interstate Drive and EB left turns to Southcrest Parkway will be required travel through signalized intersections from the ramps. Widen Highway 70 from 4 lanes to 5 just east of SR- The widening is to provide Airline Road. 385 to just west of for a left turn lane associated with the installation of traffic control signal, which will not increase roadway capacity. Project includes the installation of a traffic signal at Highway 70 - Jetway Road intersection. Project scope will accessible ADA include designated bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements. Widen SR-205 (Airline Road) from 2 lanes to 5 lanes, with the drainage improvements, sidewalks, addition of curb & gutter, The project extends from bike lanes and other amenities. Airline - Milton I-40 on the south end to 1,100' north of Wilson Intersection. Termini/Intersection Overhead bridges at Norfolk Southern Railroad and SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) Interchange at Crump Boulevard (Austin Peay Highway) From east of Old Covington Pike to SR- 385 (Paul Barrett Pkwy) (Austin Peay Highway) From SR-385 (Paul Barrett Pkwy) to East of Kerrville-Rosemark Road Mississippi State Line to South of Shelby Drive SR-302 from Interstate Drive to Southcrest Parkway US 70 at Jetway Road From the Hall Creek bridge at I-40 north to 1,100' north of the Airline - Milton Wilson intersection Project Name I-240 I-55 SR-14 SR-14 SR-4 (US 78/Lamar Avenue) I-55 Highway 70 at Jetway Road Improvements SR-205 (Airline Road) North Widening TIP No. TIP TN-NHPP-2014-01 TN-IM-2011-01 TN-STP-2016-01 TN-STBG-2017-02 TN-NHPP-2014-02 MS-HSIP-2017-01 STP-M-2014-09 STP-M-2014-10 8 ID 49 63 64 43 33 32 E+C Project List 600 RTP RTP
Lead Agency TDOT TDOT TDOT TDOT TDOT MDOT Arlington Arlington Table 4.3
64 Lead RTP TIP No. Project Name Termini/Intersection Full Project Description Agency ID Widen to a four lane divided roadway with a raised median Austin Peay Highway and median openings and turn lanes for access to existing Bartlett 40 STP-M-2006-03 Old Brownsville Road (SR-14) to Kirby Whitten driveways. Project scope will include designated bicycle facilities and ADA accessible pedestrian improvements. Reconstruct intersection of Wolf River Boulevard and Germantown Road at Germantown Road at Germantown Road, with widening and reconstruction of traffic Germantown 67 STP-M-2014-07 Wolf River Boulevard Wolf River Boulevard signals on Germantown Road from Brierbrook Road to Wolf Trail Cove. Construct a 6 lane heavily landscaped roadway adjacent to US-51 / SR-3 (Elvis Commercial Parkway to Memphis 347-A ENH-2010-01 Graceland. From Craft to Winchester widen from 4 to 6 lanes Presley Boulevard) South of Winchester with median Improve corridor to a parkway design; 4 lane with median and Memphis 227-A STP-M-2000-09 North Second Street I-40 to Cedar bike lanes Widen existing two lane roadway to seven lanes. Project will include sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, bike facilities, Memphis 601 STP-M-2006-09 Holmes Road – East Malone to Lamar curb ramps, and modern traffic signals with camera detection and emergency vehicle preemption. Intersection of Raleigh- Raleigh-Millington Millington 602 STBG-M-2017-06 Millington Road and Modify Intersection Road @ SR-385 SR-385 Green T Road to Byhalia Hernando 37 MS-LSTBG-2017-01 McIngvale Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Road 65
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.11 Functional Classification of Existing 2017 Network
66 Source Data:MemphisMPO Travel DemandModel operate withaLevelofService EorF, wherethetrafficvolumeapproaches orexceedsthecapacityofroadway. from A (free-flowconditions)toF(over capacity). TheMemphisMPOdefinescongestionasthose roadwaysthat Traffic congestionisdescribedinterms ofLevelService. ThevalueforLevelofService isdenotedwithaletter Figure 4.12
Model Future Year(2050E+C)Congestion,MemphisMPOTravelDemand 67
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.3 Safety and Security
Based on a review of recent available crash data, most safety issues in the Memphis MPO region are typical of major metropolitan areas. A significant portion of crashes occur at intersections, both for motor vehicle crashes and for those involving bicyclists and pedestrians.
High crash corridors in the region include many of its most heavily-traveled major arterial routes:
• U.S. 72/Poplar Avenue
• MS 302/Goodman Road
• Winchester Road
• U.S. 78/Lamar Avenue
• U.S. 51/Elvis Presley Boulevard
• SR 14/Austin Peay Highway
• TN 177/Germantown Parkway
• Airways Boulevard
• Hacks Cross Road
• Highland Street
These roadways are typically 5-lane or 7-lane cross sections, with excess vehicle capacity that provides opportunities for speeding, and are bordered on both sides by commercial development with very little access management. A mix of heavy trucks and commuter traffic on corridors such as Lamar Avenue also increases the potential for crashes between vehicles with significantly different operating characteristics.
One of the region’s most notable safety issues is the high rate of pedestrian crashes. The MPO’s Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and other recent planning efforts have identified the need to improve walkability and bikeability, not only within neighborhoods but also around employment centers. The City of Memphis is a bicycle and pedestrian focus area for FHWA and will receive technical assistance from FHWA’s safety experts. Additionally, the City of Memphis has partnered with the MPO to address this issue by identifying locations for improvement and providing assistance in managing project implementation. Other jurisdictions in the area are also taking a proactive stance on this issue. For example, the City of Germantown has tackled this issue through their standing Bike, Pedestrian, and Walkability task force, as well as the Land Use and Transportation Task Force and Public Safety Task Force established as part of the Germantown Forward 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
4.3.1 Crash Analysis Crash data helps identify corridors or intersections with high levels of crash activity that cause non-recurring congestion. Figure 4.13 displays the intensity of all roadway crashes along major corridors within the region, while Figure 4.14 displays the intensity of fatal and injury crashes along major corridors within the region. High crash areas generally are seen along corridors that have high traffic volumes. Higher crashes are also noticed at intersections along the same corridors, which correlates with the locations that have higher population and commercial activities.
68 Source Data:Tennessee DepartmentofTransportation andMississippiDepartmentofTransportation CrashData Figure 4.13
Roadway CrashDensity(AllCrashes) 69
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.14 Roadway Crash Density (Fatal and Injury Crashes Only)
Source Data: Tennessee Department of Transportation and Mississippi Department of Transportation Crash Data
70 Reporting System(FARS), theTennessee DepartmentofSafetyandtheMississippi ofTransportation. Source Data:Compilationofcrash datafromtheNationalHighwayT resulting incrashes. gates arelifted,butsomedrivearoundthegates,sometimes intersection. Legallymotoristsmustremainstoppeduntilthe are equivalenttoaredvehiculartrafficsignalatroad not permittedtocrossthetracks. These warningdevices signals andautomaticgateswhichlowerwhenmotoristsare except two. The activewarningdevicesincludeflashinglight Additionally, allpubliccrossingshaveactivewarningdevices, devices, thoughsomemaybewornanddifficulttosee. crossings wherecrashesoccurredhavepassivewarning resulting ininjuryordeath. According toFRA data,allofthe 92 crossings,the37shownin most recentavailableperiodofdata(2008-2017).Ofthe rail gradecrossingsintheMemphisMPOregionduring Crashes werereportedat92publicandprivateroadway- 4.3.2 Table 4.4 which isexpectedduetothecountybeingmostpopulous. 479 ofwhichresultedinatleastonefatality. MostofthesecrasheswereinShelbyCounty, asshowninTable 4.4, identify thesafetyneedsofMemphisMPOregion.Duringthistime,over132,000roadwaycrashesoccurred, As partoftheRTP development,characteristicsofcrashesoccurringbetween2014and 2017wereanalyzedto Mississippi asawhole,andhigherthanthenationalaverage. fact, 1inevery3fatalitiesinvolvedavulnerableroaduser, higherthantheaverageforstatesof Tennessee and portion oftrafficfatalitiesinvolving“vulnerableroadusers,”includingpedestrians,bicyclists,andmotorcyclists.In Another notablecrashcharacteristicisthetypeofusersinvolved. The MemphisMPOregionexperiencesahigher crash typetocompriseasignificantproportionofthetotal. intersections inaroadnetworkformajormetropolitanarealiketheMemphisMPOregion,onecouldexpectthis intersections generateagreaternumberofpotentialconflictpointsbetweenvehicles.Giventhe Nearly halfofthecrashesinMemphisMPOregionoccurredatornearintersections.Bytheirnature, MPO Total DeSoto Marshall Total –Mississippi Fayette Shelby Total– Tennessee
Roadway-Rail GradeCrossings
Crashes intheMemphisMPOregionbyLocationandSeverity 2014 through2017 Only (PDO) Crashes Property Damage 120,196 12,472 435 12,907 702 106,587 107,289 Figure 4.15,hadcrashes Injury Crashes 11,694 4,219 244 4,463 93 7,138 7,231 high traffic safety issues,inadditiontobeingbottlenecksat Above: Roadway-railgradecrossingscancause raffic Safety Fatal Crashes 479 73 18 91 7 381 388 Administration’s Fatality Analysis Total Crashes 132,369 16,764 697 17,461 802 114,106 114,908
71
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.15 Fatal and Injury Crashes Reported at Roadway-Rail Grade Crossings 2008 through 2017
Source Data: Federal Rail Administration, Office of Safety Analysis
72 Source Data:FederalRail Administration, Web Accident PredictionSystem, asofDecember31,2017. MDOT toalignregionalgoalsandobjectiveswiththestatewideSHSP. working groupfortheongoingupdatesto TDOT’s SHSP. The MemphisMPOwillcontinuetoworkwith TDOT and Memphis MPOwasinvolvedintheworkinggroupforrecently completed2019updatetoMDOT’s SHSP andthe adopted severalofthesameCEAs,althoughinsomecasesterminologyorcategorizationdiffersslightly priority safetyissuesthatcontributetohighcrashes,fatalities,andinjuries. As showninTable 4.6,bothstateshave Both Tennessee andMississippi’s SHSPs,publishedin2014,identifyseveralCriticalEmphasis Areas (CEAs), and injuriesonallofthestate’s publicroads. to developaStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan(SHSP)thatprovidescomprehensiveframeworkforreducingfatalities driven, strategicapproachtoreducinghighwayfatalitiesandinjuries.Inorderreceivefunds,statesarerequired strategies, activities,andinfrastructureprojects,contingentonmeetingcertainrequirementstopromoteadata- The FederalHighwaySafetyImprovementProgramprovidesfundingtostateandlocalagenciesforhighwaysafety 4.3.3 Table 4.5 terms ofannualaveragedailyroadwaytraffic(AADT)andbythenumbertrainsperday prediction modelandshownin In theMemphisMPOregion,toptenpublichighway-railgradecrossingswereidentifiedbyFRA improvements, suchassightdistanceorthenumberofschoolbusesusingcrossing. screening tool,althoughitshouldbenotedthatsomestatesuseadditionalfactorstoidentifycrossingsforsafety basic physicalandoperatingcharacteristicsaswellitspastfiveyearsofaccidenthistory analysis systemprovidedbytheFederalRailroad Administration (FRA). The predictionsarebasedonacrossing’s Accident predictionreportsforpublicroadway-railgradecrossingscanbegeneratedusingadatabaseand 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Strategic HighwaySafetyPlans
Germantown City/County Accidents peryear(FRA) Top 10Roadway-RailGradeCrossingsRankedbyPredicted Collierville Collierville Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Table 4.5. These crossingsareprimarilyinareaswiththehighesttraffic,both Crossing 732125W 663399G 348550R 663470N 732135C 663415N 732161S 663401F 663397T 663478T Houston LeveeRoad Pershing Avenue Parkway DriveS McLemore Drive Kansas Avenue Castalia Street Kirby Parkway Byhalia Road Trigg Avenue Shelby Drive Street 25,900 30,030 10,455 19,611 38,211 AADT 6,650 1,689 3,100 1,445 7,947 . . Itprovidesauseful Trains perDay accident 20 86 15 20 40 25 25 38 38 86 . The 73
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 4.6 SHSP Critical Emphasis Areas Relevant to the Memphis MPO Region
Critical Emphasis Area Applicable Plan Restraint usage Mississippi
Occupant protection Tennessee Alcohol-Impaired driving Mississippi
Driver behavior (including impaired driving and distracted driving) Tennessee
Suspended and unlicensed drivers Mississippi
Older drivers Tennessee Younger drivers Lane/roadway departure crashes Mississippi
Infrastructure improvements (including lane and roadway departure crashes) Tennessee Crashes at intersections, both signalized and non-signalized Mississippi
Infrastructure improvements (including crashes at intersections) Tennessee
Vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists) Tennessee
To address the identified CEAs, the states proposed countermeasures to help reduce the total number of crashes and severity. Some countermeasures are infrastructure-related while others involve safety programs or initiatives, as shown in Table 4.7.
74 Table 4.7 Restraint usage Driver Behavior Emphasis Area intersections Crashes atsignalized intersections Crashes atunsignalized Lane departurecrashes Infrastructure-Related motorcyclists) (pedestrians, bicyclists, Vulnerable roadusers Older drivers Young drivers drivers Suspended andunlicensed Impaired anddistracteddriving
Examples ofCountermeasuresUsedtoImproveSafety Example Countermeasure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Provide leading pedestrianintervalsatsignals whereappropriate Enforce red-lightrunning Minimize drivewaysandcross-median accessnearintersections Improve signalvisibilityandstreet signsatintersections permitted leftturns Restrict oreliminateturningmovements,includingrightturns onredor controlled intersections Clear vegetationandotheritemsblockingthesighttriangles onstop-oryield- median openings Restrict oreliminateturningmovementsthroughchannelization orclosing Enhance signage,markings,and/orlightingtomakeintersections morevisible Enhanced pavementmarkings Skid-resistant pavementsurfaces Improve shoulderdrop-offs,widening,and/orpavingshoulders Rumble stripsonroadwaysectionswithnarroworunpavedshoulders traffic calmingmeasures such asimprovedcrosswalks,protectedbikelanes,pedestrianbulb-outs,and Design andconstructfacilitiesthatareconducivetosafebikingwalking Promote thethree-footlawforpassingbicyclists road safelyandyieldingright-of-waytopedestrians Encourage drivereducationcoursestoincludeinformationonsharingthe techniques asneededtocompensateforlimitations Teach olderdriverstoself-assesstheirdrivingskillsandadapt especially underlowlightandpoorweatherconditions Larger, morelegibleroadwaysignsandimproveddelineation, restrictions andencouragestrictlawenforcementoftheGDL laws Inform youngdriversandparentsofthegraduateddriverlicense(GDL) Provide high-riskdrivereducationprogramsinschools Routinely linkingcitationstodriverrecords texting anddriving Seek legislationthatmeetsfederalstandardsfordedicatedfundingtoaddress laws Educate driversonthedangersoftextinganddriving,enforcecurrent offenders Requiring ignitioninterlocksasaconditionforreinstatinglicensesfirst special DUIpatrols Regular, well-publicizedDrivingUndertheInfluence(DUI)checkpointsand Provide localsitesforinstructioninproperuseofchildrestraintdevices Highly publicizedseatbeltandchildrestraintdeviceenforcementcampaigns 75
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.3.4 Transit System Safety and Security MATA The Memphis Area Transit Authority has significantly enhanced the safety and security of its riders and drivers through the implementation of on-board cameras on all vehicles as well as video monitoring of transit facilities. Automatic vehicle locators (AVL), which are often installed to collect information about travel times, also help to increase security by allowing the transit agency to know where its drivers are at all times. Security guards are also stationed at MATA facilities throughout the city to monitor activities directly and deter crimes, such as theft and vandalism. These security guards are also equipped with body cameras in order to provide accurate accounts of events. Furthermore, the North End Terminal houses a precinct of the Memphis Police Department.
MATA maintains and updates the System Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (SSEP), which addresses items such as hiring and training of agency personnel, strengthening community involvement in safety/security systems, and enhancing coordination with other agencies like the TDOT Multi-Modal Transportation Resources Division. MATA conducts regular training programs for its drivers and other staff on safety procedures. The agency also carries out a number of programs and activities to maintain and improve system safety. These include checklists and procedures for vehicle and facility inspection; ongoing employee safety training, internal safety audits, and participation in drills with the Memphis/Shelby County Emergency Management Agency and other partners. MATA also has adopted formal processes for hazard identification/response and for notification, investigation, and corrective action for accidents. Finally, MATA established a series of performance measures in 2013 that help track progress in key areas. The performance area “Ensure a Safe and Clean Environment for both Customers and Employees” tracks system performance on accidents per 100,000 miles by mode and preventable accidents per 100,000 miles by mode.
Amtrak Passenger Rail Service To assist in security and safety issues for protecting passenger rail service, Amtrak has its own police department. The Amtrak Police Department is a national police force dedicated to protecting the passengers, employees, and patrons of Amtrak, by working with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies across the country. Another feature of Amtrak security is a program implemented by the Amtrak Police Department known as the Partners for Amtrak Safety and Security program (PASS). The PASS program is based on the neighborhood watch philosophy and encourages community members to assist the Amtrak police by alerting them to any potential security or safety problems.
76 signage andsignalization,poorornon-existentcrosswalks, longcrossingdistances,andpoorsidewalkconditions. at signalizedintersections.Factorsidentifiedaspotential contributors topedestrianinvolvedcrashesincludepoor rather thanstop,lackofdedicatedspaceforbicyclistsatintersections, andinsufficientvehicledetectionforbicycles Factors identifiedaspotentialcontributorstobicyclecrashes includesliplanesthatallowturningvehiclestoyield region includingBartlett,GermantownandSouthaven,according totheplan. pedestrians overall.Concentrationsofbicyclecrashesarealso seeninthe“firstring”suburbsofMemphisMPO have agreaternumberofdestinationsclusteredwithinwalking andbicyclingdistance,aswellahighernumberof the MemphisMPORegionalBicycle&PedestrianPlanand the2017BicycleandPedestrianReport,theseareas Crash densityishighestinareasinsidetheI-240loop,particularlydowntownandmidtownMemphis. As notedin Figure 4.16 total roadwaycrashes,butnearlyallofthemweresevere: Based onthedataanalyzedfor2014-2017,collisionswithbicyclistsandpedestriansmadeuponly1.2percentof tracks onlyfatalcrashes. pedestrians inthesemetroareasmaybeevenhigher, sinceitsrankingsarebasedonafederaldatabasewhich its “PedestrianDangerIndex”formetroareasover1millioninpopulation. Dangerous byDesign2016,areportregularlyissuedSmartGrowth America, ranked theMemphisMSA 9thon Much attentionhasbeengiveninrecentyearstobicycleandpedestriansafetytheMemphisMPOregion. 4.3.5 • •
83% ofcrashesinvolvingbicyclistsresultedindeathorinjury. 92% ofcrashesinvolvingpedestriansresultedindeathorinjury;and
Bicycle andPedestrianSafety 84
98 98 109 Bicyclist andPedestrianCrashesbyYear(2014-2017) i y ist 328 edest ian 377 378 400 The reportnotesthatthetruedangerto 77
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.17 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crash Density (2014-2017)
78 STRACNET, likeSTRAHNET, includesaMississippiRivercrossinginthe Memphisregion. in theSTRACNET systemintheMemphis MPO region.Figure4.18alsoshowsthelocationsofthese routes. of over38,000milestrackserving over170defenseinstallations. There areapproximately 92milesofrailline Similarly, theStrategicRailCorridorNetwork (STRACNET)isacontinuousandinterconnectedrail linethatconsists crossing, representingapotentiallyvulnerablepieceofinfrastructure fromasystemperspective. particularly portionsofI-40andI-240. Also, STRAHNET intheMemphisregionincludesaMississippiRiver travel demandmodel. These routesrepresentsomeofthemostcongestedsegmentsroadwaynetwork, or man-madeemergencies. These routesareimportantfornationaldefense,butalsoserve asakeynetworkforevacuationincaseofnatural Figure 4.17showsthelocationsoftheseroutes. facilities. IntheMemphisMPOregion,thereareapproximately 140milesofroadwayintheSTRAHNET system. other publichighwaysareapproximately2,000milesofconnector roadwaysthatlinkmilitaryinstallationsandport 45,400 milesofInterstateanddefensehighways,about 15,600milesofotherpublichighways.Includedinthe are approximately61,000milesofroadwayincludedinthe STRAHNET system. The networkismadeupofabout Department ofDefense. The roadwaysincludeconnectorlinkstoimportantmilitaryinstallationsandports. There The StrategicHighwayNetwork(STRAHNET)isaroadwaysystemthatdesignatedbyFHWA, with input fromthe Emergency Management Agency (MEMA)areinchargeofthiselementtransportation security. central pointofcommandandcontrol. The Tennessee EmergencyManagement Agency (TEMA)andtheMississippi scale emergency, theseagenciesareresponsiblefor operatingtheemergencyoperationscenter, whichservesasa planning andcoordinationtosupportlargescaleincidentsdisasters.Intheeventofadisasterorotherlarge- event ofanemergency. The emergencymanagementagenciesareresponsibleforleadingefforts agencies withemergencymanagementresponsibilities,tomakesurethateachagencyunderstandsitsrolesinthe Threats tothetransportationsystemanditsuserscanbemanagedthroughcoordinationof weather events. identified ashighlyvulnerableandwillbecomemorefamiliarwiththepoliciesproceduresincaseofextreme transportation assetsacrossthestate.MPOswillcontinuetoworkwith Finally, thestudyrepresentsastartingpointfor TDOT inunderstandingtheimpactsofextremeweatheron study performedfivebasictasks: calendar year2040,whichatthetimematchedhorizonofMPO’s previousregionaltransportationplan. The included allmajortransportationinfrastructurelocatedwithin Tennessee. The scopeoftheprojectextendsthrough assessment oftransportationinfrastructureinthestate. The geographicalscopeofthevulnerabilityassessment The MemphisMPOhasparticipatedinaneffortledby TDOT toperformanextremeweathervulnerability The planningandmanagementofthetransportationsystemcanaffectusersecurityinthreekeyways: 4.3.6 • • • • • • • •
Combined theinformationintoanoverallmeasureofvulnerability. Assessed theimpactstoassetsshouldanextremeweatherscenariooccur. Determined extremeweatherscenariostowhichcriticaltransportationassetsmaybeexposed. Identified theassetsconsideredcriticaltotransportationsystemoperation. Developed aninventoryoftransportationassets. The roleofthetransportationsystemtoprovideevacuationanddetourroutesinresponseemergencyevents. Management ofthreatsthroughcoordinationtransportationagencieswithemergencymanagementagencies; system withanunderstandingofitsvulnerabilitytoextremeweather, climatechange,orman-madedisasters; Preventing eventsthatcouldharmthetransportationsystemanditsusers,includingadapting
Highway andFreightRailSecurity Figure 4.18comparesthesecriticalroutestoexistingcongestion,estimated fromthe TDOT inselectingspecificcriticalassets 79
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.18 Strategic National Security Networks Versus Congestion
Traffic congestion is described in terms of Level of Service. The value for Level of Service is denoted with a letter from A (free-flow conditions) to F (over capacity). The Memphis MPO defines congestion as those roadways that operate with a Level of Service E or F, where the traffic volume approaches or exceeds the capacity of the roadway.
80 Intermodal GatewayMemphisfacility. Road atthesouthendofPidgeonIndustrialPark. The extensionwillprovideadditionalaccesseastofthe In additiontoredevelopmentofthepublicdock,City Memphis isintheprocessofexpandingPaulR.Lowry new designwillprovideversatilitywhiledrasticallyincreasing theefficiencyanddiversityofmaterialshandled. The waterfrontdockfacility, was thefirsttoincorporatemulti-modaltransfersbetweenbarge,rail,andtruck. The The PortofMemphisdevelopedamasterplanfortheredevelopment ofthepublicdockfacilityonPresidentsIsland. farm andconstructionmachinery, andassociatedcriminalactivitytheftsfrominterstatecargo shipments. multi-agency, investigativelawenforcementunittargetingorganized vehicletheft,includingheavyequipmentand a memorandumofunderstandingintothe Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi Auto Cargo Theft Task Force. This isa office, theUnitedStatesCustomsService,andNationalInsuranceCrimeBureauorganizedthemselvesthrough Memphis PoliceDepartment,theShelbyCountySheriff’s Office,thelocalFederalBureauofInvestigation (FBI) organized crimeduethedensenetworkoftransportationfacilitiesandlargequantitymanufacturedgoods. The According totheMemphisPoliceDepartment,portandsurroundingareaareattractiveenvironmentsfor Causeway orelsewhereontheisland. future. A secondaryaccesspointwouldprovidesystemredundancyincaseofanemergencyalongtheJackCarley period volumesarecurrentlyapproachingcapacity, asecondaryaccesspointmayneedtobeconsideredinthe route onJackCarleyCauseway. Sincethisistheonlyroadwaythatprovidesaccesstoislandandsincepeak The maintransportationsecurityconcernatthePortofMemphisonPresident’s Islandisthesingleevacuation 4.3.8 officials intheinvestigationofanyattempttocompromisesafetyandsecurity aggressively supportandworkcloselywithlawenforcementofficials,governmentagencies,publichealth measures, employinghundredsofspeciallytrainedsecurityofficersandsafetyspecialists. the samelevelofsecurityasismaintainedatairport.Inaddition,FedEximplementsanumberother airport intheworld.Becausethisfacilityhasoperationswithinsecureareaofairport,FedExmustmaintain International Airport in2016,makingitthelargestcargoairportNorth America andthesecondlargestcargo creates uniquesecurityneedsattheairport.Infact,morethan9.5billionpoundsofcargowerehandledMemphis Being hometoFederalExpressCorporation(FedEx),thelargestexpresstransportationcompanyinworld, operational andaesthetic,theprojectwillalsoincludeseismicupgradestoBConcourse. moving walkways,andincreasednaturallighting.Whilemostoftheupgradesincludedinmodernization includes consolidationofairlines,retail,food,andbeverageoperations,aswellhigherceilings,largergateareas, Currently theMemphisInternational Airport’s ConcourseBisundergoingamodernization. This modernization through theairportfromforeignpointsoforigin,USCBP officersofferanimportantlevelofsecurity. of incomingpassengersandgoodsfromabroad.Inlightthesignificantamountsfreightvolumespassing passengers. U.S. Customs andBorderPatrol(USCBP)alsoprovidesprotectionat the airport withsecurityscreening These technologiesallowextremelythoroughsecurityscreeningwhileminimizingintrusivenessanddelaysfor security technologies,suchasexplosivedetectionsystemsand“puffer”machinesthatdetectresidue. Since 2001,securitycheckpointsandbaggagescreeningoperationshavebeenupdatedtousethemostadvanced strategies tomanagethreatsattheairportitselfandonairplanesthatarrivedepartfromMemphisInternational. Similar toothermajorairportsaroundthenation,MemphisInternational Airport employsanumberofsecurity 4.3.7 locations toenhancethesafetyandsecurityofitsoperations. must passthroughasecurityscreeningprocessastheyenterthehub.FedExhasconstructedbarrierwallsatkey
Airport Security Port Security . At thesortingfacility, employees These employees 81
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.3.9 National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) Grant The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made $1 billion available in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding to state and local governments impacted disasters in 2011-2013 for the purpose of promoting innovative resilience projects to better prepare communities for future storms and other events. Due to a series of severe storms and floods inApril and May 2011, Shelby County was one of 67 eligible jurisdictions for the NDRC. In January 2016, Shelby County was awarded $60M in federal funds for its Greenprint for Resilience project.
The project includes four activities: projects along Big Creek, Wolf River, and South Cypress Creek and a regional resilience plan to model and plan for flood impact and other climate risks across the Mid-South.The three place- based activities will provide innovative flood mitigation designs that enhance adaptation to future disasters, community cohesion, and provides socio-economic benefits for surrounding communities.They will include scalable solutions to create flood resilience, community redevelopment and connectivity to benefit low- to-moderate-income communities in Memphis and Millington, TN.
Figure 4.19 NDRC Grant Project Locations
The fourth activity, a Regional Resilience Plan, will consider recommendations to make the Mid-South more resilient to other types of climate risk, such as heavy wind, severe snow and ice, extreme heat or cold, and drought. This plan provides a means to tie these and other similar efforts to the Mid-South Regional Greenprint and Sustainability Plan. The plan has been divided into three phases and is scheduled for completion by the end of 2019. These three phases consist of:
• Phase 1- Identification of the most urgent climate and weather-related threats facing the Mid-South;
• Phase 2- Survey of best practices and potential strategies to mitigate identified threats and improve the resiliency of the region;
Source Data: https://resilientshelby.com/overview/resilience-activities/
82 transportation improvementsthatwillhelpsafeguardtheregion againsttheseimpacts. may ariseinmovinggoodsandsuppliestothoseaffected by theevent. be hampered,transportationrefuelinginfrastructureandsecurity offueldeliverycanbethreatened,anddifficulties become damagedorclosedduetonaturaldisasters,emergency responsecanbeimpacted,evacuationroutes The potentialforamajorseismiceventremainscriticalthreat totheregion’s securityandsafety. Whenroads region, andtheentirenation. freight, truckpassengervehicles,andnationaldefenserelatedinfrastructurewithoutdisruptionsisvitaltothe The continuedabilityoftheFrisco,Harahan,Memphis/Arkansas,andHernandoDeSotoBridgestocarryrailroad related tothreeprimaryfactors: standards andcouldcollapseduringamajorearthquake. The riskofindividualbridgefailureduetoanearthquakeis Frisco Bridge,theHarahanandMemphis/ArkansasBridgehavenotbeenupgradedtocurrentseismic DeSoto Bridgeunderwentaseismicretrofitthatisdesignedtowithstandanearthquakeupmagnitude7.7. None oftheexistingMemphisareabridgeswereoriginallydesignedtowithstandmajorearthquakes,Hernando greatly impactedbyasignificantseismicevent. Thesebridgesare: across theMississippiRiverthatoperateascriticalinfrastructurecomponentsforMemphisareacouldbe 8.0, alloccurringwithinathree-monthperiodbetweenDecember1811 andFebruary1812. There arefourbridges of thelargestNorth American earthquakesinrecordedhistory, withmomentmagnitudesestimatedtobeaslarge Figure 4.20illustratesthelocationofNMSZandhistoricseismicactivitymagnitude. This zonehashadfour the area’s infrastructure. The MemphisMPOboundaryislocatedwithintheNewMadridSeismicZone(NMSZ). A majorsecurityconcernfortheregionpertainstoriskofapotentialseismiceventandresultingimpact 4.3.10 across theregion,includingvulnerabilityoftransportationtosevereweatherimpacts. caused byseverestormsandflooding. A keycomponentoftheplanincludesevaluationcriticalinfrastructure The recommendationsidentifiedintheplanwillservetoincreaseresilienceofMid-Southshocks • • • • • • • •
location. The abilityofthebridgetowithstandmovementsandforcesgeneratedbyadesignseismiceventatspecific requiring repair, and The probabilityofaseismiceventsufficientmagnitudeandfrequencytoinflictmajorstructuraldamage The underlyinggeologyandsoils, The HernandoDeSotoBridgecarryingI-40 The Memphis/ArkansasBridgecarryingI-55 The HarahanBridge(ownedbyUnionPacificRailroad) The FriscoBridge(ownedbyBurlingtonNorthernSantaFeRailway) Phase 3-DevelopmentofresiliencerecommendationsandfinalRegionalResiliencePlan.
Security RelatedtoSeismicEvents Therefore, itisimportanttoprovidefor The 83
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.20 New Madrid Seismic Zone Activity
Source Data: Frankel, A.D., Applegate, D., Tuttle, M.P., and Williams, R.A., 2009, Earthquake hazard in the New Madrid Seismic Zone remains a concern: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3071
84 overall fundingallocationfrom9percentto22in Tennessee andfrom1percentto11 percentinMississippi. in thefundingincreasebetweentwomostrecent TIP cycles. The FY 2017-2020 TIP includedanincreasein implementation inthe2017BicycleandPedestrianReport, andevidenceofsuccessfulimplementationcanbeseen Since thecompletionofRegionalBicycleandPedestrian Plan,theMPOhashighlightedsuccessof existing andnewinfrastructure. specified forbicycleandpedestrianprojectscanfundthese andotherprojectsthatimprovesconnectionsbetween Plan identifiesfuturepotentialbicycleandpedestrianprojects tostrengthenthisnetwork. while markedsharedlanesarebettersuitedonnarrowlanes. The MemphisMPORegionalBicycleandPedestrian may bemoreappropriateonroadwayswithhigherspeedlimits comfortable andsafeforallriders.Forexample,bicyclelanes appropriate infrastructurefortheadjoiningfacilityinorderto be facilities canalsobenefitfromcontinuousnetworks,alongwith vital toimproveaccessibilityofpedestrianfacilities.Bicycle sidewalks alongcorridorsaswellcurbedrampsare Hernando, andotherareasthroughouttheregion.Continuous Germantown, Whitehaven,SouthMemphis,Frayser, Raleigh, includes downtownandmidtownMemphis,Collierville, demand locationssuchasgrocerystoresandparks. This infrastructure areinlocationswithsmallerblocksandhigh- Some areasthatcouldsupportbicycleandpedestrian percent feelingverysafetyorgenerallysafe. had ahigherperceivedlevelofsafetyaspedestrianwith60 separated fromroadsorprotectedbicyclelanes.Respondents bicycling withmostrespondentspreferringbicyclepaths purpose. Onlyone-thirdfeelverysafeorgenerallywhile 57 percentofrespondentsmakeawalkingtripforspecific purpose suchasgoingtowork,school,orshopping.Similarly, respondents rideabikeatleastonceweekforspecific walking activitiesintheregion. Approximately 28 percentof and theresultswereusedtounderstandbicycling through Julyof2014.Over1,100responseswerecollected Memphis MPOandtheirpartneringorganizationsinMarch Memphis MPOregion,surveysweredistributedbythe To identifytheusageandperceptionofbicyclingin pedestrian travel. connectivity, andcanpotentiallyshifttripstobicycleor projects thatimprovesafetyandaccessibility, increase through aseriesofanalyses. Also includedarealistof current conditionsofbicycleandpedestrianinfrastructure Pedestrian PlanpreparedbytheMemphisMPOdefined Figures 4.21and4.22. The recentRegionalBicycleand downtown, Midtown,andShelbyFarmsarea,asshownin Memphis MPOregionandareprimarilyconcentratedinthe A varietyofbicycleandpedestrianfacilitiesexistinthe 4.4.1 4.4
Bicycle andPedestrian Multimodal AccessandConnectivity Memphis region Above: Paintedon-streetbikelanesinthe strengthen multimodalaccessandconnecvitiy. Pedestrian Planidentifiesfutureprojectsto The MemphisMPORegionalBicycleand The lumpfundingsum 85
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Shared Mobility Transportation Alternatives Bike and Scooter Shares As technology continues to advance, so do the options for enhancing urban mobility. This is becoming evident as Memphis launched a 501(c)(3) bike share program with 600 bikes, and the private company Bird launched 200 electric scooters. Shared mobility is happening quickly across America, and Memphis has proactively sought opportunities and partnerships to leverage the benefits to the local residentry.
Memphis’ Explore Bike Share made its debut in May of 2018 and has seen great success. The idea for a bike share in Memphis began in 2015 with an advisory board made up of vested parties representing many groups in the city. Now Explore Bike Share is a locally run 501(c)(3) and commits itself to hiring local residents and advancing bike culture, exercise, healthy lifestyles, and access to as many Memphians as possible. According to the Memphis Business Journal, just three weeks after becoming operational, Explore Bike Share had already attracted nearly 2,500 individual users who took a little over 5,000 rides covering more than 23,000 miles1.
Electric scooters are hitting cities all across the world, including Memphis, with an initiative to not only provide last mile transportation options, but to make transportation better and more environmentally friendly. Memphis, proactively worked with Bird and Lime to set ground rules and adopt local ordinances, policies, and regulations in place to ensure a smooth introduction into the transportation system.
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) Ridesharing services or Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, are having substantial impacts on the way our cities operate, and many municipalities are grappling with how these mobility choices impact goals for mobility, safety, and environmental sustainability. While rideshare services are presenting challenges to many cities, they are also offering more accessible first and last mile connectivity than previously available. According to a recent report, the New Automobility: Lyft, Uber, and the Future of American Cities, between 2016 and 2017, passengers transported by TNCs increased by 37% (an increase from 1.90 billion to 2.61 billion passengers), and this trend is not expected to slow. In 2018, for-hire transportation services (TNCs and taxi-cabs) are estimated to reach 4.74 billion trips, surpassing projected ridership on local buses in the U.S. If existing trends continue, the growth of TNCs will continue to have a substantial impact on mode choice and congestion. In large metros, such as Boston, Chicago, and New York, 60% of TNC users share that they would have taken public transportation, walked, or biked. Additionally, TNC services accounted for an overall 180% increase in driving on city streets2.
These trends continually impact municipalities, but there are many jurisdictions testing pilot programs and policy options around the country such as:
• Subsidized services to seniors, low-income persons, and people with disabilities
• Subsidized connections to public transit services
• TNC fees and taxes
• Subsidized rides to and from transit hubs as a way to provide first- and last-mile partnerships
1 https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2018/06/12/explore-bike-share-stats-3-weeks-5-000-rides-and.html 2 http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf
86 Source Data:http://maps.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/sumc/ bikeshare programisincorporated. areas reliantonfirst-and-lastmileservices.Itisimportanttonotethatthismapmayshiftonceinformationaboutthe The blueandorangeindicateareasthathavemediumtohighpotentialforshared-mobility, whilethegreenindicate the Shared-MobilityOpportunityLevelgeneratedbySUMCbasedoncarshare,ridesourcing,taxis,andtransit. As sharedmobilitycontinuestobecomeaconversationinthegreaterMemphisregion. The mapbelowindicates bikeshare programisincorporated. areas reliantonfirst-and-lastmileservices.Itisimportanttonotethatthismapmayshiftonceinformationaboutthe The blueandorangeindicateareasthathavemediumtohighpotentialforshared-mobility, whilethegreenindicate the Shared-MobilityOpportunityLevelgeneratedbySUMCbasedoncarshare,ridesourcing,taxis,andtransit. As sharedmobilitycontinuestobecomeaconversationinthegreaterMemphisregion. The mapbelowindicates disadvantaged neighborhoodsandparatransitriders. to transportridersfromtheirdoorsteparterialroutesinselectedcorridorsofthecity, withafocusonindividualsin process ofprojectdevelopment.WiththeassistanceSUMC,MATA planstodevelopademand-responseservice Mobility-On-Demand (MOD)On-Rampprogram. The MODOn-RampprogramwillaidtheMATA inayear-long the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) toparticipateandreceivefreetechnicalassistancethroughtheir The Shared-UseMobilityCenter(SUMC),inpartnershipwiththeFederal Transit Administration, recentlyselected Mobility Hubs 87
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.21 Existing Bicycle Network in the Memphis MPO Region
88 Figure 4.22
Existing PedestrianNetworkintheMemphisMPORegion 89
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.4.2 Transit Public transportation is currently provided by the Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) with a service area including Shelby County. Three different modes of transportation are available through MATA: fixed-route bus, demand response5, and trolley6, with a total of over 7.7 million unlinked trips in 20167. Over time, the overall ridership and number of routes has decreased due to slow or negative growth of population within the service area as well as service cuts due to a lack of funding. Ridership projections from the travel demand model for 2050 are expected to be only slightly higher than 2010 (see transit mode share in Table 9.1). The travel demand model assumes that transit-dependent populations (low-income, elderly, etc.) represent the same percentage of the total population in 2050 as they do in 2010 (see Appendix B, Section 3.1).
In April 2016, the Memphis MPO completed a Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (CPT-HSTP) to assess the available transportation services, identify needs of older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons with low incomes, as well as provide prioritized strategies for meeting those needs. Strategies for meeting identified needs were organized around the following categories drawn from public feedback:
• Information and Awareness
• Geographical
• Time-based
• Client
• Service Quality
The series of strategies in each of the above categories were then assigned a priority tier of short- or long-term by state. Examples of short-term strategies include things such as the creation of regional mobility coordinator, exploration of expanded hours, and enhanced public education efforts.
Currently, the City of Memphis and Innovate Memphis, in partnership with MATA, are completing Memphis 3.0, a two-year effort to update the city’s comprehensive plan. The plan is anticipated to conclude in 2019 and will include strategies for enhancing land use, transportation, environment, city systems, growth and prosperity, neighborhoods, and civic capacity. Memphis 3.0 will outline a long-term transit vision along with recommendations, estimated costs and financing options, to transform the Memphis area transit system, and to maximize the region’s economic, environmental, social, health, and personal mobility benefits. The Livability 2050 RTP Update is working closely with the Memphis 3.0 team to ensure that this plan reflects the recommendations and strategies needed to enhance MATA service. The DRAFT Recommended Network can be seen in Figure 4.23 on the following page.
Source Data: 5 According to the National Transit Database, demand response is a transit mode comprised of passenger cars, vans or small buses operating in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the transit operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to pick up the passengers and transport them to their destinations.
6 Two lines of the vintage trolley rail system are currently suspended due to required maintenance on trolley cars; one line is operational.
7 National Transit Database
90 Figure 4.23 Memphis 3.0 Transit Vision Plan DRAFT Recommended Network 91
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 4.24 Existing Transit System
92 8 Source Data:Crosssection:Memphis MPO,Direction2040RTP The CompleteStreetspolicyfortheCityofMemphis Figure 4.25 order in2013. delivery-manual/) wasdevelopedthroughtheMid-SouthRegionalGreenprintasaresultofmayoralexecutive Project DeliveryManual(https://bikepedmemphis.wordpress.com/plans-and-publications/complete-streets-project- Memphis, Tennessee; Hernando,Mississippi;andByhalia,Mississippi. The CityofMemphis’ CompleteStreets of Transportation (MDOT)eachhaveastatewideCompleteStreetspolicyalongwiththelocalmunicipalitiesof In theMemphisMPOregion, Tennessee Departmentof Transportation (TDOT)andMississippiDepartment example, Figure4.25showsanillustrationofaroadwaycrosssectionwithdedicatedbicyclelanesandsidewalks. design guidelinestoensurethatconsiderationisgivenforthesemultimodalfacilitiesinallroadwayprojects.For Complete Streetspoliciesistoincorporatedesignsforpedestrian,bicycle,andtransitfacilitiesintoregularroadway Complete Streetsdesignstandardsarepolicy-basedstrategiestoimprovemultimodaloptions. The goalof 4.4.3 executive orderisto: of ageorability, andtransportationmodes.Signedintolawin2013byMayor A CWharton,Jr., thegoalofthis http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/policy/cs-tn-memphis-executiveorder.pdf. • • • • • • •
Positively impactthehealthof thecommunity. Reduce trafficcongestion;and Be contextsensitiveandaestheticallypleasing; Meet themobilityneedsofallusers; Create greaterconnectivitybetweenneighborhoodsandamenities; Prioritize safety; Foster economicgrowth;
Complete Streets
Complete StreetsExampleRoadwayCrossSection 8 demonstratesthedesiretoaccommodateallusers,regardless 93
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Incorporating all transportation modes into roadway design guidelines not only improves the access and safety for all users but can impact regional health. The availability and quality of active transportation options, such as bicycling and walking, directly impacts the amount of physical activity we receive every day. Studies have concluded that the automobile lifestyle contributes to decreased physical activity, increase emotional stress, respiratory illnesses, and a high fatality risk9.
Hernando, Memphis, MDOT, and TDOT are all recognized by the National Complete Streets Coalition for either having an adopted resolution, policy, or executive order which promotes the development and implementation of Complete Streets policies and professional practices.
4.4.4 Intercity Passenger Rail and Bus Amtrak operates one long distance Superliner train through Tennessee, the City of New Orleans route. The daily overnight service includes stops at Chicago; Memphis; Jackson, Mississippi; and New Orleans, operating on a track owned by Canadian National Railway (CN). Full dining and sleeper service cars are available for the 19-hour, 926- mile trip.
By rail, travel time between Jackson and Memphis is about 4 hours and 15 minutes. Travel time between Memphis and Chicago is slightly more than 10 hours. On-time performance for the City of New Orleans service was about 70% for travel during 2014, with a ridership of approximately 251,000.
Within Memphis, Amtrak’s passenger rail service connects to the MATA trolley system via Central Station (constructed in 1914 and recently restored), located on South Main Street.
Studies or efforts are currently underway by the Tennessee Department of Transportation, Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT), and Amtrak to increase intercity passenger rail options to and from Memphis; however, as of now no funds have been committed for implementation.
High-speed rail connections for the Memphis MPO region are also being explored. Although the Federal Railroad Administration’s initial High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan (Figure 4.26) did not show Memphis on the South-Central Corridor running from southern Texas to the Chicago Hub, subsequent planning efforts and funds were allocated for ARDOT to evaluate the feasibility of extending the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor from Little Rock to Memphis.
Source Data: 9 American Public Health Association (2010 March). The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/topics/transport/hidden_health_costs_of_transportation_ backgrounder.ashx.
94 Source Data:FederalRailroad Administration, 2009 additional routeoptions. Transit Center. Greyhoundbusservicesarriveanddepart from the Airways Transit Centerandprovidesseveral Birmingham, Chicago,Dallas/FortWorth, LittleRock,andSt.Louis.Busesarrivedepartfromthe American Way Megabus providesdirectconnectionsbetweenMemphisand Atlanta, Currently twocompaniesservethearea:MegabusandGreyhound. Intercity busesalsoconnecttheMemphisMPO Area tootherregions. between markets,topspeedsofservice,andexistencededicatedrightway: The FRA 2009HighSpeedRailStrategicPlandefinesthreecategoriesofhighspeedservicebasedondistance Figure 4.26 • • •
freight and/orcommuterservices. operating attopspeedsof90-110 mphontrackssharedwith Emerging HSR–corridorsof100-500milesinlengthwithservice freight trains;and of dedicatedtracksandsharedwithslowerpassenger and HSR Regional–operatesattopspeedsof110-150 mphonamix with topspeedsover150mphonprimarilydedicatedtracks; HSR Express–operatesincorridors200-600mileslength,
2009 High-Speed RailConceptbytheFederalRailroadAdministration,
95
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.5 Transportation Disadvantaged
Transportation disadvantaged communities comprise a range of demographic and socioeconomic groups in need of targeted transportation solutions designed to support a set of unique mobility needs. For the purposes of Livability 2050 RTP Update, transportation disadvantaged communities reflect:
• Environmental justice (EJ) communities — Low income, limited English proficiency (LEP), and minority populations;
• Persons with a disability — An individual with a hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and/or independent living difficulty; and
• Persons 65 and older.
The following principles are cornerstones of environmental justice:
• To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.
• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision- making process.
• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low- income populations.
These principles of environmental justice will be considered throughout transportation planning, project development, and through all public outreach.
4.5.1 Environmental Justice Communities Environmental Justice (EJ) communities were identified as areas with a higher than average portion of minority persons, low-income persons, and/or persons with Limited English proficiency (LEP).These areas are shown in Figure 4.27 and are important to ensure equitable transportation access and solutions for all users.
96 Tables: B01001;B02001;B03002;B17021; B23024;C16002 Source Data:2016 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates Table 4.8showsasummaryofthisU.S. Censustravelmodetoworkdata,whichoutlineswhattransportation mode modes. transportation to various the accessofEJcommunities to understand data canbeused U.S. CensusBureau Figure 4.27
Combined EnvironmentalJusticeAreas Minority, LowIncome,andLimitedEnglishProficiencyAreas
97
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
environmental justice communities use on a daily basis and if the use is similar to the modes used by the general population (above the poverty line, nonminority, or non-LEP). If travel for EJ and non-EJ communities were similar, the overall distribution of travel mode to work would be similar; however, EJ communities have differing travel characteristics. In particular, low-income persons are more likely to carpool, ride transit, and walk to work when compared to the general population. Similarly, minority persons are more likely to carpool and ride transit while 36 percent of persons with LEP carpool. Improved transit service and expanding opportunities for ride sharing not only increases mobility options for all residents but also greatly impacts mobility and accessibility for EJ communities.
Table 4.8 Transportation Mode to Work by Environmental Justice Communities
Environmental Public Worked at Justice Drove Alone Carpool Walked Other Transportation Home Communities Below 100 Percent 22,074 62.1% 7,070 19.9% 2,239 6.3% 2,049 5.8% 1,129 3.2% 973 2.7% of the Poverty Level 100 to 149 Percent 26,931 73.3% 6,305 17.2% 1,364 3.7% 719 2.0% 665 1.8% 752 2.0% of the Poverty Level At or Above 150 Percent of the 373,092 85.1% 41,821 9.5% 3,829 0.9% 4,261 1.0% 4,011 0.9% 11,235 2.6% Poverty Level Minority 194,807 78.1% 35,306 14.2% 6,805 2.7% 4,284 1.7% 3,977 1.6% 4,212 1.7% Nonminority 228,620 86.7% 20,021 7.6% 627 0.2% 3,623 1.4% 1,866 0.7% 9,000 3.4% LEP 13,425 57.0% 8,561 36.4% 384 1.6% 605 2.6% 281 1.2% 282 1.2% Non-LEP 410,002 83.7% 46,766 9.6% 7,048 1.4% 7,302 1.5% 5,562 1.1% 12,930 2.6% Population 423,427 82.5% 55,327 10.8% 7,432 1.4% 7,907 1.5% 5,843 1.1% 13,212 2.6% Distribution
4.5.2 Persons with Disabilities Persons with a disability may be at a disadvantage when utilizing different transportation modes. For example, a person with epilepsy may not be eligible for a driver’s license, or wheelchair users may not be able to commute using the sidewalk network due to a lack of curb ramps. The areas with a higher than average portion of persons with a disability are shown in Figure 4.28, illustrating a dispersed and largely decentralized population distribution.
Source Data: Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Note: “Other” includes taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and other non-drive-alone auto means.
98 Source Data:2016 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates; Table B23024 Figure 4.28
Areas withPersonsaDisability 99
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
The travel mode to work between those with and without a disability is shown in Table 4.9. A slightly lower portion of persons with a disability drive alone to work. Public transportation and working at home are used more among those with a disability.
Table 4.9 Transportation Mode to Work for Persons with a Disability in Shelby County
Travel Mode to Work With a Disability Without a Disability Total Population Drove Alone 17,869 76.3% 328,890 83.1% 346,674 82.7% Carpool 3,138 13.4% 38,786 9.8% 41,920 10.0% Public transportation 703 3.0% 5,541 1.4% 6,288 1.5% Walked 562 2.4% 5,145 1.3% 5,869 1.4% Other 351 1.5% 5,937 1.5% 6,288 1.5% Worked at Home 796 3.4% 11,478 2.9% 12,157 2.9%
4.5.3 Persons 65 or Older The areas with a higher concentration of persons 65 or older is shown in Figure 4.29. The rates are higher outside of the fixed route transit service coverage area, providing additional mobility challenges for this population that may require alternative modes of transportation.
Source Data: 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates; Table S1811
Note: “Other” includes taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and other non-drive alone auto means. Persons with a disability is defined as an individual with hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living difficulty. This data was not available for DeSoto, Fayette, and Marshall Counties and only includes noninstitutionalized civilians.
100 Source Data:2016 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates Table B01001 Figure 4.29
Areas withPersons65orOlder 101
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
For the four counties that are entirely or partially in the Memphis MPO, approximately four percent of residents who are employed are 65 years old or older. The transportation mode to work for these individuals is shown in Table 4.10. The primary mode to commute to work for both elderly and nonelderly is driving alone at 83.4 percent and 82.5 percent, respectively. However, approximately 5.0 percent of elderly workers work at home, which is twice as high as nonelderly individuals. Otherwise, the distribution for the remaining modes to work are fairly even between elderly and nonelderly workers.
Table 4.10 Transportation Mode to Work for Elderly and Nonelderly Population
Travel Mode to Work Elderly Nonelderly General Population Drove Alone 15,402 83.4% 408,025 82.5% 423,427 82.5% Carpool 1,492 8.1% 53,835 10.9% 55,327 10.8% Public transportation 224 1.2% 7,208 1.5% 7,432 1.4% Walked 245 1.3% 7,662 1.5% 7,907 1.5% Other 182 1.0% 5,661 1.1% 5,843 1.1% Worked at Home 921 5.0% 12,291 2.5% 13,212 2.6%
4.5.4 Multimodal Access for the Transportation Disadvantaged To supplement the transportation disadvantaged analysis a GIS analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship of existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to the transportation disadvantaged.
Many of the region’s most populous EJ communities are within the corporate limits of Memphis where MATA operates fixed route and paratransit services. However,Figure 4.30 shows a number are located outside MATA’s service area, including Lakeland, Gallaway and Braden; residents who live east of Millington, and the less urbanized portions of east central Shelby County. Also included are parts of Horn Lake and Lynchburg in DeSoto County. In Marshall County, much of the area west of Cayce Road consists of EJ communities without access to fixed route transit.
Bicycle access is expanding across the region though it is not yet linked to more densely populated areas such as Southaven, Horn Lake and Olive Branch. The Marshall County portion of the MPO currently lacks formal bicycle infrastructure to serve the EJ communities.
In addition, a number of EJ communities are currently underserved in terms of sidewalk infrastructure. In Shelby County, these include Whitehaven; the Raleigh community and portions of Bartlett; Germantown; and the Capleville community. Lakeland, Gallaway and Braden have almost no pedestrian infrastructure, nor do the EJ communities located outside Millington and in east central Shelby County. In DeSoto County, most municipalities and developed areas have sidewalk networks while the only pedestrian infrastructure in the Marshall County portion of the MPO is in Byhalia.
Source Data: 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.
Note: “Other” includes taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, and other non-drive alone auto means. Persons with a disability is defined as an individual with hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living difficulty. This data was not available for DeSoto, Fayette, and Marshall Counties and only includes noninstitutionalized civilians
102 Tables: B01001;B02001;B03002;B17021; B23024;C16002 Source Data:2016 American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates Figure 4.30
Nonmotorized Networks Environmental JusticeCommunitiesinRelationtoTransitand 103
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
A similar analysis of access was performed for areas with higher than average concentrations of persons age 65 and older, and for persons with a disability. As seen in Figure 4.31 there is significant geographic overlap among these groups and identified EJ communities.
For persons age 65 and older and persons with a disability in DeSoto and Marshall counties, the additional geographic areas that emerged for analysis are in Southaven, and in less developed areas of the county where fixed route transit and sidewalks may be challenging to provide in a cost-effective manner.
Source Data: 2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Table B01001
104 Figure 4.31
Nonmotorized Networks Locations ofPersonsAge65andOlderinRelationtoTransit 105
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Emerging Trends: Locational Trends The percent of the U.S. population living in urban areas has Demographics and Travel continued to increase since the early 1900’s, while the percent of people living in rural areas has continued to decline. As Behavior U.S. cities continue to grow, they are expected to become increasingly suburban. By 2040, 37% of the U.S. population According to population projections provided by the U.S. is expected to live in urban areas, 54% of the population is Census Bureau in 2015, the U.S. population is expected to expected to live in suburban areas, and 9% of the population is increase to 389.3 million by 2050. This means that, based on expected to live in rural areas. 2017 population estimates, the U.S. will add approximately 63.6 million people by 2050. This anticipated growth is attributed to As the U.S. progresses further into the 21st century, several factors, including increased immigration into the U.S., metropolitan regions are expected to continue to experience longer life expectancy, and an aging baby-boomer population. the most rapid population growth. By 2050, megaregions: large The implications of an increasing population size will have networks of metropolitan regions, could account for 75% of the considerable effects on the movement of people and goods U.S. population and have the potential to play a critical role in shaping future transportation. Aging Population
The U.S. aging population poses one of the most significant challenges to transportation in the future. According to the population projections provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population aged 65 and older will increase to 83.7 million by 2050, almost doubling its estimated population of 43.1 million in 2012. As a result, people aged 65 and older will account for . approximately 22% of the 2050 U.S. population.
In addition, according to the National Institute on Disability, over one third of people in the U.S. age 65 and older have at least one disability, and almost one third of these individuals Source: http://www.america2050.org/content/megaregions.html have disabilities that limit mobility. Therefore, providing people aged 65 and older with access to critical services will be more International Migration important than ever.
cspan_popproj.pdf Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/pop_proj/20121214_ By 2027, international migration is expected to surpass the natural increase of the U.S. population. Although this trend is accounted for in overall population projections, studies have shown that new immigrants are more likely to use walking or public transit as a primary means for transportation. In addition, studies have shown that new immigrant households tend to be larger than U.S.-born households and have fewer drivers and vehicles.
Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/pop_ proj/20121214_cspan_popproj.pdf 106 Services: Expanding SpecialandDemand-Responsive Enhancing Access toPublicTransit: Importance ofImprovingPublicTransit and Increasing Emphasison Active Transportation and MPOOperations Behavior onTransportationPlanning Impact ofDemographicsandTravel preferences orcanbeattributedtolifecyclepreferences. yet tobedeterminedifthatisdueaculturalchangeintravel they aredrivinglessthanpreviousgenerations.However, itis patterns amongstthemillennialgenerationhaveshownthat the U.S.populationwillbereachingpeaktravelyears. Travel to apersonalvehicle.By2030,itisprojectedthat25%of type ofareatheylivein,householdcomposition,andaccess employment, economicwell-being,physicalthe variety offactors,includingaperson’s age(orlifestage), sociodemographic travelpatternscanbeattributedtoawide travel behaviorandmodeselection. The differencesin role intraveldemandandwillcontinuetoinfluencefuture Sociodemographic patternsandtrendsplayasignificant Travel Behavior • • • • • • •
for theseservices. transportation services,andto considerexpandingeligibility transportation agenciestocontinue toexpandspecial option forolderpeople. Therefore, it willbeimportantfor In certaincircumstances,public transitwillnotbean and efficiently. the population’s abilitytonavigateurbanareasmoresafely The promotionandexpansionofpublictransitcouldimprove to increase. the needforalternativeformsoftransportationwillcontinue As theU.S.continuestobecomemoreurbanandsuburban, needs ofanagingpopulation. have tocoincidewithimprovementsdesignedmeetthe population aged65andover. However, thisimprovementwill traditional transitserviceswouldservesomeneedsofthe Many studieshavesuggestedthatsimplyprovidingbetter infrastructure willbecomeanincreasinglyimportantasset. persist asthegenerationgrowsolder, pedestrian If themillennialgeneration’s travelchoicesandpatterns continues tobecomemoreurban. facilities willbecomeincreasinglyimportantastheU.S. congestion inurbanareassignificantly. Enhancingpedestrian Pedestrian facilitiesenhancemobilityandreducetraffic improving accesstopublictransportation. the agingpopulationbypromotingwalkingasamodeand Improved pedestrianfacilitiescanenhancethemobilityfor Improving RoadwayDesign: Title VI/EnvironmentalJustice Impacts: Increasing ImportanceofRegionalGrowth • • • • • •
capacity ofthetransportationsystem. implement strategiesthatenhanceandmaximizetheexisting in thefuture,transportationagencieswillneedtocontinue areas. Although additionalcapacityprojectswillbenecessary issues causedbyrapidpopulationgrowthinmetropolitan not adequatelyaddressthetrafficcongestionanddemand implementing traditionalprojectsthataddroadcapacitywill to thefutureoftransportationnetwork.Exclusively Further implementationof“completestreets”willbecritical safely andefficiently. enhance theelderlypopulation’s abilitytonavigateroadways services. Improvingroadwaydesignandsignagecould to providesatisfactorypublictransitanddemandresponsive or suburbanareas,whicharetypicallythemostdifficultareas A significantportionofpeopleaged65andolderliveinrural costs andenhancecustomerservicesignificantly. have thepotentialtoreducecustomer that thesepartnerships still intheearlystages,resultsthusfarhavedemonstrated demand paratransitservices.Whilethesepartnershipsare Transportation NetworkCompanies(TNCs)toprovideon- with, orhaveexploredthepossibilityofpartnering A fewtransitagenciesthroughoutthenationhavepartnered requirements. to maintaincompliancewith Title VI/EnvironmentalJustice Transportation agenciesmayneedtoexpandtheirefforts Justice populationswillcontinuetobecomemoreprevalent. migration continuestoincreaseintheU.S.,Environmental regardless ofrace,nationalorigin,orincome. As international services andbenefitsarefairlydistributedtoallpeople, Title VI/EnvironmentalJusticeisintendedtoensurethat efficiently acrossmegaregions. have theabilitytomovebothpeopleandgoodssafely need toensurethattheirrespectivetransportationsystems national andglobalmarkets,transportationagencieswill megaregions andenabletheseregionstocompetein In ordertofosterpopulationandeconomicgrowthwithin transportation optionsforlongandshorttraveldistances. consider implementingstrategiesthatprovidealternate address thesechallengesfromaregionalperspectiveand longer distances. Transportation agencieswillneedto congestion islikelytoworsenasdailytripsinvolvetraveling is expectedtoliveinsuburbanareasby2040. As aresult, peaked inthe1990s,morethanhalfofU.S.population Although trendsshowthattherateofsuburbangrowth 107
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
4.6 Economic Growth/Freight Movement
The efficient movement of people and goods greatly influences the economic competitiveness of the region. This is especially true in the Memphis MPO region where the area’s regional economy is centered on transportation, distribution, and logistics, with Transportation and Warehousing as the largest economic sector. With the Memphis International Airport serving as the busiest cargo airport in the United States and the second busiest cargo airport in the world, and FedEx headquartered in Memphis, these global logistics and multimodal assets will continue to provide a platform for growth.
The Memphis MPO region has a competitive advantage with an intensive freight network, including trucks, rail, inland waterways, and air cargo. The interstate system includes I-40, which serves as a long-haul east-west route, I-55 which serves as a long-haul north-south route, I-240 which circulates goods within the Memphis region, and Lamar Avenue which transports goods between the freight-intensive southeast portion of the region and other destinations throughout the southeast portion of the U.S. The interstate system also includes I-269, which is a radial loop that currently connects U.S. 51 in Millington, Tennessee to SR 305 in Mississippi and I-22 which traverses the southern portion the Memphis MPO through DeSoto and Marshall counties.
The area also has an extensive rail network, with five Class I railroads and with nine intermodal rail yards. Memphis freight rail facilities also serve as Above and below: Memphis is a major intermodal freight hub one of a few connecting locations between the for the nation. major west coast railroads (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP)) and the major east coast railroads (CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS)). Connections to north-south routes (Canadian National Railway Company (CN)) also exist in Memphis.
The Port of Memphis is the primary port facility in the Memphis MPO region. It has five river terminals and almost 100 public and private individual terminals, and it is primarily used to transport bulk and break-bulk goods to locations along the Mississippi River. The Memphis International Airport is the largest domestic hub for FedEx and is the second largest airport in the world in terms of tonnage moved. There are also six general aviation airports in the Memphis MPO region, which are located in Hernando (1), Olive Branch (1), Rossville (1), Memphis (1), and Millington (2). Figure 4.32 on the next page shows the major freight infrastructure for the Greater Memphis Region and the connections outside the region.
108 Source Data:GreaterMemphis RegionalFreightPlan,2016 Figure 4.32
Major ConnectionsfortheGreaterMemphisRegion 109
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
In 2015 over 125 million tons of cargo moved in, out, and around the freight network in the Memphis MPO region. Table 4.11 shows the tonnage distribution of freight flows for cargo traded in the Memphis Region. Figure 4.33 shows the distribution of mode for trade between Megaregions and the Memphis region. Trucks are the largest mode in terms of tonnage accounting for 45 percent of all movements within the region. In 2015, inbound and outbound freight goods in the Memphis Region exceeded a value of $376 billion. Coal is the dominant commodity by tonnage, accounting for 30 million tons or nearly 34 percent, while electronics is the leading commodity by value, $44.1 billion or 18.2 percent of the regional total. For a more in depth look at freight trends in the Greater Memphis region, visit the Memphis MPO’s website at www.memphismpo.org.
Figure 4.33 Modal Freight Summary Between Megaregions and Memphis FAF Zone
So e eate 3 em is e iona ei t an ata o t e em is N- S- C S ea
33 45
19
oad ay ai ive n ay i
Table 4.11 Cargo Tonnage Traded in Memphis MPO Region, 2015
Percentage of Percentage of Mode Tons Value Tonnage Value Roadway 113,826,761 76% $348,984,095,531 83% Rail 4,493,162 3% $4,204,627,657 1% Water 7,488,603 5% $84,092,553 0% Runway 29,954 0% $12,613,882,971 3% Other 23,963,529 16% $54,660,159,541 13% Total 149,772,054 100% $420,462,765,700 100%
Freight activity is forecast to increase across all modes between 2015 and 2025, as described in the Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan. Over this time, cargo volumes are anticipated to grow modestly at approximately 1 percent annually. The Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan, completed in 2017, examined freight issues in the region and identified deficiencies and potential solutions to help meet the growing needs of the freight community. Based on analysis of Freight Analysis Framework data and stakeholder interviews, specific policy, program, and project recommendations were identified. Project recommendations identified in the plan will be considered in the project prioritization process.
Source Data: Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan, FAF4 2015 Data for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR CFS Area
Note: “Other” is multiple-mode movements and pipelines.
110 2045. freight movedacrosstheU.S.transportationsystemby truck isexpectedtoincreaseandaccountfor66%ofall freight increases,andtheportionofmovedby trends areexpectedtocontinueasthevolumeof and mail,7milliontonsweremovedbyair. These water, 398milliontonsweremovedbymultiplemodes were movedbyrail,835milliontons 3.3 billiontonsweremovedbypipeline,1.7 approximately 11.5 billiontonsweremovedbytruck, that movedacrosstheU.S.transportationsystem, tons, a40%increase.Ofthe18billiontonsoffreight annually isexpectedtoincreasejustover25billion freight movedacrosstheU.S.transportationsystem of almost50milliontons.By2045,theamount across theU.S.transportationsystem,adailyaverage In 2015,approximately18billiontonsoffreightmoved U.S. FreightMovement be criticaltostrengthenthenation’s freightnetworkinordertomeetthedemandsofagrowingeconomy. demand bothdomesticallyandabroad. As freightdemandincreases,itwillputpressureonthenation’s infrastructure,and itwill Transportation playsacriticalroleintheU.S.economy, enablingthenationtocompeteinglobalmarketsandmeetconsumer Growth Emerging Trends:Transportation’sRoleinEconomic 111
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Impacts of Transportation’s Increasing Economic Importance on Transportation Planning and MPO Operations
Increasing Emphasis on Freight Travel Time Reliability • A federally required performance measure was recently implemented that requires State DOT’s and MPO’s to set a target to improve freight travel time reliability. The anticipated effect of this performance measure is that it will improve transportation’s contribution to the overall economic vitality of the country. The map below shows the already robust reach of freight in and out of the Memphis region, which is anticipated to increase with the new federal performance measures.
E-Commerce and First and Last Mile Logistics • Online shopping has become an increasingly common tool for consumers, and the 2016 Deloitte Holiday Survey indicated that, for the first time, holiday shoppers planned to spend as much time online as in stores.The first and final segments of a product delivery, often referred to as the “first and last mile,” represents a significant portion of delivery costs. Various companies have implemented strategies to reduce issues associated with first and last mile delivery, including the digitization of products, asset sharing, the use of alternative vehicles, and the use of third-party providers. As technology continues to advance, another key consideration is the implementation of autonomous truck fleets. Autonomous trucks are expected to have economic implications ranging from cost reductions to supply change shifts.
Source Data: Greater Memphis Regional Freight Plan, 2017
112 criteria: As partoftheMobilityandLivabilityCorridor Assessment, all20corridorswereevaluatedagainstthe following the transportationplanningandinvestmentdecision-makingprocessinthreekeyways: life goals). The MobilityandLivabilityCorridor Assessment providedacriticalmechanismtointegratelanduseinto (emphasis onmultimodalenhancementstoimproveaccesscommunityresourcesandadvanceregionalqualityof movement ofpeopleandgoodstoadvanceregionaleconomicdevelopmentgoals)orasaLivabilityCorridor and landusecriteriatocharacterizeeachindividualcorridoraseitheraMobilityCorridor(emphasisontheefficient into theLivability2050RTP Update. The MobilityandLivabilityCorridor Assessment appliedbothtransportation since thepreviousregionaltransportationplan,andthisassessmenthasbeencarriedforwardforfullincorporation of existingandfuturelanduseneeds. As such,thecontextandcharacteristics ofthesecorridorshasnotchanged transportationfunctioninthecontext highway transportationcorridorsintheregiontocharacterizeeachcorridor’s An assessmentwasconductedaspartofthepreviousregionaltransportationplanon20majornon-Interstate 4.8 maintain welcomecentersandrestareas. 69. Inaddition,todirecttransportationinfrastructureenhancements,MDOT spentover$6.2millionstatewideto in tourismcapitalinvestmentwasspentDeSotoCounty, andthemajorityofthatinvestmentfocusedonSR364/I- general staterevenue,andvariousindustriesimpactedbothdirectlyindirectlybytourism.In2016,$4.4million The Mississippi2016EconomicImpactReportevaluatestheimpactthattravelandtourismhasonemployment, attraction in Tennessee. Additionally, theMemphisInternational Airport servedover4millionpassengersin2016. 11.5 millionvisitors—6ofthemtravelingtotheBealeStreetEntertainmentDistrict,makingitmostvisited stresses theimpacttourismhasonMemphisandShelbyCounty. Annually, theMemphisregion hostsmorethan tourism industry. The mostrecentupdate(June2017)oftheMemphisandShelbyCountyEconomicImpactStudy The linkbetweentransportationandtourismisundeniable,oftenafundamentaldriverofthe 4.7 • • • • • 3. 2. 1.
Connection toRegionalEmployment Center Key Truck Route—Designationasacriticalfreightroute; management perspective; Congestion ManagementProcess(CMP)Route— A measureofcorridor significancefromacongestion corridor, identifiedasexternal-external(EE)volume intheregionaltraveldemandmodel; Trips PassingThroughtheRegion Total Volume — A measureoftravel demandforthecorridor. intended functionoftheroadway. By providingameanstotailorlandusepolicyonthesecorridorssothatdevelopmentovertimesupportsthe proposed investmentsareevaluatedinamannerthatrespectstheinvestmentcontext;and By helpingtoalignprojectsonthesecorridorsthescalesof2040RTP performanceframework,sothat linked tolandusecontext; By supportingtailoredtransportationinvestmentsthatbettermatchthefunctionofroadwaywhichisdirectly
Travel andTourism Assessment Land Use—MobilityandLivabilityCorridor — A measureofthrough-trip demand/interregionalmovementforthe — A measureofcorridorsignificanceforcommuter mobility; 113
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
• Connection to City/Town Center — A measure of corridor significance for commute or non-commute access to activity centers throughout the region, as defined through the Mid-South Regional Greenprint and Sustainability Plan (Greenprint); and
• Key On Street Connector — Designation as a critical multimodal mobility link, as defined through the Greenprint.
The presence of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure also was captured for all corridors. This information was not used to define the function of the roadway. It will be used to help shape proposed investments for the 2050 RTP given the corridor designation.
The 20 corridors included in the analysis, along with their Mobility or Livability designations are shown in Figure 4.34 and tabulated in Table 4.12. Table 4.12 Mobility and Livability Corridors
Mobility/Livability Designation Corridor Number Corridor 1 Houston Levee Road 2 Park Avenue 3 Summer Avenue– Outside I-40 Livability 4 Union Avenue/Walnut Grove Road - Inside I-240 5 U.S. 72/Poplar Avenue - Inside I-240 6 U.S. 64 7 Goodman Road 8 Austin Peay Highway– Outside I-40 9 Germantown Road Transitioning Livability 10 U.S. 51 11 Summer Avenue – Inside I-40 12 Austin Peay Highway – Inside I-40 13 Winchester Road 14 U.S. 61 15 U.S. 72/Poplar Avenue - Outside I-240 Transitioning Mobility 16 Walnut Grove Road - Outside I-240 U.S. 78/Lamar Avenue and E EH Crump Boulevard – 17 Inside I-240 18 Airways Boulevard 19 Shelby Drive U.S. 78/Lamar Avenue and E EH Crump Boulevard – Mobility 20 Outside I-240
Source Data: 10 Note that all Interstates are considered Mobility Corridors and are not subject to this analysis or classification system.
114 Figure 4.34
Mobility andLivabilityCorridorDesignations 115
Chapter 4 - System Conditions and Investment Needs This page is intentionally left blank.
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
118 from othersources. concerns. These wereincorporatedintotheassessmentofneedsandcross referencedagainstprojectsemanating Further, resultsfromtheMetroQuesttooldescribedinChapter2.0providedmore location-specificissuesand included: specific, theydidhelpsupporttheprojectsthatwereselectedfromothersources. understanding ofthetypesprojectsandissuesmostconcerntoregion.Whilethesewerenotproject Public andstakeholderoutreachactivitiesperformedintheearlymonthsofstudywereminedforan 5.2 Consultations werealsoheldwithStateDOTs toidentifytheState’s prioritiesandreconfirmongoingStateprojects. deletions, andadditions.Keychangesincluded: agency, andairportintheMemphisMPOregion. Attendees foreachone-on-onemeetingidentifiedupdates,edits, for projects”discussionwiththecounties,municipalities,transitagency, portauthority, economicdevelopment The projectlistfromtheLivability2040RTP, aswellthe2017-2020 TIP, wereusedasastartingpointfor“call 5.1 solutions. sources. Chapter8providesthefiscallyconstrained,prioritizedlistsofprojectsthatresultedfromtheseinvestment identified inpreviousstudies;andneeds outlined inthefollowingsections,suchasinputfromcommunities;stakeholdersandpublic;projects comprised thepoolofprojectsanalyzedandconsideredforfundinginLivability2050.V through differentmeansduringthedevelopmentofLivability2050R Potential investmentsolutionsforthebroadrangeoftransportationneedsoutlinedin • • • • • • • • • 5.0
recommendations Regional mobilityorlocallivabilityinvestments,includingroadway Improving thecondition,quality, andefficiencyofthetransportationnetwork and surroundingcommunities Well-maintained infrastructure Safe roadways New localpriorityprojectsnotpreviouslyidentifiedinthepreviousregionaltransportationplan Changes todefinitionsofprojects,suchasextents project waslikelytobeapriorityneed) Projects thatwerestillpriorities,andhowchangedfromLivability2040(e.g.,theyearordecade Projects thatwerenolongerpriorities(removedormovedtoVision list) Projects thatwerealreadybeingprogrammedorconstructed(movedtoE+Clist)
Public andStakeholderInput Livability 2040RTPandProjectIdentification
Investment Solutions Chapter 4thatwerenotmetbyprojectsinanyoftheother , transit,bicycle,andpedestrian TP Update. These potentialsolutions These overarchingthemes Chapter 4wereidentified arious projectsourcesare 119
Chapter 5 - Investment Solutions LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
5.3 Congestion Analysis
Along with the Congestion Management Process, the 2017 peak period congestion map was used to identify corridors in need of capacity improvements through roadway widening projects. More information about the Congestion Management Process can be found in Chapter 10. Road widening projects were considered for roadway segments that exceeded a volume to capacity ratio of 1.0 and did not already have a project to address that congestion. Representative projects that address congestion by facility type are as follows:
• #116, I-240 – Widen from 6 to 8 lanes from I-55 to I-40
• #5, Hacks Cross Road – Widen from 2 to 7 lanes from SR-175/Shelby Drive to Stateline Road
• #35, Swinnea Road – Widen from 2 to 3 lanes from Stateline Road to Goodman Road 5.4 Transit Assessment
A Transit Vision Plan was recently completed as a part of the ongoing Memphis 3.0 effort. The goals of the Transit Vision are:
• Assess the existing transit network and the geometry of today’s city
• Engage the public, stakeholders, and elected officials in a conversation about the goals of transit in Memphis
• Develop recommendations for changing the transit network
• Consider the cost and financing options for improving transit in Memphis
The Plan development process is a multiphase procedure. Phase 1 of the Plan is the Choices Report, which describes the process and presents important information about the existing conditions of transit and development in the Memphis area. Phase 2 is the Conceptual Alternatives Report detailing the choices that emerge during transit planning, such as balancing ridership and coverage or how much transit service is needed. Phase 3 of the Plan is the Draft Recommended Network. It is in this Phase that the discussions and ideas from the previous phases come together to create a vision for the future transit network in Memphis. The Final Recommended Network developed for this plan incorporated the Draft Network as well as comments received as a result of the Draft Network. To achieve the standards set in the Recommended Network the Memphis 3.0 process identified a series of assumptions, such as growing the annual transit investment, new and redesigned bus routes, more frequent service, and more weekend and evening service. Some of the features of the Plan include:
• More buses arriving more often
• 39% more jobs reachable in an hour by transit for the average Memphian
• 45% more jobs reachable in an hour for minority residents and 49% for low-income residents
• 79,000 more people and 103,000 more jobs near frequent service (every 15 minutes) Above: Transit Vision Plan features The Livability 2050 RTP Update reviewed these assumptions and findings as part of the development of recommendations for the plan. Source Data: www.memphis3point0.com/ transit
120 number ofusersandproviding anequitable,connectedbicycleandpedestriansystem. that connectresidentstotransit,areasofemployment,and otherlocaldestinationsarecriticaltoincreasingthe lack ofconnectivityfortheregionaswhole.Whilelongdistance connectionsmaynotbecosteffective,shortroutes needs assessment. Although therearebicycleandpedestrian facilitieswithinsomecommunities,thereisanoverall A reviewoftheexistingandplannedbicyclepedestrianfacilitiesforregionwasused asabaselineforthe Existing Conditions to assistjurisdictionsinidentifyingareaswithhigh/lowneed. pedestrian needsassessmentprovidesfocusareasorhot spots throughouttheregionthatcanbeusedasaguide bicycle andpedestrianfacilitiesthemostbaseduponavariety ofdata-drivenfactors. and pedestrianinfrastructureprojects.Focusareaspinpoint smallscalestreetnetworksthatwouldbenefitfrom and allocationoffunds,atransportationneedsassessment wasconductedtoidentifyfocusareasforbicycle community desire,regionalcollaboration,andavailablefunding. To prioritizebicycleandpedestrian projects The MemphisMPOregionisexpansiveandhasvaryinglevelsofbicyclepedestrianinfrastructuredueto 5.6.1 5.6 projects. the costoflivabilitycorridorprojectswereusedtoinformdevelopmentbudgetsforcompletestreetstype livability corridorsandtheShelbyDriveU.S.78/Lamar Avenue –OutsideI-240mobilitycorridors.Furthermore, the Livability2050RTP Update.ExamplesoftheseprojectsincludetheUS-51andPoplar Avenue –InsideI-240 both livabilityandmobilitycorridorprojectswereidentifiedforinclusioninthefinanciallyconstrainedportionof planning effortsoflocalmunicipalities,suchastheMemphis3.0ComprehensivePlan. transportation planRTP andcarriedforwardintoLivability2050. Additional focusareaswereidentifiedthough Mobility/Livability corridorsdescribedinSection4.8wereidentifiedthedevelopmentofpreviousregional 5.5 Recommended Transit Networkisshownin through recommendationsintheShortRange Transit PlanandtheMemphis Transit Vision. The Approved additional lengthandneedtotransferincreasestheoveralltransittraveltime.Manyoftheseissuesareaddressed needing totravelwestintodowntownMemphisinordertransferadifferentroutereachtheirdestination. in MATA’s ShortRange Transit Plan,therearelimitedopportunitiestotravelnorthandsouth,withridersoften the currenttransitnetworkwheretraveltimesfarexceedtimeinapersonalautomobile. in EJcommunities,transitisvitalforaccessingwork,school,andshopping. communities. This analysiswascarriedforwardintotheLivability2050RTP Update.Formanyindividualslocated to identifypotentialnewtransitroutesandextensionsimproveaccessforenvironmentaljustice(EJ) As partofthepreviousregionaltransportationplanRTP development,atransitgapanalysiswasconducted meeting. Oneoftheseroutes(the Airways BoulevardBRT) hasalsobeenincludedinLivability2050. Further, MATA identifiedseveralotherpossibleBRT routesthroughouttheMemphisareaduringitsstakeholder has beenincludedinLivability2050. established asthebestalternativeisMemphisInnovationCorridorwithaBusRapid possible routeswereinitiallyidentifiedandputthroughascreeningprocess.Fromthisprocess,theroutethatwas determine iftherewasafeasiblealternativetoprovidetheareawithHighCapacity The MemphisMidtown Alternatives Analysis wasdevelopedtoexaminetransitneedsintheMidtownareaand
Introduction andPurpose Bicycle andPedestrianMobilityAssessment Mobility/Livability CorridorAssessment Figure 4.23. This analysisconcentratedonareasin T The resultsofthebicycleand ransit service. Twenty-six As aresultofthiseffort, T ransit (BRT) service,which As discussed This 121
Chapter 5 - Investment Solutions LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Identifying Focus Areas Based upon the existing conditions, an approach to identify focus areas was developed. These focus areas or hot spots would serve as small street networks considered for targeted bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. A comprehensive process utilizing several layers of existing conditions data helped in identification of focus areas. The methodology and criteria are described in more detail in the following section. More information on the types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that can be considered to address these needs is provided in Appendix G (Alternative Transportation Strategies).
5.6.2 Hot Spot Analysis The hot spot analysis used a variety of criteria to capture locations or street networks where there is existing demand for bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure or areas that would benefit from new non-motorized facilities. Although there are several factors that could be considered for the analysis, general categories included:
• Context
• Safety
• Equity
Within each category, multiple specific criteria were established. An essential component for each criterion was the availability of data in a geospatial format to ensure that each criterion could be used to pinpoint physical locations within the Memphis region. Table 5.1 displays the final list of criteria and weighting identified in this process.
Methodology and Criteria Weights To develop focus areas across the Memphis MPO region that highlight the area’s need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, a grid network was developed to overlay the entire region mirroring the existing land use grid data. Each grid square is uniform in size and covers a spectrum of contexts from rural areas with a few roads to entire street networks in the denser areas of downtown Memphis. Each of the three categories and corresponding criteria listed below were weighted to create a unique composite score for each grid square.
Table 5.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Hot Spot Analysis Criteria and Weights
Criteria Rationale Scoring Tiers Weight Implementing infrastructure Transit where there are existing transit • High frequency stops stops is key to ensuring that Connection to MATA transit users can make safe • Medium frequency stops 15% Trolley/Bus Stops and high first-and-last-mile connections. frequency routes Higher frequency routes were • Low frequency stops given higher scores. Land Use Context Certain land uses are more likely to support active transportation, • High land use tier Proximity to schools, such as commercial centers and community facilities, parks, high-density residential uses. • Medium land use tier 15% commercial centers, and See the Land Use Context
Context high-density residential section below for land uses • Low land use tier uses category scoring tiers. Areas that have dense street networks are the most suitable • High intersection density Intersection Density for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure due to short • Medium intersection 10% Proxy measure for short blocks, more direct route density blocks / crossings choices, and frequent crossing opportunities for people • Low intersection density bicycling and walking.
122 context, aweightwasassigned. Context informationin The imagebelowillustrateshowlanduseandtransportation infrastructuremaychangethrougheachcontext. and quantityofamenities,thegeneralscaledevelopment (lotsizes,buildingfootprints),andotherfactors. walking, andwheelingincludethedistancebetweensignalized intersections,typicalbuildingsetbacks,thetype type ofdevelopmentpatternsthatarecommoninanarea. Development patternsthatparticularlyaffectbicycling, that mayattractorgeneratemoredemandforbicyclingwalking. completing theanalysisforallofcriteria,landuseswere weightedbaseduponuseswithinavarietyofcontexts within theregion. The landusedatacontainedavarietyofusesbrokenintoindividualgridsquares.Priorto Using largerdatasetsrequiredfurtherrefiningofthedatatoensurethathotspotsalignedwithfocusareas Land UseContextCategories
URBAN CORE Equity Safety crashes bicycle andpedestrian Identify hotspotsofsevere Crash severity school-aged populations. concentrations ofelderly/ of povertylevelsand Block grouplevelreview Vulnerable Populations cars. of householdswithzero Block groupslevelreview Zero CarHouseholds and pedestrianmapping Heat mappingofbicycle Crash Density Criteria Appendix G URBAN Table 5.2identifiesthetierandcorrespondinglandusecontexts. definesanddescribesthevariouslandusecontextsinmore detail.Basedupon options. inexpensive transportation benefit significantlybyhaving These groupscanoften (traffic, lackofchoice,etc.). transportation externalities disproportionate burdenof communities oftenbeara Underserved orvulnerable bicycling andwalking. to safe,connectedroutesfor benefit morebyhavingaccess and otherresources;theymay accessing communityfacilities a vehiclemayhavetrouble Households thatdonotown demonstrated safetyissues. of bicyclingandwalking show bothexistingdemand implementation becausethey of highestpriorityinterms design. These areasshouldbe unsafe crossingsorroadway crashes maybeareasthathave of bicycleandpedestrian with higherfrequency/severity existing roadwaynetwork. Areas for measuringthesafetyof fatalities) arecommonmetrics and crashseverity(injuriesor of crashesinagivenlocation) Crash frequency(thenumber Rationale SUBURBAN An area’ • • • • • • • •
s landusecontextisdefinedbythe households High percentageof Density ofallcrashes crashes Density ofsevere/fatal vulnerable populations Low percentageof vulnerable populations Medium percentageof vulnerable populations High percentageof households Low percentageof households Medium percentageof RURAL Scoring Tiers RURAL TOWN Weight 30% 30% The 123
Chapter 5 - Investment Solutions LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 5.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Land Use Category
Tier Land Use Context Categories High Urban Core Medium Urban Low Suburban, Rural Town N/A Rural
124 Figure 5.1
Memphis MPOBicycleandPedestrianHotSpots 125
Chapter 5 - Investment Solutions LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Focus Area Analysis Results The size and the varying contexts throughout the Memphis MPO region result in a wide range of focus areas. Due to the intersection density, land use, and access to transit criteria, many of the highest scoring areas naturally occur in and around downtown Memphis. Additionally, both the safety and equity categories received the highest scores in the densest areas of the region. Figure 5.2 illustrates the University of Memphis area where there are varying degrees of hot spots and the street networks they include.
Figure 5.2 Street Networks in Bicycle and Pedestrian Focus Areas
5.6.3 Using the Hot Spot Analysis The results of the hot spot analysis provide a snapshot of the bicycle and pedestrian transportation needs throughout the region. This analysis is a tool to assess projects that may impact pedestrians or bicyclists. Additionally, roadway projects through focus areas indicated by the hot spot analysis should include bicycle or pedestrian facilities or consider more robust facility types to serve the local population by providing safe and connected transportation choices.
A detailed look at the scoring of specific hot spots on a case-by-case basis may benefit local municipalities in planning or design for upcoming projects or assist the MPO with scoring projects for transportation funding. Although the hot spot analysis does not include every factor that may correlate with bicycle or pedestrian demand, it provides a comprehensive look at the region and how targeted, new multimodal infrastructure, namely bicycle and pedestrian facilities, can benefit local users based on context, safety, and equity.
126 and canoperateassuchunderallconditions. conditions. Level5automationdoesnotrequirehumansupport features thatdonotrequirehumansupportunderlimited rate ofadoption.Level4automationincludesautomateddriving horizon of2050. The followingfactorscouldspurorslowthe nationwide by2030,andatleasthalfofallmilesourplanning is thatLevel3&4 AVs willlikelydrive10%-20%ofallmiles vary widely.of adoption level Aestimate conservative moderately by theplanninghorizonof2050,estimatesforrateandtotal pilot projectstage.Whilesomelevelofadoptionisalmostcertain C/AV technologyisrapidlymaturing,butitstillonlyintesting& Adoption Timeline –FactorsofUncertainty “full automation.” Current levelsofautomationcanspanfrom“assisted”drivingto without ahumanactivelymonitoringthedrivingenvironment. Autonomous Vehicles (AV) performadrivingfunction,withor share real-timetransportationinformationbetweensystems. that allowsthevehicletocommunicatewithroadinfrastructure Connected Vehicles (CV)arevehiclesequippedwithtechnology region. radically changehowresidentsgetaroundtheGreaterMemphis Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technologyhavethepotentialto The developingfieldsofConnected Vehicle (CV)and Vehicles Connected andAutonomous transportation networks. efficiency, andtochangethewayweorganizeourcities have theabilitytorapidlyimproveroadwaysafety, transportation some levelofautonomoustechnology. These advancements the roadarefullyautonomous,mostnewvehiclestodayinclude While itwilllikelybeyearsbeforethemajorityofvehicleson rapidly tobeapartofoureverydaytransportationexperience. Connected andautomatedvehicletechnology(CAV) isemerging • • • Vehicles Emerging Trends:ConnectedandAutonomous
this newbusinessmodelisuntested. The successofthese the placeofprivately-ownedcars forsomehouseholds,but a riseinsharedmobilitycompanies likeUberorLyft taking Shared Mobility:Manyanalysts seeC/AV adoptionlinkedto Some delaysarelikely. must coordinatetoensuresafetywhilepromotinginnovation. government, theinsuranceindustry, andmanyotherpartners Legal Environment:C/AV developers,alllevelsof when Level5automationwillbeready. driving inatthattime,andthereisnoconsensustimelinefor environments &conditionsaLevel4vehiclewillcapableof use between2020-22.Itremainsunclearwhatrangeof publicly testedandareexpectedtobereadyforcommercial Technology: SAELevel4vehiclesarecurrently being • •
on cities. companies affectsboththe AV adoptionrateanditsimpacts for connectedand autonomousvehicleoperations. 598, 2333,1561,676,and151) allpertainingtoprovisions Tennessee haspassed5piecesoflegislation(SenateBills allow forplatooningoftrucks with connectedtechnology. vehicles. InMississippiHouse Bill1343wascreatedto legislation pertainingtotheoperation ofautonomous Legislation: Both Tennessee andMississippihave passed and need. AV adoptionwillbedrivenbyperceptionsofsafety, reliability, public iscurrentlyskepticalofC/AV technology. UltimatelyC/ Public Enthusiasm: As thegraphsbelowshow, much ofthe 127
Chapter 5 - Investment Solutions LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Impacts of C/AV Technology on needs, but data availability will depend on how CV and AV technology is implemented. Transportation Planning and MPO Funding: Traffic violation tickets and the gasoline tax might be Operations reduced by C/AV technology. However, C/AV technology would allow for efficient VMT taxes and other user fees. Impact of C/AV Technology on Roadway Traffic & Safety Impact of C/AV Technology on Urban Form & Reducing Crashes: NHTSA finds that human error is the Mobility critical cause of over 90% of crashes. Many reports predict C/AV Reduced Parking Space: One report estimated that 75% technology could dramatically improve safety by mitigating slow of current urban parking would not be needed by 2050. reaction times, reckless driving, and driver fatigue or alcohol This impacts land use, by potentially freeing space for infill impairment, but the effective rate of equipment and programming development. failure in C/AVs is still very speculative. The total impact of C/AV technology on safety is an important area of study. C/AVs & Transit: Many forecasters see shared mobility companies taking ridership from transit agencies - but the others Vehicle Miles Traveled: Early models suggest that C/AVs will see potential in automated buses or vans. FTA is currently increase annual VMT, both by encouraging more trips and the developing guidance on the legal implications and requirements, creation of “0-passenger trips” when C/AVs drive to pick up and could be potential for innovation here. passengers. Forecasts seem to cluster around 5-20% VMT increase, dependent on the ratio of traditional cars to private AVs Improved Mobility & Accessibility: Elderly and disabled to shared AVs. individuals may benefit from improved mobility and accessibility options offered by C/AV technology. Traffic Congestion: Platooning and other technologies may allow C/AVs to use road space more efficiently, as would Limited Initial Roll-Out: C/AV technology is likely to impact reducing road closures due to traffic accidents. major cities, suburbs, highways before rural areas and small towns, due to both technical conditions and economic Impact of C/AV Technology on MPO Operations constraints. CV Mandates in the Near Future: NHTSA is beginning the Safe integration with people on foot rulemaking process that could lead to CV technology being Bicyclists & Pedestrians: and bike is one of the main remaining technical issues for C/ mandated in new vehicles by 2023. AVs, and addressing those technical limitations will be important Leverage Funds for ITS: The 2015 FAST Act provides greater to Bike/Ped planning. latitude for MPO investment into ITS infrastructure, which can Experts warn that C/AVs are likely to encourage be used towards testing new technology, implementing new CV Land Use: urban sprawl by reducing the cost of travel, but there is potential infrastructure, and testing of C/AV vehicles if they have a clear to support compact development around shared vehicle and AV value proposition. transit hubs. Approach V2I with Caution: The research consensus suggests that while V2V technology is highly promising, V2I Impact of CAV Technology on Freight & may have a poor return on investment due to high costs, risk of Employment obsolescence, and compatibility issues. NHTSA is attempting to Early Driver Assistance Improvements: C/AV functions like mandate and standardize V2V technology, but isn’t interested platooning and automated highway driving are likely to increase in doing the same for V2I. MPO investment in V2I could be very safety and driver efficiency, with early C/AV technology serving important, but should be done with a grounded assessment of as a complement rather than a replacement to heavy truck risks and potential benefits. drivers. The MPO works Promote Transit Benefits for Shared AVs: Continued Importance of Human Drivers: The freight industry with existing groups to promote rideshares, vanpooling, and and other major forecasters do not see a reduced demand Emergency Ride Home programs. Similar cooperation with for drivers in the near future. Widespread adoption of full shared-ride AV providers can help mitigate C/AV increases to automation for heavy freight is unlikely to occur until 2030 to VMT. 2040, with cross-country and major fleet drivers being affected before local/drayage trucking and independent operators. AV-Only Lanes: Safety and congestion benefits from C/AV technology are most concentrated when C/AVs are separated Driverless Delivery: One sector that may see early adoption from human-driven vehicles. The MPO could look at the impacts of CAV technology is home delivery of food and goods, driven of restricting certain lanes to be AV-Only Lanes. mostly by the growth of online shopping. Some forecasts predict the use of a larger number of small, self-driven delivery vehicles Potential Data Assets: C/AVs have the potential to produce in urban centers. This has potential impacts on downtown a wealth of data for travel demand models and other planning congestion and VMT.
128
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
130 Source Data: trend ofoutwardgrowththatisextendinglinearlyalongmajortransportationcorridors,including: This concept,knownasConceptOne,focusedonaradialdevelopmentandinvestmentstrategy, recognizingthe 6.1 preferred approachstillalignswiththeregionalgoalsandobjectives. plan. Section6.3showshowthisconceptwasrevisitedwiththeETCand TPB toensurethatthepreviousplan’s to thelong-termvisionofRTP andwereusedtohelpguideinvestmentdecisionsforthefinancially-constrained as twodistinctoptionsforadvancingconsiderationofthemobility/livabilitycorridorconcept. These conceptsrelate 2040, wascarriedforwardintotheLivability2050RTP Update. The alternativeinvestmentconceptsweredeveloped The alternativeinvestmentconceptanalysisconductedwithinthepreviousregionaltransportationplan,Livability livability corridoranalysissummarizedin made sensewithintheregionalcontext. Their intentwastoadvancepolicydiscussionsaroundthemobilityand for comparisonanddiscussion. The RTPAC helpeddefinetheoptionsthroughtheirinput, identifyingconceptsthat The alternativeconceptswerenotbuiltuponactualprojectsbutratherconsideredatahigh,conceptuallevel directions fortheregion: The analysiswasusedtoillustratethebenefitsoftwo“bookend”investmentconceptsthatemphasizedifferent previous regionaltransportationplan’s goalsandobjectives. on transportationsystemperformanceareanalyzedbyapplyingthemeasuresthatlinkdirectlyto involvement techniqueduringthisphaseofplandevelopment. The consequencesofalternativeinvestmentchoices development processmovedintoevaluationofprojects. This typeofanalysisisoftenakeyanalyticalandpublic level analysisofalternativeinvestmentchoiceshelpeddevelopapreferreddirectionbeforetheplan to packagethebroadpotentialsolutionsetsintovariousconcepts.Buildingonidentificationofneeds,high- An alternativeconceptanalysiswasconductedaspartofthepreviousregionaltransportationplandevelopment Planning, 2014 • • • • • 6.0
businesses andincreaseattractivenessfornew anddevelopment. Targeting multimodalinvestmentwithin employmentandactivitycenterstoimprovemultimodalaccessforcurrent regional coreanddecentralizedemploymentactivitycenters; and Maximizing delayreductionforautosandfreightalongkey radialcorridorstoimproveconnectionsbetweenthe freight; Upgrading astrategicsetofradialcorridorswithfocuson improvingroadwaylevelofserviceforautosand decentralized employmentcentersandtheregionalcore,toeachother Expanded Travel Options— This conceptemphasizeda“livability”gridsystemtoimproveconnectionsbetween consistent withpastdevelopment Regional RoadwayConnections— This conceptemphasizedaradial,highway-focusedinvestmentstrategy,
Regional RoadwayConnections
1 FHWA, ModelLong RangeTransportation Plans: A GuideforIncorporatingPerformance-Based Analysis Alternative InvestmentConcept Section 4.8. 1 131
Chapter 6 - Alternative Investment Concept Analysis LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Potential investment areas are highlighted in Figure 6.1 as an illustrative concept only. Red denotes a mobility focus, with green a livability focus.
Figure 6.1 Potential Investment Areas — Regional Roadway Connections Concept
132 Figure 6.2 and greenalivabilityfocus. Potential investmentareasarehighlightedin between decentralizedemploymentcentersandtheregionalcore,toeachother This concept,knownasConceptTwo , movestowardaregional“livability”gridsystemtoimproveconnections 6.2 • • • maximize safe,multimodalaccesstocommunityresources. commute/freight traffictocorridorsthatmaximizedelayreductionandnon-commutetravel Providing moreconnectionswithinthesystemtodispersetrafficalonganexpandedgrid,therebychanneling Modifying facilitydesignalongkeynorth-southconnectionstomaximizemultimodallevelofservice; pattern ofthetransportationnetwork; Aligning theinvestmentapproachtoincorporatearegionalgridsystemthatimprovesuponcurrentradial
Expanded TravelOptions PotentialInvestmentAreas— Figure 6.2 as illustrativeconceptonly. Reddenotesamobilityfocus, Expanded TravelOptionsConcept , focusingon: 133
Chapter 6 - Alternative Investment Concept Analysis LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
6.3 Comparison of Alternatives
The performance impacts of each concept are presented in Table 6.1 on a relative scale from “low” Both ETC and TPB members to “high” for criteria that align with the RTP’s goals confirmed Concept Two – Expanded and objectives. At this level of analysis, simplified performance measures were identified that related to Travel Options as the preferred the project-level performance measures identified in direction for the region based on the Chapter 3. The assessment of these measures for assessment and ongoing input from each high-level concept utilized local knowledge and results of the needs analysis and existing and future the public for both Livability 2040 conditions assessment. and Livability 2050. The results of the high-level performance assessment were used to help guide the ETC and TPB in making a decision on the preferred direction for the Memphis MPO region during the development of the previous regional transportation plan. Both ETC and TPB members confirmed Concept Two — Expanded Travel Options as the preferred direction for the region based on the assessment and ongoing input from the public.
The Livability 2050 RTP Update sought to build off of the goals and objectives of the previous regional transportation plan, while also revisiting key decision points in the process to determine if they were still the preferred approach for the region. Since the adoption of the Concept Two — Expanded Travel Options during the development of the previous regional transportation plan, there were many projects initiated that support both investment concepts. Overall, however, the projects or initiatives that have been implemented during this timeframe reflect a greater support of Concept Two. Some examples include increased funding of bicycle and pedestrian projects in the 2017- 2020 TIP (increased from 9% to 22% of Tennessee funds and 1% to 11% of Mississippi funds from the 2014-2017 TIP), the adoption of the Regional Freight Plan, the passing of the IMPROVE Act, and the development of the MATA Transit Vision Plan. These projects and programs support a better-connected grid network that maximizes multimodal connections and supports system preservation. Both ETC and TPB members confirmed thatConcept Two remains the preferred direction for the region for Livability 2050. The TPB formally adopted Concept Two at their August 23, 2018 meeting.
134 Table 6.1 Traveland Tourism Movement Economic Vitality/Freight System Reliability; Congestion Reduction/ Vitality/Freight Movement Sustainability; Economic Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Movement; Environmental Economic Vitality/Freight Safety Infrastructure Condition FASTGoals Act Low Medium High
Alternative InvestmentConceptPerformanceAssessment bicycle/pedestrian coverage (bymode)— Provides newfacility transit coverage (bymode)— Provides newfacility tourism Enhance traveland delay forautosandtrucks Reduces congestionand complete streets Provides additional Reduces VMT disadvantaged populations Improves accessfor social impacts Limits environmentaland roadway coverage (bymode)— Provides newfacility safety Improves multimodal maintenance burden Limits long-term Criteria Concept One:“Regional Roadway Connections”
Concept Two: “Expanded Travel Options”
135
Chapter 6 - Alternative Investment Concept Analysis LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
136
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
138 then evaluatedbycriteriatailoredtoreflecttheappropriatebalancebetweenlivabilityandmobility: regional andlocalneeds.Potentialprojectswereassignedtoacontextbasedontheirfunctionwithintheregion The followinginvestmentcontextswereappliedwithintheperformanceframeworktohelpbalanceconsiderationof performance measurementandprojectevaluationprocess: framework definesasetoffiveinvestmentcontexttypestoprovidesense“scale”forrefiningthe the goals,objectives,andperformancemeasuresadoptedforLivability2050arebroad-based, which wasdesignedtoadvancefundingdecisionsthatreflectbothregionalmobilityandlocallivabilityneeds.While The projectevaluationandscoringprocesssupportstheperformanceframeworkdevelopedforLivability2050, 7.1 constrain Livability2050, describes theprojectprioritizationprocess. and localprioritiestoproduceaprioritizedlistofprojectsincludeintheFinanciallyFeasiblePlan. The MemphisMPOusedaperformance-basedapproachtorankprojectsforLivability2050,incorporatingstate how costedprojectswerefundedwithintheboundsofprojectedrevenues. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7.0
SR 196,NailRoad environmentally sensitiveareas. protect andpreserveundeveloped or Undeveloped —Investmentstrategies Neshoba Road residential areas.Examples:FloridaStreet, community resourceswithinprimarily operations andmultimodalaccessto communities throughimprovedsystem Investments supporthealthy, thriving Neighborhood Communities Street, ShelbyDrive residential uses. access toamixofbusiness,retail,and opportunities, multimodalconnectionsand centers; specifically, redevelopment economically viableandthrivingcommunity Town Centers—Investmentssupport Poplar Avenue, GetwellRoad access toaregionalsystem.Examples: last-mile connectivitytoensureeffective on corridorconnectionstokeycentersand improved mobilityandtraveltimereliability activity andeconomiccentersthrough strategic connectionsbetweenregional Regional Centers—Investmentssupport I-55 and freight/logisticshubs. interstate mobility, intermodalconnections, connected withinthestateandnationtomaintainregionaleconomiccompetitiveness.Investmentssupport Interregional
Project PrioritizationMethodology
— Investmentsalignedwithbig-ticketcapitalormaintenanceneedstoensuretheregioniswell Financially FeasiblePlan Examples: Commerce Section 7.3detailsthecostestimationmethodsforprojects,and Examples: I-40, — Examples: Section 7.2summarizestherevenueprojectionsusedtofinancially Section 7.4describes Section 7.1 139
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Each project-level performance measure was assigned to one of the five PlanningThemes: Connections and Choices, Economic Vitality, Safety and Security, Sustainable Growth, and System Preservation. Within each investment context, the Planning Themes are weighted differently to reflect the level of significance of each measure to each context type. As an example, the measures included in Economic Vitality are not as significant in determining project benefits within Neighborhood Communities, as transportation needs within this context focus on slower, safer, multimodal trips. The measures under this Planning Theme are of greater significance (and therefore of greater weight) within the Interregional and Regional scales, as the efficient movement of people and goods is vital to the regional economy. Tools such as the region’s travel demand model were used in evaluating criteria such as congestion, volume, and travel time. The different weighting system allowed projects to be scored and ranked according to unique needs of each investment context, and followed the recommendations of the RTPAC and the ETC.
Over 170 roadway and transit capacity projects were considered in the project evaluation process for Livability 20501. The sources of these projects are described in Chapter 5.0. The steps applied for project evaluation are:
Step 1. Assign project to investment context type
Each project was tagged to an investment context type based on a combination of the project’s need and purpose, its location and proximity to regional, community or environmental assets, and its functional classification.This process was supported through guidance and review of the RTPAC and ETC. The investment context of the project was needed to apply the appropriate performance measure weights, enabling the significance of various evaluation criteria to vary given the geographic scale of each project and its role in the transportation system.
Step 2. Evaluate performance impacts of projects
Within each investment context category, projects were evaluated relative to one another regardless of project type. To do this, a series of project-level prioritization criteria were identified. These prioritization criteria built from the planning themes, goals, objectives, and plan-level performance measures identified at the outset of the Livability 2050 plan development (see Chapter 3). Prioritization criteria represented a blend of quantitative information and qualitative assessment. Table 7.1 shows the focus area for the project prioritization, organized by the Livability 2050 planning themes.
Source Data: 1 Smaller scale bicycle/pedestrian, safety, and operations investments were not evaluated through this process. They will be reflected in the long-range transportation plan as lump sum funding set-asides as opposed to individual projects.
140 Table 7.1 Planning Themes
Project PrioritizationFocusAreas Prioritization Focus Areas Prioritization • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Technology integration Congestion, volume,andtraveltime Infrastructure maintenance Alternative fuels Land useintegration Social andnaturalenvironment Strategic HighwayNetworkorInterstatecorridors Bicycle andpedestriancrashseverity Total crashseverity Travel andtourism Freight centersandcorridors Employment centers Network continuity Bicycle movement Pedestrian movement 141
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Points were assigned for the criteria given the impact of the project. A few key points on project scoring include:
• Points were assigned for employment centers based on the total number of jobs in the area.
• The Memphis MPO’s Travel Demand Model was used to estimate average daily traffic (ADT), volume to capacity ratio (V/C), and travel time delay reduction impacts for each project. For these measures, points were assigned (up to the maximum allowed for each criteria) based on the level of ADT, V/C, or delay reduction.
• The travel time reliability factor was developed using the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) website and the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS).
• The crash prioritization criteria were developed by comparing the amounts of crashes with injuries or fatalities for each project to the rest of the projects and then normalizing them to come up with values between 0 and 1, where increasing values depict the projects with higher injury/fatality crash amounts.
• All other prioritization criteria were evaluated qualitatively as “Yes” or “No” in terms of positive or negative impact for the criteria of interest. For these criteria, all points were assigned for “Yes”, zero points for “No”.
Weights were applied for each measure given the scale of project and the planning theme associated with the prioritization criteria. Points were summed across all criteria to produce individual project scores. Projects were then combined into one scored list, across the five scales, based on project score.
Step 3. Rank projects
Projects were ranked by the total cumulative scores based on the project evaluation.
The ranking provides an assessment of relative impacts of proposed investments, in the context of the Livability 2050 planning themes. It was provided to the MPO, its committees, and local government stakeholders to help guide the funding discussions for Livability 2050. 7.2 Revenue Projections
Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 134 requires that a long-range transportation plan contain a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted plan can be implemented, indicate resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommend any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The purpose of the financial plan is to demonstrate fiscal constraint, which ensures that the transportation plan reflects realistic assumptions about future revenues for investment.
Revenue forecasts are based on current Federal, state, and local funding programs that support highway and transit-related investments. Assumptions for the revenue forecast were documented in a methodology that was reviewed and approved by TDOT and MDOT. The historical funding sources that have been utilized (or programmed) by the Memphis Urban Area MPO between FY 2014 and FY 2020 are described in the following sections. Revenue forecasts are presented in three programming tiers: 2021-2030, 2031-2040, and 2041-2050.
142 considered asanadditionalfundingsourceforprojectsinthatstate. Mississippi iscurrentlyweighingthepassageofadditionaltransportationfunding,whichifsuccessfulwouldbe in Livability2050. Differences werenotedbetweentheprojectionsadoptedinpreviousR Comparison toPreviousRTP RevenueProjections Table 7.2 public transportationisestimatedat$1.7billionfrom2021-2050( billion. Withinthisestimate,fundingforhighwaysisestimatedat$10.4billionfrom2021to2050and funding estimatedtobeavailablefromFederal,state,andlocalsourcesfortheLivability2050RTP Updateis$12.1 expenditures overthelifeoftransportationplan. All revenuesareexpressedinyear-of-expendituredollars. The Table 7.2summarizesthefinanciallyconstrainedrevenueestimatesforhighwayandtransittransportation 7.2.1 Cost Band 2021-2030 Tennessee 2031-2040 2041-2050 Total Tennessee 2021-2030 Mississippi 2031-2040 2041-2050 Total Mississippi 2021-2050 MPOTotal
Summary ofRevenues
Table 7.3highlightssomeofthemaindifferencesfornon-transitcapitalrevenues. Revenue Summary Roadways $ 2,024,900,155 $ 2,246,556,433 $ 2,798,733,573 $ 7,037,289,590 $ 909,086,610 $ 1,090,252,200 $ 1,357,956,124 $ 3,357,294,934 $ 10,394,584,524 Transit $ 442,955,366 $ 551,720,008 $ 687,191,058 $ 1,681,866,432 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,681,866,432 Table 7.2). TP (Livability2040)andtheprojections Total $ 2,467,855,522 $ 2,798,276,441 $ 3,485,924,631 $ 8,752,056,593 $ 909,086,610 $ 1,090,252,200 $ 1,357,956,124 $ 3,357,294,934 $ 12,109,351,527 The stateof 143
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 7.3 Different Assumptions Between Previous Plan and Current Plan Update
Previous Plan (Livability 2040) Current Plan (Livability 2050) Used 10-year historical averages Historical average Uses FY 2014-2017 and FY 2017-2020 TIP for and recent allocations to the MPO for base year Memphis MPO based on MAP-21 Staggered approach: Static approach using values obtained from FHWA FAST Act 2016-2020 Estimated Apportionment Average annual • 0.5% through 2017 document (2.2%). This value is consistent with FAST growth rate for Act appropriations. revenues • 1.0% from 2018-2025 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/ • 2.3% from 2026-2040 estfy20162020apports.pdf Assumed a conservative forecast Averaged annual discretionary funding levels from based on the 10-year historical FY 2014-2017 and FY 2017-2020 TIPs, excluding Discretionary trend. The current estimate from TIGER funds in FY 2014 of $32 million, and funding discretionary funds is $478 million excluding INFRA grant funding in FY 2019 of $71.1 from 2015-2040. million plus a 20% state match. Applies the anticipated funding for statewide, county, IMPROVE Act Not Applicable and municipal levels from the IMPROVE Act, for a Funding total of $817 million between 2021-2050. The Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) is a new funding source within the FY 2017-2020 TIP. This HIP Funding Not Applicable funding source is reflecting values from the current TIP and is included only in the year 2018.
7.2.2 Revenue Forecast Methodology This section describes the process used to generate the transportation revenue projections for the Memphis Urban Area MPO.
Step 1: Calculated annual average revenues using FY 2014-2017 to FY 2017-2020 TIPs. Annual revenues for each program were estimated using the two most recent TIPs (FY 2014- 2017 and FY 2017- 2020) due to consistency in funding programs. No TIP cycles prior to FY 2014 were referenced to maintain consistency with MAP-21 and FAST Act funding programs. Average annual discretionary funds were calculated based on FY 2014- 2017 and FY 2017- 2020 TIPs, except for a $32 million TIGER grant occurring in the FY 2014- 2017 TIP.
Step 1a: Applied debt service obligations for Mississippi. In addition to Federal funds, the state of Mississippi uses bond proceeds to finance transportation projects in DeSoto and Marshall counties. The outstanding GARVEE bonds issued by MDOT are being paid from Federal grant revenues and state revenue sources. The outstanding debt service estimates were provided by MDOT to refine revenue projections. Currently, debt service payments extend through FY 2040. Debt service is assumed to be funded through NHPP, STBG-S, CMAQ, and HSIP funds.
Step 1b: Accounted for new funds from Tennessee’s IMPROVE Act. The state of Tennessee passed the IMPROVE Act on April 26, 2017 that provides additional funding for transportation infrastructure projects. The IMPROVE Act includes additional funding at the statewide, county, and municipal levels through a 3-year phased increase in the state fuel tax and annual vehicle registration fees with no increase after FY 2020. There is no legislative sunset, so 2020 funding levels are projected to continue through the life of the plan.
144 Table 7.5 Table 7.4 anticipated capitalroadwayrevenuesbyfundingprogramandcostband. provide thelocalmatchingfundsforFederalfundingprograms,whenrequired. not limitedto,pedestrian,bicycle,andmajorplanningand/orenvironmentalstudies.LocalagenciesstateDOTs various programsadministeredbytheStatesforroadwayconstructionandothermultimodalprojectsincluding,but that requirelessthana20percentmatchorare100federallyfunded.Federalfundsavailablethrough in federalfundsandtheremaining20percentstateorlocalmatchingfunds. There aresomefundingsources shown intheFY 2014-2017 TIP andtheFY 2017-2020 TIP, projectsarefundedusingan80/20split,with80percent Federal fundsarethemainsourceofcapitalrevenueforprojectsinMPOregion.Basedonfundingallocations 7.2.3 2020 TIPs. A constantinflationrateof2.2%wasassumed,consistentwiththevalueappliedtocapitalrevenues. State andlocalsharesofoperationmaintenancefundingwerecollectedfromtheFY Step 3:Estimatedstateandlocaloperationsmaintenancerevenues. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/estfy20162020apports.pdf FAST Act 2016-2020Estimated Apportionment document. The document canbeaccessedusingthelinkbelow. Following FHWA guidance,anannualinflationrateof2.2%wasappliesbasedonvaluesobtained fromtheFHWA Step 2:Calculatedannualinflationrates. 2 1 Horizon Bandalso includesasinglecapital(MS-304 atMcIngvaleRoad) project fundedwithSTBG-Sdollars. The capital revenueshownhereisequivalenttothedebtservicefor outstandingGARVEE bonds, The 2021-2030 Discretionary fundsareinclusive ofone-timefundingsourcessu CMAQ/HSIP NHPP/STBG-S/ Totals STBG Totals HSIP NHPP TA Discretionary STBG-State STBG-M CMAQ TA Statewide IMPROVE Act County IMPROVE Act Municipal IMPROVE Act Discretionary
Capital RoadwayRevenues
2 1 1 Mississippi CapitalRoadwayRevenues Tennessee CapitalRoadwayRevenues $1,360,929,131 $188,219,422 $532,208,335 $176,456,464 $177,443,576 $117,007,727 $ 385,939,106 $ 459,567,742 $30,565,014 $40,479,067 $26,109,943 $61,091,558 $11,348,025 $ 33,763,881 $ 28,586,574 $ 11,278,181 2021-2030 2021-2030 $1,436,265,950 $662,888,428 $219,784,135 $221,013,624 $117,007,727 $ 156,733,428 $ 206,386,699 $25,747,614 $38,070,042 $14,134,455 $50,418,424 $26,109,943 $61,091,558 $ 14,047,461 $ 35,605,810 2031-2040 2031-2040 ch asINFRA/BUILDGrants,5309, &privatefunds. $ 0 $1,806,195,896 $273,750,616 $275,281,999 $825,656,119 $117,007,727 $99,476,661 $47,417,879 $17,605,073 $62,798,321 $26,109,943 $61,091,558 $ 17,496,719 $ 44,348,571 $ 61,845,290 2041-2050 2041-2050 Tables 7.4and7.5showthe 2014-2017andFY 2017- $ 0 $ 0 Total (2021-2050) Total (2021-2050) $4,603,390,978 $2,020,752,882 $313,443,698 $669,991,215 $673,739,198 $351,023,182 $183,274,673 $116,052,935 $153,695,811 $ 542,672,534 $ 108,540,955 $ 727,799,732 $43,087,553 $78,329,829 $ 33,763,881 $ 42,822,361 145
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
7.2.4 Operations and Maintenance Roadway Revenues The maintenance and operations of non-transit facilities within the MPO region is currently funded through a combination of state funds and local funds. Local governments provide funding for the facilities that are not state or Federal routes, such as local streets, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. State DOTs provide funding to operate and maintain state and Federal facilities such as state highways and the interstate system. O&M revenue activities include:
• Paving • Surveillance and Inspection
• Signs and painting • Street Lighting
• Right-of-way maintenance • Others (e.g. weight stations, bridge maintenance)
• Traffic Signal maintenance
Tables 7.6 and 7.7 show the show the anticipated operations and maintenance roadway revenues by funding program and cost band. It should be noted that under the FAST Act, FHWA has distinguished betweeen preservation and maintenance. Preservation consists of work that is planned or programmed to improve or sustain the condition of the transportation facility in a state of good repair. Maintenance describes work that is performed to maintain the condition of the transportation system or to respond to specific conditions or events to restore the highway system to a functional state of operation. Maintenance is comprised of both preventive and routine maintenance. Routine maintenace is performed in response to an event, season, or over all deterioriation of the transporation facility. State Transportation Departments may not use NHPP funds for routine maintenance, but may use funds for preventive maintenance.
Table 7.6 Tennessee Operations and Maintenance Revenues
2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 Total NHPP Preservation $ 369,839,690 $ 460,651,281 $ 573,761,032 $ 1,404,252,003 STBG-S $ 47,306,145 $ 8,921,843 $ 73,389,697 $ 179,617,685 Maintenance STBG-M $ 3,621,297 $ 4,510,482 $ 5,618,000 $ 13,749,780 Maintenance Discretionary $ 20,671,797 $ 25,747,614 $ 32,069,764 $ 78,489,175 Maintenance Improve State $ 39,002,576 $ 39,002,576 $ 39,002,576 $ 117,007,727 Maintenance Improve County $ 8,703,314 $ 8,703,314 $ 8,703,314 $ 26,109,943 Maintenance Improve Municipal $ 20,363,853 $ 20,363,853 $ 20,363,853 $ 61,091,558 Maintenance TN Jurisdictions $ 154,462,352 $ 192,389,519 $ 239,629,442 $ 586,481,313 Totals $663,971,024 $810,290,483 $992,537,677 $ 2,466,799,184
Table 7.7 Mississippi Operations and Maintenance Revenues
2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 Total NHPP/STBG-S/ $ 414,405,108 $ 840,129,799 $ 1,241,636,131 $ 2,496,171,038 CMAQ/HSIP MS Jurisdictions $ 35,113,760 $ 43,735,702 $ 54,474,703 $ 133,324,165 Totals $ 449,518,868 $ 883,865,501 $ 1,296,110,834 $ 2,629,495,203
146 Current (2018)projectcostswereforecasttotheappropriate yearofexpenditureasrequiredbyFederalregulations build areatype,terrain,andtypeofimprovement. operation andmaintenancecosts.Unitcostsforimplementation ofthetransportationimprovementsaccountedfor methodologies. Estimatedcostsinclude(asappropriate)preliminary engineering,right-of-way Planning levelcostestimatesweredevelopedforallnewprojects identifiedusingavailable 7.3 Table 7.8 anticipated transitcapital,operations,andmaintenancerevenuesbrokenoutbyfundingprogramcostband. formula forthoseactivities. TDOT nolongermatchesoperatingexpensesonfederalprograms. programs thatallowoperatingexpensesaseligible,like5307and5310,usea50/50federal/non-federalmatching an 80%fundingsharethroughfederalsources,10%fromstateandlocalsources.Federal Federal programsthatdonotallowoperatingexpensesaseligible,such5309,5337,5339,andCMAQ,specify competitively atthestatelevel. Section 5309fundsarediscretionary, whileCMAQfundsareapportionedtostatesviaformulabutawarded transit capitalprojects. In addition,thefollowingfundingsourcesareallocatedthroughacompetitiveprocessalsoavailableforusein programs, includingthefollowing: Transit capital,operations,andmaintenanceprojectsarefundedthroughacombinationoffederalformulafunding 7.2.5 Mississippi aswell. the MPOtoforecastyearofexpenditure costs.MDOT agreedthatthisinflation ratefrom TDOT wasreasonable for experienced by TDOT, anannualinflationrate of3.46%wasusedonboththe Tennessee andMississippiside of for preliminaryengineering,right-of-way, andconstruction.Basedonthehistoricchangeinconstructioncost • • • • • • 5307 5309 5310 5337 5339 CMAQ Totals
Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality(CMAQ) Bus andFacilitiesProgram–LaddersofOpportunityInitiatives(section5309) Bus andFacilities(section5339) State ofGoodRepair(section5337) Enhanced MobilityofSeniorsandIndividualswithDisabilities(section5310) Urbanized Areas (section5307)
Transit Revenues Project Costs
Transit Revenues $193,862,927 $156,160,445 $442,955,366 $54,790,956 $15,432,447 $21,844,489 2021-2030 $864,102 $241,464,635 $194,504,568 $551,720,008 $68,244,498 $19,221,778 $27,208,253 $1,076,276 2031-2040 Source Data: $300,754,614 $242,263,826 $687,191,058 $85,001,464 $23,941,554 $33,889,052 $1,340,548 2041-2050 2 23CFR450.322 (f)(10)(iv). TDOT andMDOT , construction,and Table 7.8showsthe $1,681,866,432 2021-2050 Total $736,082,176 $208,036,918 $592,928,839 $58,595,779 $82,941,794 $3,280,925 2
147
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
7.3.1 Roadway Projects MPO member agencies provided planning level costs for projects in Livability 2050. When project costs from member agencies was not available, those values were estimated using the TDOT Strategic Transportation Investments’ Cost Estimate Tool. This tool allows for estimating categories of project costs, such as:
• Right-of-way • Preliminary engineering
• Construction • Construction engineering inspection
• Utility relocations
The tool allows for estimating costs for many different types of improvements, such as interchange reconstruction, roadway widening, routes on new alignment. and many other project types. Factors for area type (rural or urban), project length, roadway width, type of terrain, median type, structures and bridges, retaining walls and other major construction items allow for tailoring specific project costs.
7.3.2 Transit Projects Planning-level capital cost estimates for proposed new and expanded transit service are based on the estimated number of vehicles needed for the new/expanded service, given the specified route length, headways, hours of service, and any additional or necessary roadway improvements. Calculations include a spare ratio of 0.2 and the cost of establishing stops (spaced between one-quarter and one-eighth of a mile for local bus service). Cost estimates for bus rapid transit projects were developed in consultation with MATA.
7.3.3 Multimodal (Bicycle, Pedestrian and Complete Streets) Planning-level cost estimates for the general line items for future bicycle and pedestrian investment are based on typical per-mile costs that assume sidewalks on one side of the roadway, 10-foot wide asphalt mixed-use trails, and the development of bike lanes through restriping of existing roadway. The cost estimating tool from TDOT’s Strategic Investment group was used to estimate multimodal improvements. 7.4 Fiscal Constraint
The FAST Act requires that the Regional Transportation Plan be financially feasible and demonstrate fiscal constraint for all funded projects through the 30-year planning horizon. Implementation of transportation improvements is contingent on available funding and a plan is considered fiscally constrained when the project costs do not exceed the projected revenues. The Livability 2050 RTP Update must demonstrate reasonably expected sources of funds and project revenues available to projects and programs identified in the plan as well as identify any additional financial strategies used to implement the plan.
As documented in Section 7.2, the Memphis MPO prepared forecasts of Federal, state, and local revenues over the 2050 plan horizon. Funding tiers were defined for 2021-2030, 2031-2040, 2041-2050. Costs were estimated at a high level for all projects from the sources described in Chapter 5, adjusted to reflect inflation in the future. The prioritized list of projects described in Section 7.1 were then matched to potential revenue given project eligibility (by funding source), availability of local match, and availability of funding within each funding tier of Livability 2050. Projects were funded in order based on their priority with higher priority projects funded in earlier funding tiers and lower priority projects funded in later funding tiers. This was an iterative process, requiring repeated balancing across funding sources and funding tier of the Livability 2050 RTP Update (2030, 2040, or 2050). Projects that did not receive funding were placed in the Vision Plan (see Table 8.3).
Tables 7.9 and 7.10 summarizes total revenue and expenditures by funding source and Livability 2050 funding tier, demonstrating that Livability 2050 revenues and expenditures are balanced. All expenditures are presented in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Revenue generation was based on historic expenditure of TIP funds. The funding for large infrastructure projects such as reconstruction of the I-40/I-240 interchange, construction of SR-385/I-269, and other large-scale projects heavily weighted the amount of projected NHPP and STBG-S funding source amount over the course of the Livability 2050 horizon. As such, the total cost for projects eligible for these funds does not use all of the projected revenue.
148 Table 7.9 Tennessee Revenue Balance Table
2021 - 2030 2031 - 2040 2041 - 2050 Total (2021-2050) Revenues Expenditures Balance Revenues Expenditures Balance Revenues Expenditures Balance Revenues Expenditures Balance NHPP Capital $532,208,335 $439,313,892 $92,894,443 $662,888,428 $506,486,792 $249,296,079 $825,656,119 $590,701,447 $484,250,751 $2,020,752,882 $1,536,502,131 $484,250,751 NHPP $369,839,690 $369,839,690 $0 $460,651,281 $460,651,281 $0 $573,761,032 $573,761,032 $0 $1,404,252,003 $1,404,252,003 $0 Maintenance STBG-S Capital $176,456,464 $174,176,538 $2,279,927 $219,784,135 $118,823,518 $103,240,543 $273,750,616 $166,083,835 $210,907,324 $669,991,215 $459,083,891 $210,907,324 STBG-S $47,306,145 $47,306,145 $0 $58,921,843 $58,921,843 $0 $73,389,697 $73,389,697 $0 $179,617,685 $179,617,685 $0 Maintenance STBG-M Capital $177,443,576 $173,296,334 $4,147,242 $221,013,624 $211,241,179 $13,919,687 $275,281,999 $280,683,392 $8,518,293 $673,739,198 $665,220,905 $8,518,293 STBG-M $3,621,297 $3,621,297 $0 $4,510,482 $4,510,482 $0 $5,618,000 $5,618,000 $0 $13,749,780 $13,749,780 $0 Maintenance HSIP $30,565,014 $30,565,014 $0 $38,070,042 $38,070,042 $0 $47,417,879 $47,417,879 $0 $116,052,935 $116,052,935 $0 CMAQ $11,348,025 $11,348,025 $0 $14,134,455 $14,134,455 $0 $17,605,073 $17,605,073 $0 $43,087,553 $43,087,553 $0 TA $40,479,067 $40,479,067 $0 $50,418,424 $50,418,424 $0 $62,798,321 $62,798,321 $0 $153,695,811 $153,695,811 $0 Discretionary $188,219,422 $154,384,876 $933,975 $25,747,614 $0 $26,681,590 $99,476,661 $67,406,898 $58,751,354 $313,443,698 $254,692,344 $58,751,354 Capital Discretionary $20,671,797 $20,671,797 $0 $25,747,614 $25,747,614 $0 $32,069,764 $32,069,764 $0 $78,489,175 $78,489,175 $0 Maintenance Improve State $117,007,727 $18,956,805 $98,050,922 $117,007,727 $135,584,960 $79,473,690 $117,007,727 $97,604,991 $98,876,426 $351,023,182 $252,146,756 $98,876,426 Capital Improve State $39,002,576 $39,002,576 $0 $39,002,576 $39,002,576 $0 $39,002,576 $39,002,576 $0 $117,007,727 $117,007,727 $0 Maintenance Improve County $26,109,943 $14,125,597 $11,984,346 $26,109,943 $24,984,943 $13,109,346 $26,109,943 $0 $39,219,289 $78,329,829 $39,110,541 $39,219,289 Capital Improve County $8,703,314 $8,703,314 $0 $8,703,314 $8,703,314 $0 $8,703,314 $8,703,314 $0 $26,109,943 $26,109,943 $0 Maintenance Improve Municipal $61,091,558 $61,015,765 $75,793 $61,091,558 $19,349,759 $41,817,591 $61,091,558 $38,852,587 $64,056,562 $183,274,673 $119,218,111 $64,056,562 Capital Improve Municipal $20,363,853 $20,363,853 $0 $20,363,853 $20,363,853 $0 $20,363,853 $20,363,853 $0 $61,091,558 $61,091,558 $0 Maintenance TN Jurisdictions $154,462,352 $154,462,352 $0 $192,389,519 $192,389,519 $0 $239,629,442 $239,629,442 $0 $586,481,313 $586,481,313 $0 Maintenance Transit $442,955,366 $442,955,366 $0 $551,720,008 $551,720,008 $0 $687,191,058 $687,191,058 $0 $1,681,866,432 $1,681,866,432 $0 Total $2,467,855,522 $2,257,488,874 $210,366,647 2,798,276,440 2,481,104,562 $527,538,525 3,485,924,631 3,048,883,158 $964,579,998 $8,752,056,593 $7,787,476,595 $964,579,998 149
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Balance $4,919,121 $4,919,121 $42,822,361 $33,763,881 $542,672,534 $133,324,165 $103,621,834 $2,496,171,038 Expenditures $3,352,375,814 Total (2021-2050) Total Revenues $42,822,361 $33,763,881 $133,324,165 $108,540,955 $542,672,534 $2,496,171,038 $3,357,294,934 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Balance $4,919,121 $4,919,121 $0 $0 $17,496,719 $54,474,703 $51,312,260 Expenditures $1,241,636,131 $1,364,919,813 2041 - 2050 $0 $0 Revenues $17,496,719 $54,474,703 $44,348,571 $1,241,636,131 $1,357,956,124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Balance $11,882,809 $11,882,809 $11,882,809 $11,882,809 $0 $14,047,461 $43,735,702 $29,714,912 $156,733,428 $840,129,799 Expenditures $1,084,361,303 2031 - 2040 $0 Revenues $14,047,461 $43,735,702 $35,605,810 $156,733,428 $840,129,799 $1,090,252,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Balance $5,991,912 $5,991,912 $11,278,181 $11,278,181 $35,113,760 $22,594,661 $33,763,881 $385,939,106 $414,405,108 $903,094,698 Expenditures 2021 - 2030 Mississippi Revenue Balance Table Revenues $11,278,181 $11,278,181 $35,113,760 $28,586,574 $33,763,881 $385,939,106 $414,405,108 $909,086,610
NHPP/ STBG-S/ CMAQ/HSIP Debt Service & Capital NHPP/ STBG-S/ CMAQ/HSIP Maintenance STBG-M Capital Capital TA Discretionary Capital MS Jurisdictions Total Table 7.10
150 road usagechargesgreaterstability thanfueltaxesinthelongrun. increasing fueleconomyand apply equallyregardlessofenginetype/technology. These twoadvantageswould give on thenumberofmilesdriven. Roadusagechargeshavetheadvantageoverfueltaxes inthattheyareresilientto generally intendedasareplacement forfueltaxes.Insteadofaper-galloncharge,road usage chargesarebased Road usagechargesorVMT feesareper-mile charges forusingalltheroadwaysinajurisdiction. They are Example: RoadUsageFee(VMTTax) facility. Currently, tolling existingorfuturetransportationinfrastructurein Tennessee isnotpermissible. construct, andoperateprojectswhileusingthetollconcessions tooffsetthecostofconstructingandoperating Tennessee hasstudiedtollingfortheconstruction ofseveralnewfacilities. Toll facilitiesallowagencies todesign, sense onwell-studied,high-trafficpiecesofinfrastructure. limited tostateroutes,tollingofhighwayswouldrequireachange inFederallawtoexecute. except incasesofmajorreconstructionabridgeortunnel andasspecificallyauthorizedbyCongress.Unless Tolling existinginterstatesandotherFederally fundedroadsandbridgesisnotallowedundercurrentFederallaw, the samecorridor. the proceedswillsometimesbeusedforcomplementarytransportationinfrastructureorserviceswithinaffecting Nationwide, tollroadrevenuestendtobededicatedforuseonthesameroadway Example: Tolling 7.5.3 counties alsocouldconsiderthisasasourceoffunding. could considerreallocationofaportionthesefundstomeettheneedsfortransportationprojects. The surrounding a $50wheeltaxwhenregistered. The majorityofthistaxisusedtofundnon-transportationneeds.ShelbyCounty any combinationofvehicletypes(private,commercial,etc.).Currently and registrationrenewalwithinadefinedjurisdiction.Itisusuallyfixeddollaramount. A vehicleregistrationfeeisasurchargecollectedbytheDivisionofMotorVehicles atthetimeofvehicleregistration Example: Vehicle RegistrationFees 7.5.2 efficient andyoungerresidentsaredrivingless,lessgastaxrevenueisbeinggenerated. In manystates,gastaxrevenueisnotkeepingupwithtransportationfundingneeds. time inanequitablemanner. Currentlyneither Mississippinor Tennessee fueltaxesareindexedtothepriceoffuel. taxes canbeindexedtotheconsumerpriceindexoroffuelallowvaluevaryover and 18.4cpgin2017to27.428.42019,respectively from 2017to2019.Bytheendofincrease,gasolineanddieselfueltaxeswillhaveincreased21.4cpg fuel, respectively. In Tennessee, theIMPROVE Act isincreasingthegasolineanddieselfueltaxesoveraperiod cents pergallon(cpg)and24.4cpgfordieselfuel.InMississippiitis18.7918.4gasoline Nationally, thefueltaxisstandardtransportationrevenuesource. The Federalexcisetaxongasolineis18.4 Example: Fueltax 7.5.1 potentionally morepalatabletotheregionasitdoesnotfocusburdenononerevenuesource. Examples ofdifferenttypesfundingsourcesareidentifiedbelow higher gastaxes,andtollroadshavereceivedthehighestlevelofcommunitysupport. Section 7.4,thereareotherpotentialsourcesofrevenuetoexploreinthefuture.Historically While thefiscallyconstrainedplanpresentedin 7.5
Potential AlternativeFundingStrategies Tolling, RoadPricing,andOtherUserFees Vehicle andDriverRelated Fuel Tax Related Chapter 8isfundedbytheexistingrevenuestreamsidentifiedin . Generally . Usuallythetaxisafixedvalue;however , allvehiclesinShelbyCountyareassessed , amixoffundingstrategiesare . Whenexistingroadsaretolled, As vehiclesarebecomingmore The feecanbeleviedon , developerimpactfees, T olling onlymakes , fuel 151
Chapter 7 - Financially Feasible Plan LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
7.5.4 General Taxes Example: Local Option Sales Tax Local governments may elect to adopt a general-purpose sales tax to fund transportation improvements. This, however, requires state legislative authority. For Shelby County, a ½ cent sales tax could potentially generate $63 million per year (estimated based on similar sized counties and retail employees). This is a popular option in many other communities across the country. The revenue stream should grow in proportion to population growth and will keep pace with inflation because the tax is a set percentage of the price of goods sold.
7.5.5 Specialized Taxes Example: “Sin” Taxes Often referred to as “sin” taxes, these taxes are applied to particular goods and activities, such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. These taxes are unique in that their amount is meant to be a disincentive to engaging in certain behavior, yet they have the potential to raise considerable revenue for states and local governments. While lottery proceeds have long been used to support education programs, some states with legalized gambling or a statewide lottery have designated revenues generated through these activities for public transportation services.
On September 1, 2018, the Alyce G. Clarke Mississippi Lottery bill became law (Miss. Code Ann. § 27-115). The law established the Mississippi Lottery Corporation and authorized a state lottery. The lottery is anticipated to begin running in late 2019 or early 2020. Through July 1, 2028, net proceeds from the lottery up to $80 million per fiscal year are to be deposited in the State Highway Fund to be used for matching federal funds to repair, renovate, and maintain state highways and bridges. After July 1, 2028, net proceeds up to $80 million will be deposited in the Mississippi State General Fund. Any net proceeds from the lottery more than $80 million will be deposited in the Mississippi Education Enhancement Fund.
7.5.6 Beneficiary Charges and Value Capture Example: Impact Fees Impact fees are a one-time charge to developers on new development. Revenues are used to pay for infrastructure improvements – such as schools, sewers, and roads—to support growth generated by development. Municipalities and county governments have applied these fees. The revenue potential of impact fees is low, and since the fees are entirely dependent on new development, they are highly speculative, and not easily bondable.
7.5.7 Freight-Related Taxes and Fees Example: Container Fees Container fees are a flat fee charged for all shipping containers transported into a port by any means (roadway, rail, or ship). Container fees are expressed in dollars per TEU, where one TEU is one Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit, equal to the size of the smallest intermodal shipping container.
States and port districts that impose container fees are constantly balancing the need for transportation infrastructure funding to keep the freight transportation system working properly, against the need to keep shipping rates and fees economically competitive with freight destinations and ports in other jurisdictions. This is particularly true if the ports handle a large percentage of discretionary cargo that is easily transported through a competing port if the fees become too disadvantageous.
152
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
154 unconstrained Vision Plan. funds. Table 8.3providesalistingofprojectsincludedinthe design concept,scope,anddescriptionssourceof details relatedtoproposedtransportationfacilitiesincluding project listingscanbefoundin investments aresummarizedin policies. Bothshortandlong-rangetransportation requirements andsupportsregionaleconomicdevelopment livability andmobility. Livability2050meetsairquality Within capitalinvestments,itstrikesabalancebetween Mississippi tohelpreachandexceedthenationaltargets. is committedtoworkingwiththestatesof Tennessee and Highway SystemandInterstateSystem,theMPO are appliedtotheStatelevel,withfocusonNational requirements formeetingminimumconditionstandards Source Data: groupings. However, recommendationsforfocusareasthesefundsareincludedinthetable. Transportation DemandManagementstrategiescanbeapartoflarger projectsorincludedinthesmallerproject often applytosmaller, morelocalized improvementsthatarenotspecificallycalledoutandseparatelyanalyzed. project listsinSection8.2. These areprojectsthatlargerinscopeandscale. The setasidecategories highlights majorinvestmentsbykeyprojecttype.Somespecific projectsarecalledoutandincludedinthecapital The fiscallyconstrainedplanfundsmorethan$11 billionworthofprojectsandlumpsumsetasides. 8.1 for bridgeandpavementconditionperformance. public andstakeholders,adherestoexpectedtargets the directionprovidedtoplanningprocessfrom the existingtransportationsystemfirst. Thisconformswith Ultimately, thisplanfocusesonmaintainingandpreserving based projectprioritizationprocess(see determined throughextensiveoutreachwithcommunityandagencyleaders,guidedbytheresultsofaperformance- transportation demandmanagementstrategies).Forspecific,largercapitalprojects,theprioritizationprocesswas asides” wereallocatedforvarioustypesofsmallerinvestments(e.g.,bicycleandpedestrianimprovements Following thishighleveltradeoffanalysis,thecapitalfundswereallocatedtospecificprojectsand“set- number ofcapitalprojectstobebuiltwiththeremainingfunds. public andstakeholderscanseetherangeofpotentialprojectedpavementbridgeconditions,aswell for capitalandmaintenance.Byvaryingtheamountoffundingavailableroadwaybridgemaintenance, In ordertoidentifytheconstrainedinvestments,atradeoffanalysiswasfirstperformedlookatavailablefunding of projectimplementationandforthespecifictypeproject. prioritized listofinvestmentsthatstaywithinthis$12.1billion,withfundingavailableforthedesignatedtimeperiod funding available(approximately$12.1billion). As afiscallyconstrainedplan,Livability2050mustcontain As isoftenthecaseinregionsacrosscountry, thetotalneedsinMemphisMPOregionexceed 8.0
Investment Summary
1 23U.S.C.119(f)(1) and23U.S.C.119(f)(1) Investment Priorities Table 8.2,whichincludes Section 8.1.Specific Chapter 7). 1 Whilethe preserving theexistingsystem. Above: Livability2050focusesonmaintainingand Table 8.1 155
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 8.1 Highlights of Major Investments
Funding Percent Category Description or Examples (Millions) of Total Livability 2050 increases the system preservation funding levels for the MPO region, in keeping with regional priorities indicated through stakeholder and public outreach, as well as Federal guidance. The plan fully funds long-term needs on the NHS system to meet FAST Act performance targets. The plan System Maintenance and $6,778 61.25% assumes non-NHS roadways will continue to be funded. Transit Operations Transit operations and maintenance are continually a paramount of concern to MATA and to the region’s public and stakeholders: ensuring the existing system functions well. This includes continued implementation of MATA’s Transit Vision to be completed as part of the Memphis 3.0 effort. Roadway and Interchange $3,446 31.14% Widening many interstates in the region including I-40, I-55, and I-240 Capacity Construction of new I-69 in northwest Memphis
A wide array of widening, new roadway, and roadway reconfiguration projects on arterial roads. A number of major interchange modifications including I-240/ Airways Blvd., Plough Blvd./Winchester Rd., and SR-304/McIngvale Rd., among several others. Additionally 4.72% of this value accounts for Mississippi Debt Service. The Memphis Innovation Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System between the Will Hudson Transit Center and the University of Memphis and the Airways BRT Transit Capital $131 1.18% System connecting the Innovation Corridor to the Memphis International Airport are major investments for the region. Bicycle/Pedestrian, Safety, Follow the recommendations of the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, $703 6.35% and Complete Streets adopted by the Transportation Policy Board on November 20, 2014. Complete streets upgrades for livability corridors:
• U.S.-51 • Poplar Avenue – Inside I-240 City of Memphis complete streets investments Targeted safety funding set aside for projects that address safety emphasis areas and/or address safety needs on corridors of safety concern. High crash corridors (non-interstate) include:
• U.S. 72 / Poplar Avenue • MS 302 (Goodman Road) • Winchester Road • U.S. 78 / Lamar Avenue • TN 177 / Germantown Pkwy • Airways Blvd • Hacks Cross Road • Union Avenue Example Safety Emphasis areas identified from the Hot Spot analysis are:
• South Third Street, • US 51/Elvis Presley Blvd • Lamar Avenue • Summer Avenue • Austin Peay Highway Studies $9 0.08% Southern Gateway Bridge EIS
156 Figure 8.1 Table 4.3,ExistingPlusCommitted(E+C)projectlist. 2023, thelastyearincurrent TIP cycle. The projectswhichwillbecompletedbytheendofFY 2023areshownin fiscally constrainedprojectlistincludestheprojectsinFY Figures 8.1through8.3 8.2
Livability 2050ProjectList
Fiscally ConstrainedProjects—2021through2030 andTable 8.2 representsthefiscallyconstrainedprojectsfor2021through2050. 2020-2023 TIP withanexpectedcompletionafterFY The 157
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 8.2 Fiscally Constrained Projects — 2031 through 2040
158 Figure 8.3
Fiscally ConstrainedProjects—2041through2050 159
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies STBG IMPROVE- Municipal STBG NHPP Discretionary/ Private Funding Source $167,613,214 $35,000,000 $40,037,342 $72,995,984 $60,251,491 $209,332,323 $4,716,679 $5,512,078 $20,033,142 $88,200,000 $5,700,000 Project Cost (YOE) O&M O&M O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety O&M Centers Town Neighborhood Communities Regional Centers Interregional Regional Centers Project Scale TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN State Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Arlington Germantown Regionwide Memphis Memphis Shelby County Location TENNESSEE Traffic signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit TN General maintenance for jurisdictions Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping The transit O&M costs equal funds Transit the available minus transit capital projects Construct new 2 lane roadway Widen from 2 to 3 lanes (two- way left-turn lane) from Poplar to Farmoor Rd. Reduce one lane each direction with bike lanes from Farmoor Rd River Blvd to Wolf Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Reconstruct interchange Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 2 to 7 lanes Project Description Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 1: 2021-2025) (Tier Year: Livability 2050 Horizon Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Near I-269/ SR-385 River Wolf Boulevard Varies N/A Skylar Mill Road Stateline Road To Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Airline Road Poplar Avenue Varies N/A Mullins Station Road SR-175/ Shelby Drive From ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety O&M Transit Donelson Farms Parkway Forest Hill Irene Road Hacks Cross Road Roadway O&M I-240 at Airways Boulevard Kirby/Whitten Parkway Project Name Fiscally Constrained Project List
TCSP-2012-01 STBG-M-2020-03 STBG-M-2017-07
TN-IM-2012-01 STP-M-2006-10 TIP ID TIP 1048 1006 1060 1012 1018 83 500 5 1000 48 330-B RTP ID RTP Table 8.2
160 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source STBG-M ($7,112,358) Memphis William University of Implementation of BRT Regional IMPROVE-State 14 5309-2017-01 Innovation Hudson Memphis TN $65,765,605 Memphis service Centers ($11,853,930) Corridor Transit Center 5309 ($46,799,317) Construct new multimodal Southern Tennessee/ bridge over Miss. River 62 Arkansas Memphis TN Interregional $8,890,448 Discretionary Gateway Mississippi - Environmental Impact Statement 0.1 mile north SR-1 (Summer Regional 42 TN-NHPP-2020-01 I-40 of Sycamore Widen to 7 lanes Memphis TN $41,962,913 STBG-S Avenue) Centers View Road SR-196 Fayette Neighborhood 11 (Hickory Withe U.S.-64/SR-15 I-40 add shoulder TN $3,747,027 STBG-S County Communities Road) SR-196 SR-196 (Main Neighborhood 159 (Hickory Withe I-40 add shoulder Gallaway TN $2,054,286 STBG-S Street) Communities Road) 503 SR-385 I-240 Ridgeway Road Add WB auxiliary lane Memphis TN Interregional $34,282,752 NHPP Construct a 6 lane heavily U.S.-51/SR-3 South of landscaped roadway adjacent Regional 347-B ENH-2010-01 (Elvis Presley Craft Road Winchester to Graceland. From Craft to Memphis TN $8,060,673 NHPP Centers Boulevard) Road Winchester widen from 4 to 6 lanes with median Project segment will have the same existing laneage, but U.S.-51/SR-3 will have improved ped/bike/ Regional 347-C ENH-2010-01 (Elvis Presley Shelby Drive Craft Road bus stop and landscaping, Memphis TN $20,765,000 NHPP Centers Boulevard) From Craft to Winchester widen from 4 to 6 lanes with median Chambers Change 4 lane undivided to 3 504 U.S.-70 Canada Road Lakeland TN Undeveloped $177,809 NHPP Chapel Road lane undivided NHPP U.S.-72 (Poplar East of Yates Regional ($2,161,201) 70 STBG-M-2017-03 East of I-240 Add westbound lane Memphis TN $4,805,669 Avenue) Road Centers STBG-M ($2,641,468) 161
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Funding Source NHPP NHPP INFRA INFRA STBG IMPROVE-State STBG STBG Varies Varies Varies Varies Project Cost (YOE) $35,869,958 $3,117,584 $32,598,308 $82,450,000 $7,705,055 $7,102,875 $16,595,502 $15,410,109 $1,100,750,826 $127,551,086 $39,061,366 $29,156,801 $5,329,855 Project Scale Regional Centers Regional Centers Interregional Interregional Centers Town Regional Centers Centers Town Regional Centers O&M O&M O&M O&M 2021-2025 Total State TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN MS MS MS MS Location Collierville Germantown Memphis Memphis Millington Memphis Lakeland Shelby County MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MISSISSIPPI Project Description Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen to 7 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Extension of a 5 lane roadway Reconstruct interchange to a SPUI New 4 lane divided highway Widen from 2 to 6 lanes with Creek bridge over Gray’s Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit General maintenance for MS jurisdictions To SR-385 Brachton Avenue south of Shelby Drive Raines/ Perkins Road interchange Veterans Parkway N/A U.S.-70/SR-1 Rocky Point Road Varies Varies Varies Varies From Collierville Arlington Road/ Eastley Street Kimbrough Road Raines/ Perkins Road interchange SR-176 (Getwell Road) U.S.-51 N/A I-40 Houston Levee Road Varies Varies Varies Varies Project Name SR-57 Widening U.S.-72/SR- 57 (Poplar Avenue) U.S.-78/ SR-4 (Lamar Avenue) U.S.-78/ SR-4 (Lamar Avenue) Wilkinsville Road Winchester Road at Perkins Road New Canada Rd Grove Walnut Road/SR-23 Roadway O&M ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M TIP ID TIP STP-M-2014-01 TN- NHPP-2018-01 TN- NHPP-2019-01 STP-M-2014-11 STP-M-2004-01 STP-M-2006-01 STP-M-2014-04
RTP ID RTP 41 505 137 161 182 329 56 181 1024 1054 1030 1042
162 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source Bike/Ped/ Greenways, sidewalks, MPO Bike/Ped/ 1036 Complete Varies Varies bicycle facilities and Planning MS Complete $16,594,098 Varies Streets amenities, streetscaping Area Streets This is the payback value for MPO 1066 Debt Service N/A N/A Debt Service associated with Planning MS Debt Service $179,466,590 Varies the GARVEE Bond. Area Widen existing variable width MS- Getwell Road - Star Landing 28 Church Road road to a four-lane divided Southaven MS Town Centers $7,360,817 STBG LTSP-2014-01 MS 747 Road typical section BUILD Holly Springs Johnston Roadway reconstruction and DeSoto ($13,000,000) 823 Smith Road MS Undeveloped $30,427,000 Road Road bridge replacement County Discretionary ($17,427,000) Commerce MS- New 3 lane road with roadbed DeSoto 112 Street Della Street Jaybird Road MS Town Centers $3,711,560 STBG LSTP-2015-02 for future expansion to 5 lane County Extension SR-304 at MS- Regional 333 McIngvale N/A N/A Construct interchange Hernando MS $22,053,052 STBG-S NHPP-2016-02 Centers Road Star Landing Illinois Central Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Neighborhood 82 MS-NHS-2008-02 Road Lacey Blvd Southaven MS $3,336,881 Discretionary RR (divided) Communities (Segment 2) 2021-2025 Total $444,987,741 Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 2: 2026-2030) TENNESSEE Road resurfacing and other 1001 Roadway O&M Varies Varies Regionwide TN O&M $183,765,162 Varies preventative maintenance Traffic signals, optimization, ITS/ 1049 Varies Varies communication, variable Regionwide TN O&M $39,061,366 Varies Signalization message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, 1007 Bridge O&M Varies Varies Regionwide TN O&M $44,031,589 Varies systematic repairs and seismic retrofit
General maintenance for TN 1061 Local O&M Varies Varies Regionwide TN O&M $81,466,368 Varies jurisdictions
Bike/Ped/ Greenways, sidewalks, Bike/Ped/ 1013 Complete Varies Varies bicycle facilities and Regionwide TN Complete $67,243,016 Varies Streets/Safety amenities, streetscaping Streets/Safety 163
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 STBG NHPP NHPP STBG STBG STBG STBG Funding Source Varies IMPROVE- County IMPROVE- Municipal STBG STBG STBG-S NHPP NHPP $23,712,018 $70,257,832 $28,103,133 $632,320 $632,320 $632,320 $12,368,189 Project Cost (YOE) $233,623,043 $12,646,410 $21,077,350 $29,049,121 $13,968,762 $35,324,437 $7,025,783 $8,430,940 Regional Centers Interregional Regional Centers Neighborhood Communities Neighborhood Communities Neighborhood Communities Regional Centers Project Scale O&M Centers Town Neighborhood Communities Regional Centers Regional Centers Regional Centers Centers Town Centers Town TN TN TN TN TN TN TN State TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN Memphis Arlington Germantown Germantown Germantown Memphis Shelby County Location Regionwide Shelby County Bartlett Memphis Memphis Memphis Arlington Arlington Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Construct roundabouts at ramps on both I-40 on and off sides of the interchange Install roundabout Install roundabout Install roundabout Reduce Poplar from 6/7 lanes to 5 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Project Description The transit O&M costs equal funds Transit the available minus transit capital projects Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Construct a new 4-lane divided heavily landscaped road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Construct a grade-separated interchange Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 5 lanes I-40 N/A N/A N/A N/A Front Street Wolf River Wolf Bridge To Varies Riverdale Road Shadowlawn Road Mullins Station Road Macon Road N/A East of Chester Road Milton Wilson Boulevard I-55 N/A N/A N/A N/A N Bellevue Blvd Walnut Grove Walnut Road From Varies Hacks Cross Road Kirby Whitten Parkway Grove Walnut Road Skylar Mill Road N/A East of Airline Road East of Chester Street I-240 I-40 at Airline Road Interchange Neshoba Road at Cordova Road Neshoba Road at Exeter Road Neshoba Road at Riverdale Road Poplar Avenue Road Project Name O&M Transit Holmes Road Old Brownsville Road Kirby/Whitten Parkway Kirby/Whitten Parkway Plough Boulevard at Winchester Road U.S.-70/ U.S.-79/SR-1 U.S.-70/ U.S.-79/SR-1 Houston Levee NHS-2002-01 STBG-M-2020-01 STBG-M-2017-05 TIP ID TIP STBG-M-2020-04 STP-M-2006-10 STP-M-2006-10 STP-M-2006-04 STBG-M-2020-02 STP-M-2014-03 116 507 508 509 510 58 RTP ID RTP 1019 501 502 330-A 330-C 59 69 176 46
164 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source Improve corridor to a parkway N 2nd Street- South of Wolf 227-B STP-M-2000-09 Cedar Avenue design; 4 lanes with median Memphis TN Town Centers $20,266,574 STBG-S Phase 2 River Bridge and bike lanes Improve corridor to a parkway N 2nd Street- South of Wolf 227-C STP-M-2000-09 U.S.-51 design; 4 lanes with median Memphis TN Town Centers $21,078,755 STBG-S Phase 3 River Bridge and bike lanes Shadowlawn Old Madison Woods IMPROVE- 511 Road/Appling Brownsville Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Bartlett TN Town Centers $12,646,410 Drive Municipal Road Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with NHPP; grade separation at rail road Discretionary, Paul Lowry Regional 60 STBG-M-2017-08 Shelby Drive Weaver Road track and new 4 lane road Memphis TN $98,612,488 STBG, Road Centers connecting to existing Paul IMPROVE- Lowry County Sycamore Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 306 STBG-M-2017-02 Shelby Drive U.S.-72 (SR-86) Collierville TN Town Centers $17,100,843 STBG Road (divided) 0.1 mile north SR-1 (Summer 0.1 mile north of Regional 77 TN-NHPP-2020-02 of Sycamore Widen to 7 lanes Memphis TN $49,742,545 STBG-S Avenue) Elmore Road Centers View Road Tchulahoma Neighborhood IMPROVE- 142 Shelby Drive Christine Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis TN $21,779,928 Road Communities Municipal U.S.-72/SR- Dogwood Kimbrough Regional 513 57 (Poplar Widen to 6 lanes (divided) Germantown TN $2,459,024 NHPP Road Road Centers Avenue) 2026-2030 Total $1,156,738,048 MISSISSIPPI MPO Road resurfacing and other 1025 Roadway O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $176,156,399 Varies preventative maintenance Area Traffic signals, optimization, MPO ITS/ 1055 Varies Varies communication, variable Planning MS O&M $22,320,781 Varies Signalization message signs Area Bridge replacement, MPO rehabilitation, preservation, 1031 Bridge O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $66,028,398 Varies systematic repairs and Area seismic retrofit MPO General maintenance for MS 1043 Local O&M Varies Vareis Planning MS O&M $5,948,326 Varies jurisdictions Area 165
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Varies Varies STBG STBG STBG Varies Varies Varies Varies Funding Source Varies Varies STBG $75,045,831 $260,732,434 $5,829,820 $40,773,762 $4,496,501 $458,106,957 $206,755,773 $43,594,009 $49,470,316 $90,919,646 Project Cost (YOE) $18,519,662 $184,419,464 $7,025,783 Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety O&M Centers Town Neighborhood Communities Town Centers Town O&M O&M O&M O&M Project Scale Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Debt Service Centers Town 2026-2030 Total TN TN TN TN TN TN TN MS TN State MS MS MS Regionwide Shelby County Memphis Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Horn Lake Regionwide Location MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area Olive Branch TENNESSEE The transit O&M costs equal funds Transit the available minus transit capital projects New 4 lane road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping Traffic signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit General maintenance for MS jurisdictions New 3 lane road Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Project Description Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping This is the payback value for Debt Service associated with Bond. the GARVEE Widen from 2 to 5 lane boulevard Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 3: 2031-2035) (Tier Year: Livability 2050 Horizon Varies Dusty Lane Horn Lake Road Varies Varies Varies Varies Pepper Chase Drive Varies To Varies N/A Nail Road Varies Cordova Club Drive Road Weaver Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Interstate Boulevard From Varies N/A Church Road Transit O&M Transit Appling Road Holmes Road ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety Roadway O&M Nail Road Extension Project Name Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Debt Service Pleasant Hill Road
MS-LSTBG-2020-01 TIP ID TIP 1020 90 6 1050 1008 1062 1014 1002 RTP ID RTP 1037 1067 195 519
166 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source W Holmes Mill Branch Tchulahoma Widen existing 4 and 2 lane 820 STP-M-2002-14 Memphis TN Town Centers $17,317,897 STBG Road Road Road to 7 lanes SR-177 1 mile east of Memphis/ 38 NHS-2006-10-A I-40 (Germantown Widen from 6 to 8 lanes TN Interregional $78,286,156 NHPP Canada Road Lakeland Road) 1.0 mile east SR-205 Arlington/ 136 NHS-2006-10-B I-40 of Canada (Collierville- Widen from 4 to 6 lanes TN Interregional $75,287,963 NHPP Lakeland Road Arlington Road) I-40 at SR-3/ 12 SR-4 (Second N/A N/A Modify interchange Memphis TN Interregional $24,057,169 NHPP Street) Paul R Lowry Widen from 2 and 3 lanes to Regional IMPROVE- 514 Shelby Drive Electrolux Drive Memphis TN $24,984,943 Road 5 lanes Centers County Raines Road 515 at SR-176 N/A N/A Construct new interchange Memphis TN Town Centers $135,584,960 IMPROVE-State (Getwell Road) East of SR-14 (Austin Kerrville- Tipton County Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Shelby Regional 95 TN-STBG-2020-01 TN $83,283,145 STBG-S Peay Highway) Rosemark line (divided) County Centers Road Complete streets retrofit Neighborhood 516 U.S.-51 Chelsea Road Frayser Blvd improving multi modal travel, Memphis TN $45,206,091 NHPP Communities ITS, and safety U.S.-72/SR- Poplar Estates New Riverdale Regional 517 57 (Poplar Widen to 7 lanes Germantown TN $7,911,899 NHPP Parkway Road Centers Avenue) Widen 4 and 2 lane roadway Walnut Grove Walnut Bend Rocky Point to 6 lanes with median, Shelby Regional 71 STP-M-2000-16 TN $38,000,433 STBG Road Road Road realign Rocky Point Rd County Centers intersection 2031-2035 Total $1,303,042,247 MISSISSIPPI MPO Road resurfacing and other 1026 Roadway O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $288,694,350 Varies preventative maintenance Area Traffic signals, optimization, MPO ITS/ 1056 Varies Varies communication, variable Planning MS O&M $24,910,862 Varies Signalization message signs Area 167
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Funding Source Varies Varies Varies Varies STBG STBG STBG $48,652,616 $52,483,343 $101,469,873 $83,754,076 Project Cost (YOE) $82,241,216 $6,638,564 $7,023,731 $95,523,591 $8,175,073 $7,393,928 $3,286,353 $517,261,279 $216,944,906 O&M O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety Project Scale O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Debt Service Regional Centers Centers Town Regional Centers O&M 2031-2035 Total TN TN TN TN State MS MS MS MS MS MS MS TN Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Location MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area DeSoto County Southaven Hernando Regionwide TENNESSEE Traffic signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit TN General maintenance for jurisidctions Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping Project Description Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit General Maintenance for MS jurisdictions Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping This is the payback value for Debt Service associated with Bond. the GARVEE Widen from 2 to 5 lanes (two- way left-turn lane) New 3 lane Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 4: 2036-2040) (Tier Year: Livability 2050 Horizon Varies Varies Vareis Varies To Varies Varies Varies N/A Pleasant Hill Road Swinnea Road Commerce Street Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies From Varies Varies Varies N/A Star Landing Road Elmore Road Byhalia Road Varies ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety Project Name Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Debt Service Getwell Road (MS-747) Nail Road Extension Getwell Road Roadway O&M
TIP ID TIP MS- LSTP-2015-01 MS- LSTP-2014-02
1051 1009 1063 1015 RTP ID RTP 1032 1044 1038 1068 328 29 518 1003
168 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source The transit O&M costs equal 1021 Transit O&M Varies Varies the available Transit funds Regionwide TN O&M $290,987,573 Varies minus transit capital projects Beverle Rivera Neighborhood 265 Canada Road Seed Tick Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Lakeland TN $15,795,722 STBG Drive Communities South Third Weaver Street Neighborhood 31 Holmes Road (U.S.-61/SR- Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis TN $14,966,446 STBG (SR-175) Communities 14) Memphis/ 0.8 mile east south of SR- 150 NHS-2006-03 I-69 New Roadway Shelby TN Interregional $219,560,529 NHPP of U.S.-51 388 County Wolf River Neighborhood 520 Johnson Road Poplar Avenue Widen from 2 to 3 lanes Germantown TN $15,065,169 STBG Boulevard Communities Houston Shelby Neighborhood 54 STP-M-2014-06 Macon Road Berryhill Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes TN $39,242,496 STBG Levee Road County Communities SR -175 Jasper Park Shelby Post Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 96 STBG-M-2017-01 Collierville TN Town Centers $24,249,434 STBG Shelby Drive Lane Road (divided) Rehabilitate South Parkway; South Parkway Western Neighborhood IMPROVE- 521 Mississippi Blvd reinstalling medians and Memphis TN $19,349,759 Rebuild Termini Communities Municipal improving multimodal facilities 2036-2040 Total $1,178,062,314 MISSISSIPPI MPO Road resurfacing and other 1027 Roadway O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $360,101,675 Varies preventative maintenance Area Traffic signals, optimization, MPO ITS/ 1057 Varies Varies communication, variable Planning MS O&M $27,801,495 Varies Signalization message signs Area Bridge replacement, MPO rehabilitation, preservation, 1033 Bridge O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $82,241,216 Varies systematic repairs and Area seismic retrofit MPO General maintenance for MS 1045 Local O&M Varies Vareis Planning MS O&M $23,067,037 Varies jurisdictions Area Bike/Ped/ Greenways, sidewalks, MPO Bike/Ped/ 1039 Complete Varies Varies bicycle facilities and Planning MS Complete $7,023,731 Varies Streets amenities, streetscaping Area Streets 169
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 5309; IMPROVE-State STBG STBG STBG Funding Source Varies STBG Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies $112,344,829 $35,107,759 $46,810,346 $18,724,138 Project Cost (YOE) $61,209,837 $10,859,559 $567,100,024 $244,361,728 $54,298,218 $59,016,636 $113,244,339 $93,472,818 $324,753,489 Neighborhood Communities Neighborhood Communities Neighborhood Communities Project Scale Debt Service Neighborhood Communities O&M O&M O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety O&M Regional Centers 2036-2040 Total TN TN TN State MS MS TN TN TN TN TN TN TN Lakeland Lakeland Arlington Location MPO Planning Area Southaven Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Memphis Regionwide TENNESSEE New 2 lane road New road Widen from 2 to 3 lanes Project Description This is the payback value for Debt Service associated with Bond. the GARVEE Widen from 2 to 3 lanes signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit TN General maintenance for jurisdications Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping The transit O&M costs equal funds Transit the available minus transit capital projects High Capacity Transit Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 5: 2041-2045) (Tier Year: Livability 2050 Horizon Chambers Chapel Road U.S.-70/SR-1 Airline Road To N/A Goodman Road Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Union Avenue Varies East of Seed Road Tick I-40 Milton Wilson Road From N/A Stateline Road Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Airport Varies Beverle Rivera Drive Chambers Chapel Road Chester Street Project Name Debt Service Swinnea Road ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety O&M Transit Airways Road Arterial BRT Roadway O&M
TIP ID TIP
270 202 523 RTP ID RTP 1069 35 1052 1010 1064 1016 1022 522 1004
170 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source Construct new 5 lane road and bridge from north end of CN Industrial Paul R Lowry IMPROVE- 524 Shelby Drive EDGE Industrial Park, over Memphis TN Town Centers $38,852,587 Park Road Road Municipal CN RR track to Paul R. Lowry Road Forest Street/ Fayette County 271 Hickory Withe Chester Street Widen from 2 to 3/5 lanes Arlington TN Town Centers $16,383,621 STBG-S Line Road south of SR- South of Fite Shelby 151 NHS-2006-04-A I-69 New Roadway TN Interregional $111,642,674 NHPP 388 Road County Woodstock 0.2 mile east of Shelby 153 NHS-2006-05 I-69 New Roadway TN Interregional $121,379,226 NHPP Cuba Road U.S.-51 County Widen entire roadway to a Pleasant Hill E Shelby Drive 5 lane cross section with 169 Holmes Road Memphis TN Town Centers $55,165,992 STBG-S Road (SR 175) pedestrian, bike, and transit facility Donelson SR-205 (Airline Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 100 Farms I-40 Arlington TN Town Centers $14,043,104 STBG-S Road) (divided) Parkway Donelson SR-205 (Airline Chester Street/ 160 Farms Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Arlington TN Town Centers $11,702,586 STBG-S Road) Donelson Road Parkway SR-205 (Navy SR-14 (Austin 171 Armour Road New 4 lane road with median Millington TN Undeveloped $29,256,466 STBG-S Road) Peay Hwy) Chambers 526 U.S.-70 Canada Road Widen from 3 lanes to 5 lanes Lakeland TN Town Centers $43,884,699 STBG-S Chapel Road Walnut Grove Rd will remain 4 lanes. Access management measures provided to limit left Walnut Grove Kirby/Whitten Germantown Regional 331 STP-M-2000-11 turn lanes. Construction of a Memphis TN $42,232,294 STBG Road Middle Parkway Parkway Centers “green bridge” approximately 1 mile west of Germantown Parkway 2041-2045 Total $1,544,548,238 171
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Varies Varies Varies Funding Source Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies STBG Varies Varies $65,213,223 $126,385,102 $104,319,313 Project Cost (YOE) $458,928,518 $31,027,553 $102,434,981 $25,743,714 $8,748,359 $27,735,130 $657,301,555 $269,419,499 $60,598,931 O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety Project Scale O&M O&M O&M O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Centers Town O&M O&M 2041-2045 Total TN TN TN State MS MS MS MS MS TN MS TN Regionwide Regionwide Regionwide Location MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area MPO Planning Area Hernando Regionwide MPO Planning Area Regionwide MISSISSIPPI TENNESSEE General maintenance for TN General maintenance for jurisdictions Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit Project Description signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Bridge replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, systematic repairs and seismic retrofit General maintenance for MS jurisdictions Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping Widen from 2 to 4 lanes signals, optimization, Traffic communication, variable message signs Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Road resurfacing and other preventative maintenance Livability 2050 Horizon Year: (Tier 6: 2046-2050) (Tier Year: Livability 2050 Horizon Varies Varies Varies To Varies Varies Varies Varies Pleasant Hill Road Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies From Varies Varies Varies Varies Byhalia Road Varies Varies Varies Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets/Safety Bridge O&M Project Name ITS/ Signalization Bridge O&M Local O&M Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets MS-747 (Getwell Road) ITS/ Signalization Roadway O&M Roadway O&M
TIP ID TIP
1065 1017 RTP ID RTP 1058 1034 1046 1040 26 1053 1011 1028 1005
172 Project Cost Funding RTP ID TIP ID Project Name From To Project Description Location State Project Scale (YOE) Source The transit O&M costs equal 1023 Transit O&M Varies Varies the available Transit funds Regionwide TN O&M $362,437,569 Varies minus transit capital projects McLemore U.S.-61 (Crump 208 Florida Street Widen from 2 to 3 lanes Memphis TN Town Centers $27,233,833 STBG-S Avenue Blvd) Forest Hill Construct new 6 lane Shelby 325 STP-M-2000-22 Walnut Grove Macon Road TN Undeveloped $37,374,385 STBG Irene Road roadway with median County South of Fite Woodstock Shelby 152 NHS-2006-04-B I-69 New Roadway TN Interregional $287,708,689 NHPP Road Cuba Road County Macon Road Germantown Neighborhood 527 Cully Road Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes Memphis TN $10,542,845 STBG-S (SR-193) Pkwy Communities Widen from 2 to 3 lanes Pleasant Hill 231 Stateline Road Holmes Road including pedestrian, bicycle, Memphis TN Town Centers $52,667,059 IMPROVE-State Road and transit facilities Complete Streets project N Bellevue retrofitting the existing Regional 528 Poplar Avenue Union Ext Memphis TN $63,811,956 STBG Blvd roadway between current Centers projects Complete Streets retrofit Goodlett Regional 529 Poplar Avenue Colonial Road connecting and extending the Memphis TN $36,622,514 STBG Street Centers city’s innovation corridor 2046-2050 Total $1,504,334,919 MISSISSIPPI MPO Road resurfacing and other 1029 Roadway O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $512,182,138 Varies preventative maintenance Area Traffic signals, optimization, MPO ITS/ 1059 Varies Varies communication, variable Planning MS O&M $34,627,960 Varies Signalization message signs Area Bridge replacement, MPO rehabilitation, preservation, 1035 Bridge O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $102,434,981 Varies systematic repairs and Area seismic retrofit MPO General maintenance for MS 1047 Local O&M Varies Varies Planning MS O&M $9,228,101 Varies jurisdictions Area 173
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Funding Source Varies STBG STBG Project Cost (YOE) $8,748,359 $16,349,733 $7,227,398 $716,398,614 Project Scale Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Neighborhood Communities Centers Town 2046-2050 Total State MS MS MS Location MPO Planning Area DeSoto County Olive Branch Project Description Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, streetscaping New 2 lane road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes To Varies Old Airways Road Bethel Park From Varies Sidewinder Road College Road $903,094,698 $2,257,488,874 $2,481,104,562 $3,048,883,157 $1,084,361,303 $1,364,919,813 Project Name Bike/Ped/ Complete Streets Airways Road Hacks Cross Road MISSISSIPPI TENNESSEE SUMMARY OF TOTALS SUMMARY TIP ID TIP Vision Project List Vision 2031–2040 2041–2050 2041–2050 2021–2030 2021–2030 2031–2040
RTP ID RTP 1041 344 113 8.2.1 8.3 are the projects that were identified as a need or desire in Memphis region, but not able to funded with Table The vision project list provided in when years future implementation in considered for be to documented here are projects These 2050. of horizon year the to available prior be revenues projected to more funding is available.
174 Table 8.3 Vision Project List
Project ID Project Name From To Project Description Project Location TENNESSEE 278 Inglewood Pl U.S.-64/SR-15 Donelson Farms Parkway Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Arlington 249 U.S.-64/SR-15 SR-385 Sammons Drive Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Arlington 203 Chambers Chapel Road U.S.-64/SR-15 I-40 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Arlington U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 177 SR-177 (Germantown Road) Oliver Creek Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Bartlett (Summer Avenue) 197 Appling Road Extension Memphis Arlington Road Madison Woods Lane New 4 lane road Bartlett 228 Old Brownsville Road Kirby Whitten Parkway Germantown Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Bartlett U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 267 Elmore Road Germantown Road Widen from 2 to 3 lanes (two-way left-turn lane) Bartlett (Summer Avenue) U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 281 Elmore Road Stage Road Widen from 2 to 3 lanes (two-way left-turn lane) Bartlett (Summer Avenue) 308 Billy Maher Road St. Elmo Road Old Brownsville Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Bartlett U.S.-70 Germantown Road Brunswick Road Reduce from 4 to 3 lanes (two-way left-turn lane) Bartlett Appling Road Summer Avenue (U.S.-70) Madison Woods Drive Widen and extend as a 5 lane road Bartlett 45 Houston Levee Road Wolf River Boulevard Wolf River Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (divided) Collierville SR-205 (Collierville Arlington 121 SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) Fletcher Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville Road) 132 Shelby Drive SR-175 (Byhalia Road) U.S.-72 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 133 Sycamore Road Shelby Drive (SR-175) U.S.-72 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 183 Wolf River Boulevard Almadale Farms Parkway Stillwind Lane Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 199 Byhalia Road Stateline Road SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Collierville 200 Byhalia Road Extension Wolf River Boulevard Walnut Grove Road New 4 lane road (divided) Collierville 204 Collierville Road Park Ridge Parkway Byhalia Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Collierville 1000-ft East of Houston Levee 206 Crooked Creek Road Bailey Station Road New 4 lane road (undivided) Collierville Road 212 Frank Road Houston Levee Road Bray Station Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (undivided) Collierville 218 Holmes Road Reynolds Road Byhalia Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Collierville 219 Holmes Road Byhalia Road U.S.-72 New 4 lane road Collierville Houston Levee Road 221 SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Center Hill Road New 4 lane road (divided) Collierville Extension 175
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Germantown Germantown Germantown Project Location Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Collierville Fayette Co Fayette Co Fayette Co Gallaway Germantown Germantown Germantown New 4 lane road (divided) Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Project Description Widen from 2 to 3 lanes northbound New 4 lane road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes New 4 lane road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Construct new WB lane Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Construct new EB lane New 4 lane road (divided) Realignment of intersection New 2 lane road Add shoulder and improve geometrics Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Add shoulders Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) with bike Widen from 5 to 7 lanes New 4 lane road (divided) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) Poplar Pike To Avenue 750-ft North of Poplar U.S.-72/SR-57 Fox Run Lane U.S.-72/SR-86 U.S.-72 Collierville Arlington Road U.S.-72/SR-57 Houston Levee Road U.S.-72/SR-86 Bailey Station Road Bray Station Road U.S.-72/SR-86 N/A SR-196 SR-196 SR-196 SR-59 Poplar Pike Brachton Avenue River Wolf West Street/Germantown Road West Stout Road Poplar Pike From Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Winchester Boulevard Green Oaks Lane Shelby Drive (SR-175) SR-175 (Byhalia Road) Peterson Lake Road SR-385 Bedford Lane SR-175 (Byhalia Road) Houston Levee Road Bailey Station Road Byhalia Road N/A South of U.S.-64/SR-15 at Cherry Road SR-385 Fayette County Line Milton Wilson Road Winchester Road Dogwood Road River Boulevard Wolf Poplar Pike SR-177 (Germantown Road) Hacks Cross Rd Extension Project Name Houston Levee Road Market Blvd Market Boulevard Progress Road Shelby Drive Shelton Road SR-175 (Byhalia Road) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) Winchester Road Sycamore Road at Holmes Road New Frontage Road SR-193 (Macon Road) Forrest Street U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 Forrest Hill Irene Road U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Avenue) Forest Hill Irene Road Ext 232 239 Project ID 222 223 224 233 235 236 237 252 253 257 258 145 57 99 271 251 166 178 211 215
176 Project ID Project Name From To Project Description Project Location U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar 254 Ashmont Drive Brachton Avenue Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar 255 Ashmont Drive Forest Hill Irene Road Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar 256 Kirby Parkway New Riverdale Road Widen from 6 to 7 lanes Germantown Avenue) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar 272 SR-177 (Germantown Road) Poplar Pike Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Germantown Avenue) SR-177 (Germantown Road) 279 N/A N/A Construct new interchange Germantown at Wolf River Boulevard 163 Canada Road Extension U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 Old Brownsville Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Lakeland 174 U.S.-64/SR-15 Berryhill Road Canada Road Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Lakeland 175 U.S.-70/SR-1 Canada Road SR-385 Construct a raised median (4 lanes divided) Lakeland I-40 at Chambers Chapel 276 N/A N/A Construct new interchange Lakeland Road 44 Holmes Road Horn Lake Road Tulane Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 53 I-55 at Holmes Road N/A N/A Construct new Interchange Memphis 55 Malone Road Holmes Road SR-175 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 65 SR-177 Callis Creek Drive Crestridge Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis 68 U.S.-61/SR-14 Stateline Road SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Widen from 4 to 5 lanes Memphis 85 Holmes Road Tulane Road Elvis Presley Blvd Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis 89 Mullins Station Road Whitten Road Raleigh Lagrange Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Memphis Reduce Poplar from 6/7 lanes to 5 lanes, and include; bicycle lanes, traffic signal modernization, 92 Poplar Avenue N Bellevue Blvd E Parkway Memphis transit and pedestrian improvements, and access management. 97 SR-175 (Shelby Drive) U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) Mendenhall Road Widen from 5 to 6 lane (divided) Memphis 98 SR-176 (Getwell Drive) Stateline SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Memphis U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar 103 N/A N/A Add one through lane per direction Memphis Avenue) 105 Winchester Road SR-176 (Getwell Road) SR-385) Reconstruct interchange Memphis 117 I-40 SR-14 (Jackson Ave) Chelsea Avenue Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 118 I-40 Chelsea Avenue SR-300 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Memphis 177
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Project Location Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Memphis Widen from 5 to 6 lanes Widen from 5 to 6 lanes Widen from 6 to 7 lanes, add NB through lane Project Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) and intersection Allen and Raleigh Millington improvements at New Rd Widen from 2 to 7 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Realign Intersection Widen from 2 to 4 lanes divided on Dexter Dewberry Lane to east of Milbrey Street and construct 4 lane divided roadway from Milbrey Street to Forest Hill-Irene Third Street and widen Realign Intersection at Add left turn lanes on U.S. 61 to 3 lanes. Weaver Third Street and widen Realign Intersection at Add left turn lanes on U.S. 61 to 3 lanes. Weaver Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Access Management Widen 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 5 to 7 lanes (excluding bridge) Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes S Parkway Avenue Young Road Pleasant View To New Allen Road Callis Creek SR-177 (Germantown Road) N/A Forest Hill-Irene Road Ext. Third St) Us-61/SR-14 (South U.S.-64 I-240 SR-175 (Shelby Drive) Coleman Road Stratford Road Holmes Road SR-14 (Austin Peay) Willet St American Way Grove Rd) SR-23 (Walnut Goodlett Street Park Avenue Park Avenue SR-14 (Stage Rd) U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar S Parkway U.S.-70/U.S.-79/SR-1 From Egypt Central Winchester Raleigh Lagrange Road N/A Dewberry Lane Holmes Rd Morning Sun SR-204 (Covington Pike) Stateline Road Raleigh-Millington Road Perkins Road Stateline Road SR-15 (stage Road) Melrose St Semmes St Ave) U.S.-72/SR-57 (Poplar Getwell Road Chip Road American Way I-40 SR-277 (Airways Blvd) SR-277 (Airways Blvd) Road Sycamore View Project Name Raleigh Millington Road SR-177 (Germantown Rd) Dexter Road Road) at SR-175 (Weaver U.S.-61/SR-14 (3rd Street) Dexter Road Rd) SR-175 (Weaver Houston Levee Road I-40 Crumpler Road Egypt Central Road Summer Avenue Malone Road SR-204 (Covington Pike) Ave) U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Highland St Park Avenue Perkins Road SR-176 (Getwell Rd) SR-204 (Covington Pike) 241 242 247 Project ID 120 122 124 125 126 139 139 158 164 165 167 168 170 179 180 216 229 230 238 240
178 Project ID Project Name From To Project Description Project Location 250 U.S.-64/SR-15 Canada Road SR-385 Widen from 5 to 6 lanes (divided) Memphis 259 U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) S Parkway Trezevant Street Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis 282 U.S.-78/SR-4 (Lamar Ave) McLean Blvd S Parkway Widen from 5 to 7 lanes Memphis Widen from 4 to 6 lanes to connect existing six lane 312 State Road I-40 Berryhill Road Memphis area to planned widening east of Berryhill Rd. Danny Thomas Community Remove bridges at Jefferson and Madison, and Poplar Avenue Beale Street Memphis Connection construct a cap park between Madison and Gayoso Harbor Access Road Plant Road Paul R Lowry Road Construct new 5 lane road Memphis West end of T.E. Maxson Plant Road Riverport Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis Treatment Plant West end of T.E. Maxson Plant Road Harbor Entrance Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Memphis Treatment Plant Peninsula Road Harbor Dock Plant Road Construct new 5 lane road Memphis Reconstruct road to provide safe and efficient National Street Macon Road Summer Avenue Memphis multimodal travel South Parkway West Channel Avenue I-55 Construct new 5 lane road Memphis Extension Complete Street conversion, modernizing traffic 16 Winchester Road Ridgeway Road Hack Cross Road Memphis signals, adding a median, and streetscape Construct new 5 lane road and bridge over McKeller Buoy Street Harbor Avenue Riverport Road Lake connecting Pidgeon Industrial Park to Memphis Presidents Island. 144 West Union Road Veterans Parkway Quito Road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Millington 248 U.S.-51/SR-3 Babe Howard Veterans Parkway Access Management Millington 91 SR-194 U.S. 64 Sellers add shoulder Oakland 135 SR-194 U.S. 64 Stevens add shoulder Oakland 13 SR-57 (Poplar Ave) SR-385 SR-196 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Piperton 173 SR-57 (Poplar Ave) SR-196 SR-194 Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Piperton 280 SR-385 at Walnut Grove Road N/A N/A Construct new interchange Shelby County 3 Dexter Road Whitten Road Appling Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Shelby County 119 Macon Road Houston-Levee SR-385 Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby County 123 Dexter Road Forest Hill-Irene Road Ext Houston-Levee Road New 2 lane road Shelby County 138 Houston Levee Road Macon Road Morning Sun Widen to 4 lanes (divided) Shelby County 171 SR-205 (Navy Road) Armour Road SR-14 New 4 lane road Shelby County 179
Chapter 8 - Investment Priorities LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050 DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County Hernando Hernando Project Location Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County Shelby County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County DeSoto County Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) with bike Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) New 3 lane road New 4 lane road (divided) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) with pedestrian walkways/bike lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Interchange reconstruction Project Description Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 2 to 6 lanes with bridge over Gray’s Creek Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 5 lanes (divided) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 lanes to 6 Construct 4 lane road on new alignment Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) Widen from2 to 5 lanes New 4 lane road New 2 lane roadway New 2 lane road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) New 2 lane road Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (divided) MISSISSIPPI State Line Dean Road Church Road MS-305 (Germantown Road) MS-747 (Getwell Road) MS-304 (Commerce West) Star Landing Road N/A To Forest Hill-Irene Road Houston-Levee Road Houston Levee Road Holmes Road Shelby Drive SR-14 (Austin Peay) Riverdale Road Reynolds Road SR-193 (Macon Road) U.S.-64/SR-15 SR-175 (Byhalia Road) SR-385 Macon Road Hacks Cross Road Dusty Lane Center Hill Road Stateline Road Pleasant Hill Road Pleasant Hill Road Lewisburg Road MS-305 U.S.-78 MS-304 Bethel Road MS-747 (Getwell Road) Jaybird Road I-269 I-69 N/A From Winchester Road Rocky Point Road Forest Hill-Irene Road State Line Holmes Road SR-385 Kirby Parkway Hacks Cross Road Raleigh Lagrange Road SR-193 (Macon Road) Forest Hill Irene Road Houston-Levee Grove Road Walnut Kirby Road Cordova Club Hacks Cross Road MS-302 (Goodman Road) Byhalia Road College Road Church Road Getwell Road Center Hill Road Fogg Road Pleasant Hill Road Star Landing Road E Commerce Street Extension (MS-304) Road Tulane U.S.-51 I-55 at Commerce Street Project Name SR-385 Grove Road/SR-23 Walnut Widening Dexter Road Forest Hill Irene Road Forest Hill-Irene Road Germantown Rd Extension Holmes Road Holmes Road SR-385 SR-385 SR-385 Grove Road Walnut Houston Levee Road Stateline Road Appling Road Nail Road Forest Hill-Irene Road Laughter Road College Rd Extension MS-305 Byhalia Road (SR-309) 260 261 262 263 321 162 332 Project ID 172 181 207 209 210 214 217 220 243 244 245 268 280 76 322 72 130 190 191 196
180
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
182 Livability 2050scenarios. the directionofchangeforvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)and vehiclehourstraveled(VHT)betweentheE+Cand scenarios byfunctionalclassificationofroadwayisshown in A summaryofthemodeledplanperformanceforbaseyear2010,2050E+C,and the Livability2050 as wellaslightreductioninVMT percapitaforthe Tennessee portionofthestudyarea. The resultsfromTable 9.1showaslighttransitionofmodesplitfromautototransitwith theLivability2050scenario, Table 9.1 traffic. scenario describestheroadwayscurrentlyopenfortrafficwithallfiscallyconstrainedplanprojects (TIP) withanticipatedconstructionfundingopenfortrafficbeforetheendofcurrent the roadwayscurrentlyopenfortrafficandthosethatareidentifiedin beyond whatisshownin challenges stillexist. As describedin 2050 helpsmovetheregiontowardsthesegoals,but,withgrowthinpopulation,employment,andfreightmovement, the numeroussmallerprojectsthatwouldlikelybeimplementedbylocalcommunitiesviaset-asides.Livability evaluation includesthemajorregionalprojectstobeevaluatedviatraveldemandmodelanddoesnotinclude Impacts oftheplanareshownforselectedmeasuresthattietogoalsandobjectivesoutlinedin 9.2. 2050 (fiscallyconstrainedplan).Highlightsofplanperformancefollow performance isshownin CMAQ, andtransitassetmanagementsafety. Chapter9definestheperformancemetricsofMPO.Plan based planningrequirementtoestablishperformancemeasuresforsafety, pavement,bridge,reliability, freight, the planningthemes,goals,andobjectivesforplan. Additionally, Section3.1highlightsthefederalperformance- Chapter 3introducestheconceptofperformancemeasurementwithincontextLivability2050,relatingitto 9.1 9.0 Mobility/Accessibility Environmental Sustainability Modeled Plan
Summary ofSystemImpacts
Measure Categories Summary ofPlanPerformance,inRelationtoKeyPerformance Plan Performance Table 9.1fortheexisting2010baseyear, allprojectsprogrammedinthe TIP, andLivability Table 9.1.Inthefollowingtables,ExistingandCommitted(E+C)scenariodescribes Mode Split(bike/walk) Mode Split(transit) Mode Split(auto) Air PollutantEmissions VMT/capita Performance Section 7.5,additionaltransportationrevenuesareneededtomakeprogress Table 9.2forallvehiclesandtrucks. Arrows indicate 7.1% 0.4% 92.5% Appendices HandI See ConformityDeterminationReportin MS –27.7 TN –24.9 2010 Base , includingenvironmentalimpactsin T ransportation ImprovementProgram 6.7% 0.4% 92.9% MS –23.8 TN –28.3 2050 E+C TIP cycle. The Livability2050 Chapter 3.The 6.7% 0.5% 92.8% MS –23.8 TN –28.2 2050 RTP Section 183
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 9.2 Summary of Modeled Plan Performance by Functional Classification
Functional Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Hours Traveled Scenario Classification TN MS TN MS
2010 5,974,097 1,115,663 138,913 19,562
Interstates 2050 E+C 7,624,441 2,659,096 217,155 65,195
2050 RTP 8,177,852 2,660,089 221,040 64,401
2010 13,017,491 2,406,007 432,598 59,725
Arterials 2050 E+C 18,746,588 4,325,953 675,438 143,436
2050 RTP 18,268,393 4,288,587 639,482 141,434
2010 1,509,977 602,152 58,689 15,208
Collectors 2050 E+C 2,208,553 1,490,815 91,215 47,987
2050 RTP 2,105,047 1,461,498 86,340 46,314
Functional Trucks Delay Total Delay Scenario Classification TN MS TN MS
2010 9,316 767 48,233 3,589
Interstates 2050 E+C 29,554 8,501 98,149 26,795
2050 RTP 27,171 8,200 93,700 25,987
2010 10,422 1,002 111,856 12,839
Arterials 2050 E+C 28,125 6,195 236,687 57,517
2050 RTP 25,508 6,181 212,682 56,129
2010 1,379 42 9,798 1,473
Collectors 2050 E+C 2,579 493 20,185 13,776
2050 RTP 2,583 457 18,161 12,543
184 as partoftheSoutheasternEcologicalFramework. the U.S.Fish&WildlifeServicesandNationalWetlands Inventory, andlocationsofpriorityecological sitesidentified Floodplain datafromtheFederalEmergencyManagement Agency wasmappedalongwithwetlandinformationfrom Database. Environment andConservation,theMississippiNaturalHeritage Program,andtheNationalConservationEasement Locations ofrarespeciesandprotectedopenspaceswere assembledfromthe Tennessee Departmentof Walnut GroveRoad,andOvertonParkincentralMemphis. Park innorthwestShelbyCounty, T.O. FullerStateParkinsouthwestMemphis,ShelbyFarmseastofI240off Lake. Also shownareparklandswithintheregion,includingsignificantareassuch Meeman-Shelby ForestState features suchastheMississippiRiver, LoosahatchieRiver, Wolf River, NonconnahCreek,HornLakeand Arkabutla Figure 9.1displaysthenaturalresourcesidentifiedforMemphisMPOregion. resources describedinthischapter. A fulllistingisprovidedin projects) arelocatedinproximitytoidentifiedfloodplains,wetlands,historicsites,communityfacilities,orother identified environmentalresourcesandsitesofconcern. Abouthalfoftheproposedprojects(53total98 Locations ofproposedLivability2050projectswerethenreviewedinconjunctionwiththelocationsthese existing issues. These variousresourcesareshownin community resources,aswellkeysitesintheregiondesignatedforenvironmentalmonitoringduetopastor A reviewofavailabledatabaseswasperformedtoidentifyandlocatesignificantnatural,cultural/historic, 9.2.2 planning-level strategiesusedtoavoidormitigatethoseimpacts. At thislong-rangeplanningstage,thepurposeistoidentifygeneralnatureofpotentialimpactsandbroad, better known,includingpotentialindirectimpactsfromproject-relatedactivities. preservation regulations. As aprojectisfurtherdeveloped, itsfootprintwillcontinuetoberefinedandimpacts required bytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) andshould/mustcomplywithstatefederalhistoric study. All Federally-fundedtransportationprojectsmuststillgothroughthemoredetailedreviewofpotentialimpacts performed forLivability2050isnotintendedtoproducethesamelevelofdetailasaproject-levelenvironmental and donotnecessarilyrepresentthefinallimitsorexactdesignofeachproject.Forthisreason,screening It isimportanttonotethatthelocationsshownforLivability2050projectsarestillataplanninglevelofdetail in allaspectsofthetransportationplanningprocessonbasisrace,colorornationalorigin. requirements of Title VIoftheCivilRights Act of1964andExecutiveOrder12898,whichaddressnon-discrimination The secondpartofthischapterevaluatestheextenttowhichinvestmentdecisionsLivability2050meet lane toanexistingroad. from constructionofanewfour-laneroadarelikelygreaterthanthepossibleexpectedimpactsaddingbike of bicycleandpedestrianfacilities,establishingnewtransitservicesexpandingexistingservices.Impacts transportation investmentsthatincludeintersectionimprovements,wideningandconstructionofnewroads,addition would varyaccordingtothelocationandscopeofactionstaken. This planproposesabroadrangeof actions inLivability2050mightimpactcertainidentifiedenvironmentalresourcestheregion.Potentialimpacts The firstportionofthissectionpresentstheenvironmentalscreeningconductedtodeterminewhetherrecommended 9.2.1 9.2
Purpose Environmental ConsultationandMitigation Environmental ScreeningofProposedLivability2050Projects Figures 9.1through9.4 Appendix D. . These includemajorwater 185
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 9.1 Identified Natural Resources
Figures 9.2 and 9.3 depict community resources throughout the MPO region. These include important structures, sites and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which serves as the official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation.
Source Data: TWRA — Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
186 Figure 9.2 students wholivewithinwalkingorbikingdistance. 2050 alsoincludesprojectstoaddresscongestionnearschoolsbyprovidingimprovednon-motorizedfacilitiesfor careful projectdesigntoensurethatsafetyisnotnegativelyimpactedforpedestrians. This isonereasonLivability access tocommunityresourcessuchasschoolsandmedicalfacilitiescanimprovetheareabutmustbalancewith the numberofstudentswhodrive(oraredriven)toschoolinsteadridingbuses.Increasingvehicular located nearschools,sinceschoolsoftengeneratelocalizedroadwaycongestionissuesduetotheincreasein and werepartoftheenvironmentalscreening.Itisnotsurprisingthatanumberrecommendedprojectsare Locations ofschools,hospitals,andplacesworshipwerealsoconsideredinthedevelopmentLivability2050
Cultural/Historic Resources 187
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 9.3 Community Resources
188 Figure 9.4 substances toawiderarea. vicinity mayaffectlocalizedgroundwaterflowsandstormwaterrunofffromthesite,potentiallydispersinghazardous project development,Superfundsitesaremostlikelytoimpactdevelopmentsinceearthdisturbancesinthe While eachsitecategoryispotentiallyimportanttoconsiderduringthemoredetailedstagesoftransportation discharges intolocalwaterways. registered ashazardouswastegeneratorsandthosewithpermitstoreleasetoxicchemicals,airpollutants,or investigate andcleanupthenation’s mostserioushazardouswastesites.Sitesinotherprogramsincludethose Compensation, andLiability Act program,alsoknownastheSuperfundwhosepurposeistolocate, monitoring programs. This includessitesidentifiedthroughtheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse, Figure 9.4showsareasacrosstheMemphisMPOregionthataredesignatedaspartofvariousenvironmental
Locations inEnvironmentalMonitoringPrograms 189
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 9.3 summarizes the number of projects that could potentially have direct impacts on the identified resources described previously, by category. More detailed information is provided in Appendix D. Table 9.3 Number of Projects with Potential Direct Impacts by Resource Type
Resource Types Projects with Potential Impacts Floodplains 13 Wetlands 14 Protected open spaces and ecological sites 7 Rare species 3 Hazardous waste or toxic release site 14 Community resources 14 Cultural/historic resources 3
9.2.3 Environmental Mitigation Strategies In addition to identifying potential impacts on environmental resources, Federal law requires metropolitan transportation plans to consider potential planning-level strategies to mitigate those impacts. Strategies used by the Memphis MPO to address and consider environmental impacts early in the planning process include the use of GIS information to identify environmental features (both physical and cultural) early in the planning process, as in the screening process described in this chapter, in order to avoid impacts and/or to establish early corrective action plans prior to project construction.
The MPO’s strategies also include partnering with local, state, and federal resource agencies early in the planning process to identify potential issues relative to projects under consideration in the MPO’s plans and programs to develop appropriate solutions prior to actually beginning the project development process. An environmental consultation process was conducted as part of Livability 2050 to facilitate this partnership. The Memphis MPO identified projects with potential impacts using data available from local, state, and federal agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. Resource agencies were invited to review project maps and discuss proposed projects as they relate to environmentally sensitive areas as well as appropriate mitigation strategies. The following resource agencies were consulted:
• Federal Agencies
–– Federal Highway Administration – Tennessee Division;
–– Federal Highway Administration – Mississippi Division;
–– Federal Transit Administration – Region 4;
–– Environmental Protection Agency – Region 4;
–– Army Corps of Engineers – Memphis District;
–– United States Coast Guard;
–– United States Fish & Wildlife Service;
–– United States Forest Service; and
–– National Park Service.
190 particular typesofregionalresources. Table 9.4outlinesthepossibletypesof mitigationactivitiestobeusedwhereproposedprojectsmay impact and alternativedesignsolutionsareusedtolessentheimpact oftheproject. impact, acontextsensitivesolution(CSS)processshouldbe consideredinwhichconsiderablepublicparticipation For majorconstructionprojects,suchasnewroadways,or forprojectsthatmayhavearegionwideenvironmental determine whatmitigationstrategiesareappropriate. level ofmitigation. All impactsonenvironmentally sensitiveareaswillbeanalyzedonaprojectbybasisto actual projectdevelopmentprocess,ifappropriate. The MPOrecognizesthat noteveryprojectwillrequirethesame The MemphisMPOwillcontinuetoworkwithresourceagencies inthelongrangeplanningprocessand process include: agencies whohaveresponsibilityforthehumanandnaturalenvironments.Stepstotakeinprojectdevelopment human activityontheenvironment.Potentialmitigationactivitiesshouldbeconsistentwithrequirementsof Environmental impactscannotalwaysbeavoided.Mitigationistheattempttooffsetpotentialadverseeffectsof • • • • • •
replacement, orbysubstitutingenvironmentalresourcesof equivalentorgreatervalueonoff-site. Compensate forImpacts.Compensationcouldbemadeenvironmentalimpactsby providingsuitable used toreduceconstructionimpactsandrepairorrestoreexistingresources; Mitigate Impacts.Precautionary, specialoperationalmanagementfeaturesand/orabatement measuresmaybe Minimize Impacts.Minimizingaproposedactivity/projectsizeoritsinvolvementmaybeanoption; Avoid Impacts. The firststrategyintheenvironmental processistoavoidadverseimpactsaltogether; Local Contacts State Contacts – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – West MemphisMPO. Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA); and The UniversityofMemphis; International PortofMemphis; Memphis &ShelbyCountyInternational Airport Authority; Memphis &ShelbyCountyDivisionofPlanningDevelopment; Memphis &ShelbyCountyHealthDepartment; TennesseeValley Authority. Tennessee HistoricalCommission;and Tennessee WildlifeResource Agency; Mississippi DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation; Mississippi Departmentof Transportation; Tennessee DepartmentofEnvironmentandConservation; Tennessee Departmentof Transportation; 191
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 9.4 Potential Mitigation Activities
Resource Potential Mitigation Activities Mitigation sequencing requirements involving avoidance, minimization, compensation such as wetland Wetlands or water resources banking/creation; design exceptions and variances; environmental compliance monitoring. Avoidance, minimization; replacement of open space easements with property of similar fair market value Forested and other natural areas and usefulness; design exceptions and variances; environmental compliance monitoring. Avoidance, minimization; time of year restrictions; construction sequencing; design exceptions and Rare species variances; species research; Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for species management; environmental compliance monitoring. Transportation control measures and emissions reduction measures, such as ridesharing, trip reduction Ambient air quality ordinances, flexible work schedules, alternataive fuels, or incentives for shifting trips to non-motorized modes. Avoidance, minimization; context sensitive solutions Neighborhoods, communities, homes and businesses including use of appropriate functional and/or aesthetic design features. Avoidance, minimization; landscaping of historic properties; preservation in place or excavation for Cultural resources archaeological sites; MOA with the Department of Historic Resources; design exceptions and variances; environmental compliance monitoring. Avoidance, minimization, mitigation; design exceptions Parks and recreation areas and variances; environmental compliance monitoring.
192 More IntensePrecipitation Events braking trucksonhotasphalt. Sustainedheatwavescouldresultintheneedformorefrequent roadmaintenance. roadway becomeheavilyrippled attheapproachestointersections,atypeofdamagegenerated fromtheforceof joints, andsofteningasphalt. On routeswithalargepercentageofheavytrucktraffic,it isnotuncommontoseethe Intense heatisdamagingtotransportation infrastructure,causingkinksinsteelrails,placing stressonbridge More IntenseandLongerLastingHeatWaves make foritsinfrastructure. These include: Climate changehasvariousweather-relatedeffectsthatare affectingthetypesofexpendituresregionneedsto Adaptation toClimateChange bikeways throughouttheregion. Plan, expansionofthetrailsystemidentifiedinShelby CountyGreenprint,andaninitiativetoconstructnew streamline localpublictransitsystemtoboostridershipand routeefficiencythroughtheMemphis3.0- Some ofthemanyeffortswithinMemphisMPOregion includeavanpoolprogram,recommendedactionsto other actionsthatreduceenergyuseandGHGemissionsassociatedwithpersonaltravel. efficient modessuchaswalkingorbiking,increasevehicleoccupancy The objectiveofthisgroupstrategiesistoinfluencetravelers’ Reducing Carbon-IntensiveTravel Activity residents aboutcongestionatrecurringbottleneckareas. coordinated signalsystemsthatcanadapttochangingtrafficconditions,andprovidingreal-timeinformation improve trafficflow. Thisincludesupgrading citytrafficsignalstouselight-emittingdiodes(LED),deploymentof The MemphisMPO’s memberagenciesareimplementingmultipletechnologiestocutenergyconsumptionand forms oftrafficmanagement,toaircontrolsystemsthatrouteaircraftmoreefficientlyandreducedelays. GHG emissions.Strategiesrangefromtruck-idlereduction,toreducingcongestionthroughITSandotherinnovative traffic flow, decreasedidling,andotheroperationalimprovements,whichcanalsoresultinlowerenergyuse These strategiesseektoimprovetransportationsystemoperationsthroughreducedvehicletraveltime,improved Improving Transportation SystemEfficiency Memphis. buses andaddseveralchargingstationsalongarouteservingtheMemphisInternational Airport andsoutheast of alternativefuels,includingaprojectinwhichtheMemphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) willpurchasetenelectric Members oftheMemphisMPOhavesponsoredandobtainedfundsforprojectstopromoteuseavailability electricity. natural gas,liquefiedpetroleumlow-carbonsyntheticfuels(suchasbiomass-to-liquids),hydrogen,and and thereforegeneratefewertransportationGHGemissions. These alternativefuelsincludeethanol,biodiesel, The objectiveofthisgroupstrategiesistodevelopandintroducealternativefuelsthathavelowercarboncontent Introduction ofLow-CarbonFuels transportation GHGemissions.Strategiesinclude: Memphis MPOregionhavealreadybeenengagedinsomeoftheactivitiesthatcanundertaketoreduce will likelyplayalargeroleintheongoingdiscussionofnationalGHGreductiongoals.V conditioning systems)accountforalargepercentageofthetotalU.S.GHGemissions,transportationsector Because greenhousegas(GHG)emissionsfromtransportationsources(fuelcombustionandvehicleair Climate ChangeStrategies system atamuchbroaderscaleintermsofclimatechangeandthenetwork’s resiliencytoextremeweatherevents. In recentyears,MPOshavebeguntoconsidertherelationshipofnaturalenvironmentandtransportation 9.2.4
Climate Change activitypatternstoshifttravelmorecarbon , eliminatetheneedforsometrips,ortake arious entitiesinthe T ransit Vision 193
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
The Memphis MPO region is no stranger to flooding, but a number of record rainfall events over recent years have resulted in costly damages to area roads and forced the closure of major roadways. Even smaller amounts of rainfall can significantly impact the transportation system when it is received in short, intense bursts. If water is moving too quickly to be absorbed into the ground, it instead becomes surface runoff, causing dangerous ponding on urban streets and ultimately requiring the expansion/upgrade of stormwater drainage systems.
The Memphis MPO participated in an effort led by TDOT to assess the vulnerability of the transportation infrastructure to climate change effects and extreme weather, and to consider various risk reduction strategies and their cost. This may lead to opportunities to incorporate additional strategies into the MPO’s transportation planning activities.
Shelby County received a grant from the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC) held by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For Shelby County, the NDRC grant addresses unmet needs from the 2011 storms and flooding and long-term resilience efforts, including implementing the Mid-South Regional Greenprint. The four activities associated with the grant award include design and construction projects along Big Creek, Wolf River, and South Cypress Creek, and development of a regional Resilience Plan to model and plan for flood impacts. The built projects will help establish connectivity by providing 30 miles of new trails or bike paths connecting to green space, housing and jobs. Each project is being completed in multiple phases. The draft Resilience Plan is scheduled to be completed for public review and comment in early 2019. 9.3 Transportation Disadvantaged Analysis
Federal laws require that MPOs work to ensure Federal funds are used fairly and without discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority and Low-Income Populations, clarified the need to involve minority and low-income populations in transportation decision-making processes and the need to assess the equity of transportation investments. The EO calls for identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Low-income population is defined as one whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
In addition, Executive Order 13166 requires improved access to services for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Once the percentage of an LEP population (such as the Hispanic/Latino population) becomes 5% or greater, Federal departments and agencies are required to extend financial assistance to develop programs to provide services (both orally and in writing) in languages other than English.
The intent of EOs 12898 and 13166, and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s corresponding guidance, is to ensure that these groups are included in the transportation decision-making process, and to ensure that they may benefit equally from the transportation system without shouldering a disproportionate share of its burdens.
A disproportionately high and adverse effect is one that is:
• Predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population; or
• Suffered by a minority and/or low income population more severely or in greater magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-protected population.
Disproportionately high and adverse effects are not determined solely by the size of the population, but rather the comparative effects on these populations in relation to either non-minority or higher income populations. In this EJ assessment, U.S. Census data was used to identify the demographics of the area in order to recognize potential “communities of concern.” Communities of concern are areas where the percentage of low-income households or minorities is greater than that of the entire MPO area.
It is important to note that impacts from transportation projects can be either positive or negative. For example, positive impacts could be improved traffic conditions, decreased accidents, and new/improved sidewalks and
194 determine locationswithanabove-average proportionofminoritypersons(57.6%orgreater), low-incomepersons 2018 Title VIReport.Censusdataattheblock grouplevelwasthencomparedtotheapplicablethresholds to Thresholds foridentifyingEJ communities wereestablishedinternallybytheMemphisMPO andlistedintheMPO’ English ‘verywell.’ Inotherwords,allmembers14yearsoldand overhaveatleastsomedifficultywithEnglish.” which nomember14yearsold andover1)speaksonlyEnglishor2)anon-English languageandspeaks by HouseholdLimitedEnglishSpeakingStatus. The ACS definesalimitedEnglish-speaking householdas“onein The numberofpersonswithlimitedEnglishproficiencywas obtainedfrom Related ChildrenUnder18Years Table 9.5 and usedforprogrameligibilitypurposes. The povertythresholdsbyfamilysizeareshownin Order asthestandard,areasimplifiedversionofCensusBureau’ guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), referenced in the EJ Executive the povertylevelbyusingasetofdollarvaluethresholdsthatvaryfamilysizeandcomposition. The poverty Past 12Months.Indevelopingthistable,theCensusBureaudetermineswhetheranindividualislivingatorbelow The numberofpersonslivingbelowthepovertylevelwasobtainedfrom Origin byRace. orOtherPacificIslander,Alaskan Native,NativeHawaiian orsomeotherrace)and orLatino Table B03002,Hispanic (summed responsesfrompersonsidentifyingthemselvesas African American, Asian American, American Indianand In thisanalysis,theminoritypopulationwasobtainedfromtwo proficiency (LEP). of thefollowingcriteria:minoritypersons,personslivingbelowpovertylevel,andwithlimitedEnglish used toidentifycensusblockgroupsinwhichahigherthanaveragepercentageofresidentsmeetoneormore environmental justiceprinciples. American CommunitySurvey(ACS)five-yearestimatesfor2012-2016were An analysisofregionalcensusdatawasusedtoidentifyareaswhichwarrantparticularconsiderationunder 9.3.1 planning anddesignstages,theseareasshouldbecarefullyaddressed. during theconstructionperiodandright-of-waythatmayneedtobeacquired. As projectsprogressthroughthe bikeways. Inordertoconstructsomeoftheseprojects,anegativeimpactcandisruptresidentsandbusinesses Three people andolder Householderaged65 Householdunderage65 Two People: Aged 65andolder Underage65 individual): One Person(unrelated Size ofFamilyUnit Four people Five people Six people Seven people Eight people Nine peopleormore
Identification ofEnvironmentalJusticeCommunities
Poverty Thresholdsfor2016bySizeofFamilyandNumber
thresholds average Weighted 19,105 14,522 16,151 15,569 12,486 12,228 24,563 32,928 37,458 41,781 49,721 11,511 29,111 None 18,774 14,507 16,072 12,486 24,755 29,854 34,337 39,509 44,188 53,155 11,511 One 19,318 16,480 16,543 25,160 30,288 34,473 39,756 44,578 53,413 Two 19,337 24,339 29,360 33,763 38,905 43,776 52,702 Related childrenunder18years ACS tables: Three 24,424 28,643 33,082 38,313 43,072 52,106 s povertythresholdsthatareupdatedannually ACS Table C16002,HouseholdLanguage Table B02001, Total PopulationbyRace Four 28,205 32,070 37,208 42,075 51,127 Table B17021,PovertyStatusinthe Five 31,470 35,920 40,809 19,779 Six 34,507 39,491 48,561 Table 9.5. Seven 39,156 48,259 More or Eight 46,400 s 195
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
(17.1% or greater), and persons with limited English proficiency (8.5% or greater).These thresholds were applied to the Census ACS data to create the maps shown in Figure 9.5 through Figure 9.7, which show minority populations, low-income populations, and populations with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) respectively. Figure 9.8 combines these three maps to show overall environmental justice communities (communities that fall into at least one of the three categories of minority, low-income, or Limited English Proficiency (LEP)).
Figure 9.5 Minority Populations
196 Figure 9.6
Low-Income Populations 197
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 9.7 Populations with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
198 Figure 9.8
Combined EnvironmentalJusticePopulations Minority, LowIncome,andLimitedEnglishProficiencyPopulations
199
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
9.3.2 Analysis of Benefits and Complete Streets Burdens of Livability 2050 An analysis was performed to determine the level of Complete street concepts investment proposed in the identified EJ communities, include considerations for better relative to total regional investment, and to identify the accommodation of all roadway users, likely positive and negative impacts of the projects and services that are proposed. including the following elements:
Highway Capital Projects • Safer and more convenient walkways, sidewalks, and Approximately $2.7 billion in highway capital improvements are planned throughout the MPO region crosswalks through the implementation of Livability 2050. This includes projects to increase physical roadway capacity, • Safer and more convenient new technologies to improve traffic flow without adding bikeways lanes, and address roadway safety issues at various locations. • Access management to improve Over half of the planned investment ($1.5 billion) is public safety and reduce for specific roadway improvements that are totally or congestion partially located in environmental justice communities. Improving access to central city areas, where many • Transit implementation and EJ communities are located, can provide benefits by incorporation encouraging reinvestment in areas that can be readily accessed by walking, biking, and public transit. Road The following principles embody widening projects in suburban and exurban areas also provide the opportunity to add standard bicycle/ the most important aspects of a pedestrian facilities and transit stops to roads that successful complete streets program: previously may not have offered even paved shoulders. • Achieve community objectives. However, projects that add new lanes can negatively impact areas where many residents travel on foot or • Blend street design with the bike because they can potentially lead to increased character of the area served. speeds and crossing distances for pedestrians. Such projects should utilize careful design and community input to help anticipate and mitigate these potential • Capitalize on a public investment negative impacts. by working diligently with property owners, developers, economic Some of the planned roadway improvements in EJ development experts, and others to communities actually involve reducing the number of lanes and adding improved facilities for pedestrians, spur private investment in the area. cyclists, and transit users. Examples include projects on US-51/Elvis Presley Boulevard and portions of • Design in balance so that traffic Poplar Avenue to reconfigure these roadways so they demands do not overshadow the meet Complete Streets principles that accommodate need to walk, bike, and ride transit all users, not just automobiles. Approximately $144 million in investment is recommended to make these safely, efficiently, and comfortably. improvements to the Livability Corridors, nearly all of The design should encourage which run through identified EJ communities. people to walk.
Roadway safety and ITS projects, many of which will be • Empower residents to create identified for specific locations as issues arise during the 30-year planning horizon, will be scattered throughout their own sense of ownership in the MPO region. These improvements typically require the success of the street and its little or no right-of-way acquisition and are expected to characteristics. have a significant positive impact on the communities in which they occur since they address existing safety or bottleneck problems. 200 services. Morebroadly, theseprojectsprovideopportunitiesforexerciseandhealthbenefits. beneficial toEJcommunityresidentswhomaketripsthose adjacentareasinordertoaccessjobsandother stop inordertousebusservice.Makingbicycleorpedestrian improvementseveninnon-EJcommunitiescanbe since EJcommunitiesoftenhavealargerpercentageofresidents travelingonfootorbike,walkingtoatransit The benefitsofimprovedbicycleandpedestrianfacilities are particularlysignificantforEJcommunityresidents, businesses orresidents. projects willrequirelittleornoright-of-wayacquisitionandarenotexpectedtoinvolveanydisplacementsof conjunction withproposedhighwayimprovements. The bicycleandpedestrianimprovements thatareindependent and pedestrianfacilities. These projectswillbescatteredthroughouttheMPOregion.Somedevelopedin Nearly $240millioninrevenueshavebeenidentifiedLivability2050topotentiallyprovideand/orimprovebicycle Bicycle andPedestrianProjects Memphis community. Moreinformationaboutthe Transit Vision Plancanbefoundin and todeveloprecommendationsforadjustmentsofthenetworkthroughconversationsinputfromentire development oftheMemphis3.0 Transit Vision Plan. The Plancallsforanassessmentoftheexisting network The transitprojectsrecommendedinLivability2050areconsistentwiththerecommendationsofongoing as healthcareandschools. more fullyincommunityactivitiesandbasichumanservices,such than inothercommunities,butalsoenablesthemtoparticipate communities, whooftenrelyontransitservicetoagreaterdegree only expandstherangeofjobopportunitiesforresidentsEJ and providingtheoptionofeveningweekendtrips. This not by reducingwaittime(andthusthetotalneededfortravel) routes hassignificantbenefitsfortheEJcommunitiesserved, Overall, increasingthefrequencyandspanofserviceforMATA Corridor inMidtowntotheMemphisInternational Airport. proposed Airways BRT RouteisexpectedtoconnecttheInnovation frequent andconsistenttripstobemadealongtheentireroute. The residents wholiveandworkinthosecommunitiesbyenablingmore anticipated toprovidegreatermobilityandtraveltimesavingsfor homes inDowntownMemphis,Midtown,andEastis Corridor BRT Route, which willprovidelinkagesbetweenjobsand Memphis International Airport toMidtown. The proposedInnovation Center downtowntotheUniversityofMemphisandfrom with morefrequentbusservicefromtheWilliamHudson Transit (BRT) routeswillprovideEJcommunitiesintheCityofMemphis and expansionoftransitservice. Two proposedBusRapid Transit recommended investmentwillfundthecontinuingimprovement More than$177millionofLivability2050RTP Update’s Transit Projects A fulllistofroadwaycapitalprojectslocatedpartiallyortotallywithinEJcommunitiesisprovidedin significant benefitsforEJcommunities. Above: ImprovementstoMATA servicehas Section 5.4ofthisdocument. Appendix E. 201
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
9.4 Performance Measurement
Performance measurement is a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve goals set for the multimodal transportation systems in the MPO study area. As a federal requirement, states will invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets that collectively will make progress toward national goals. The Memphis MPO is also responsible for developing an RTP and TIP through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning.
Federal regulations require establishment of responsibilities related to development and maintenance of performance measures and targets between MPO’s, DOT’s, and transit agencies through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). These agreements were required to be in place by May 27, 2018 to comply. The MPO’s Transportation Policy Board executed an MOU between TDOT, Memphis MPO, and MATA on April 19, 2018 and between MDOT and Memphis MPO on May 21, 2018. The MOUs were established as an agreement for cooperatively developing, sharing, and reporting information related to performance measures and performances targets.
9.4.1 Safety Performance Management (PM1) The FAST Act continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.
FHWA published the HSIP Final Rule and Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule on March 15, 2016 with an effective date of April 14, 2016. State DOTs were required to report their first round of targets to FHWA by August 31, 2017, and MPOs had until February 27, 2018 to report their first round targets to the State DOTs. Moving forward, State DOTs and MPOs are expected to establish and report Safety performance measure targets annually.
MPOs may agree to support states targets or establish own targets and for the first and second rounds of targets. The Memphis MPO agreed to support states HSIP targets. By agreeing to support the states’ (Mississippi and Tennessee) HSIP targets, the Memphis MPO agrees to:
• Work with the states and safety stakeholders to address areas of concern for fatalities or serious injuries within the metropolitan planning area
• Coordinate with the states and include the safety performance measures and the states’ HSIP targets for those measures in the long-range regional transportation plan (RTP)
• Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the safety goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other state safety transportation plans and processes such as applicable portions of the HSIP, including the SHSP
• Include a description in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving HSIP targets in the RTP, linking investment priorities in the TIP to those safety targets
Safety • Area – Individual state targets for all public roads in the state developed and adapted annually
• Data – Highway performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
• Performance Measures –
–– Number of Serious Injuries
–– Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
202 Table 9.8 Table 9.7 Table 9.6 PM1 Safety Targets are shown in the MemphisMPO TPB approvedaresolutiontosupporteachindividualstate’s safetytargets,Round2. Tennessee Memphis MPOwillsupporteachindividualstate’s firstroundsafetytargets(Round1)andonNovember15,2018 On November16,2017theMemphisMPO Transportation PolicyBoard(TPB)approvedaresolutionthatthe and investmentswillhelpcontributetotheoverallgoalofachieving thetargetssetforourarea. Constrained ProjectList( Table 9.8,below, includesexamplesofPM1:Safetyprojectsincluded aspartoftheLivability2050RTP Fiscally • 59 40 227-A,-B,-C 1048/1054 1012/1036 RTP ID Fatalities andSeriousInjuries Number ofNon-motorized Rate ofSeriousInjuries Number ofSeriousInjuries Fatality Rate Number ofFatalities Performance Measure Fatalities andSeriousInjuries Number ofNon-motorized Rate ofSeriousInjuries Number ofSeriousInjuries Fatality Rate Number ofFatalities Safety PerformanceMeasure
Calculation –5-Year Rolling Average of5individual,consecutivepointsdata. – – – – – – Number ofNon-motorizedFatalitiesandSeriousInjuries Rate ofFatalitesper100millionVMT Number ofFatalities
Plough Boulevard atWinchesterRoad Old BrownsvilleRoad N 2ndStreet ITS/Signalization Bike/Ped/Complete Streets/Safety Project Name PM1 SafetyProjectExamples PM1 Safety:Mississippi PM1 Safety:Tennessee Table 8.2)fandE+CProjectList(Table 4.3.)Implementationofthesetypesprojects Table 9.6andMississippiPM1Safety Targets areshownin 434.6 9.976 7319.4 1.358 995.6 (2012-2016) Baseline Round 1 111.8 1.439 567.6 1.606 633.8 (2012-2016) Baseline Round 1 493.2 9.982 7630.8 1.337 1021.4 (2014-2018) Target 119.8 1.425 574.4 1.668 677.8 (2014-2018) Target Construct agrade-separated interchange facilities and ADA accessiblepedestrianimprovements. driveways. Project scopewillincludedesignated bicycle and medianopeningsturn lanesforaccesstoexisting Widen toafourlanedividedroadway witharaisedmedian and bikelanes Improve corridortoaparkway design;4laneswithmedian message signs Traffic signals,optimization,communication,variable streetscaping Greenways, sidewalks,bicyclefacilitiesandamenities, Project Description Round 2 467.7 9.594 7227.6 1.329 1000.6 (2013-2017) Baseline Round 2 116.0 1.378 550.2 1.640 655.4 (2013-2017) Baseline Table 9.7. 546.8 9.324 7374.6 1.291 1022.0 (2015-2019) Target 131.4 1.356 555.5 1.706 697.3 (2015-2019) Target 203
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
9.4.2 Infrastructure Condition (PM2) The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities, and to ensure that investments of Federal- aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State’s asset management plan for the NHS.
The Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Final Rule was published on January 18th, 2017 with a rule effective date of May 20th, 2017. State DOTs were required to set targets by May 20, 2018, and MPOs had until November 16, 2018 (180 days after) to report their targets to the State DOTs.
State DOTs are required to set 2-year and 4-year targets, however MPOs are only required to set 4-year targets. For the target setting process, to the maximum extent practicable, the MPO and State DOTs must coordinate in the selection of performance targets.
MPOs may agree to support states targets or establish own targets and for the first and second rounds of targets. The Memphis MPO agreed to support states’ Infrastructure Condition targets. By agreeing to support the states’ (Mississippi and Tennessee) Infrastructure Condition targets, the Memphis MPO agrees to:
• Work with the states and relevant stakeholders to address areas of concern for pavement and bridge condition within the metropolitan planning area
• Coordinate with the states and include the infrastructure condition targets for those measures in the long-range regional transportation plan (RTP)
• Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the infrastructure goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other state transportation plans and processes
• Include a description in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving pavement and bridge condition targets in Livability 2050, linking investment priorities in the TIP to those infrastructure condition targets
Pavement Condition • Area – Individual state two and four-year targets for the non-interstate NHS and four-year target for interstate (MPO: four-year target only)
• Data – Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
• Performance Measures
–– Percent of interstate pavement in good and poor condition
–– Percent of non-interstate NHS pavements in good and poor condition
• Calculation – Good and poor rating areas: International Roughness Index (IRI), Cracking, Rutting (asphalt pavements), and Faulting (concrete pavements).
On November 15, 2018 the Memphis MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) approved a resolution that the Memphis MPO will support each individual state’s performance targets related to pavement and bridge condition. Tennessee and Mississippi PM2 Pavement Targets are shown in Table 9.9 and PM2 Bridge Targets are shown in Table 9.10.
204 Table 9.11 Table 9.10 Bridge Condition Table 9.9 projects andinvestmentswillhelpcontributetotheoverallgoalofachievingtargetssetforourarea. RTP FiscallyConstrainedProjectList( Table 9.11, below, includesexamplesofPM2:InfrastructureconditionprojectsincludedasparttheLivability2050 • • • • 67 1000/1024 1060/1042 1006/1030 RTP ID Performance Measure Condition (Non-InterstateNHS) Percent ofPavementinPoor Condtion (Non-InterstateNHS) Percent ofPavementinGood Condition (Interstate) Percent ofPavementinPoor Condition (Interstate) Percent ofPavementinGood Performance Measure Percent ofBridgesinPoorCondition Percent ofBridgesinGoodCondition
Calculation –Goodandpoorratingareas:Deck,Superstructure,Substructure,Culvert Performance Measures Data –NationalBridgeInventory(NBI) (MPO: four-yeartargetonly) Area –Individualstatetwoandfour-yeartargetsforallbridgescarryingtheNHS,includingon-off-ramps – – Percent ofbridgesbydeckareaclassifiedasingoodorpoorcondition
Boulevard Germantown RoadatWolf River Roadway O&M Local O&M Bridge O&M Project Name PM2 InfrastructureConditionsExamples PM2 BridgeConditionTennesseeandMississippi PM2 PavementConditionTennesseeandMississippi Table 8.2)andE+CProjectList(Table 4.3.)Implementationofthesetypes 6.7% 72.7% 0.14% 75.6% Baseline Tennessee Baseline Tennessee 4.9% 39.5% to Wolf Trail Cove. traffic signalsonGermantown RoadfromBrierbrook Germantown Road,withwideningandreconstructionof Reconstruct intersectionofWolf RiverBoulevardand Road resurfacingandotherpreventativemaintenance General maintenancefor TN/MS jurisdictions repairs andseismicretrofit Bridge replacement,rehabilitation,preservation,systematic Project Description 4.0% 40.0% 1.0% 60.0% Target 2021) Target (4-Year Target 2021) Target (4-Year 6.0% 36.0% 9.3% 62.5% 0.99% 75.0% Baseline Mississippi Mississippi Baseline 2.1% 61.7% 10.0% 25.0% 5.0% 55.0% Target 2021) Target (4-Year Target 2021) Target (4-Year 5.0% 60.0% 205
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
9.4.3 System Performance FHWA published the System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures Final Rule on January 18, 2017, with an effective date of May 20, 2017. It assesses the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) for the purpose of carrying out the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); assesses freight movement on the Interstate System; and assesses traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.
State DOTs were required to set targets by May 20, 2018, and MPOs had until November 16, 2018 (except for Traffic Congestion) to report their targets. For the target setting process, to the maximum extent practicable, the MPO and State DOTs must coordinate in the selection of performance targets.
A requirement of the CMAQ Performance Measures (Traffic Congestion & Total Emissions Reductions) is the development of a CMAQ Performance Plan (CPP) to be updated biannually. The CPP includes a baseline level for traffic congestion and emissions, a description of the progress made in achieving performance measure targets, and a description of projects funded through the CMAQ program & their potential impact on achieving the targets.
Travel Time Reliability • Area – Individual state 2- and 4-year targets for interstate and 4-year target for non-interstate (MPO: 4-year target only)
• Data – National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) & Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
• Performance Measures –
–– Percent of the person miles traveled on the interstate that are reliable
–– Percent of person miles traveled on the non-interstate NHS that are reliable
• Calculation – Level of Travel Time Reliability = 80th percentile travel time/50th percentile travel time
• 2017 Travel Time Reliability for interstates and non-interstate NHS are displayed in Figures 9.9 and 9.10, respectively
–– Travel Time Reliability is defined by FHWA as the consistency or dependability in travel times
–– A roadway segment with a Level of Travel Time Reliability of less than 1.50 is considered reliable
On November 15, 2018 the Memphis MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) approved a resolution that the Memphis MPO will support each individual state’s performance targets related to travel time and freight reliability. Tennessee and Mississippi PM3 Travel Time Reliability Targets are shown in Table 9.12 and Freight Reliability Table 9.13. Table 9.12 PM3 Travel Time Reliability Targets
Performance Measure Tennessee (TDOT) Mississippi (MDOT) Target (4-Year Target (4-Year Baseline (2017) Baseline (2017) Target 2021) Target 2021) Percentage of Person Miles Traveled 87.7% 83.0% 99.3% 90.0% that are Reliable (Interstate) Percentage of Person Miles Traveled N/A 87.5% N/A 85.0% that are Reliable (Non-Interstate NHS)
206 Figure 9.9
2017 InterstateTravelTimeReliability 207
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 9.10 2017 Non-Interstate NHS Travel Time Reliability
208 Table 9.13 Freight Reliability • • • • • Index Truck Travel Time Reliability(TTR) Performance Measure
2017 Truck Travel Time ReliabilityforinterstatesisshowninFigure9.11 Travel TimeReliability Calculation – Truck Travel Time Reliability=95thPercentile Truck Travel Time Reliability/50thPercentile Truck Performance Measure– Data –NationalPerformanceManagementResearchSet(NPMRDS) Area –IndividualState2-Year and4-Year Targets (MPO:4-Year Target Only) – – – – A roadwaysegmentwithaLevelof Truck Travel Time Reliabilityoflessthan1.50isconsideredreliable Index) Percent oftheinterstatesystemmileageprovidingforreliabletrucktraveltimes(T
PM3 FreightReliabilityTargets 1.35 Baseline (2017) Tennessee (TDOT) 1.33 Target 2021) Target (4-Year Mississippi (MDOT) 1.13 Baseline (2017) ruck Travel Time Reliability 1.50 Target 2021) Target (4-Year 209
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Figure 9.11 2017 Truck Travel Time Reliability
210 The Tennessee andMississippiPM3On-RoadMobileSourceEmissions Targets areshownin each individualstate’s performancetargetsrelatedtoOn-RoadMobileSourceEmissionsonNovember15, 2018. The MemphisMPO Transportation PolicyBoard(TPB)approvedaresolutionthattheMemphis MPOwillsupport On-Road MobileSourceEmissions(CongestionMitigationand Air Quality) Table 9.14 Traffic Congestion • • • • • • • • Delay perCapita Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive VehicleTravel Percentage ofNon-SingleOccupant Performance Measure
Calculation –Cumulative2and4-yearemissionsreductionforCMAQfundedprojectsofreducedfor: Performance Measure– Total emissionsreduction Data –FHWA CMAQPublic Access System(UPACS) Area –Individualstate2-and4-yeartargets calculate annualhoursofpeakhourexcessivedelaypercapita Calculation –%Non-SOV Travel =100%-SOV% Travel; TDOT andUniversityof Tennessee tooldevelopedto Performance Measures Research DataSet(NPMRDS) Data –USCensusBureau, American CommunitySurvey5-Year Estimates,NationalPerformanceManagement Area –Memphis, TN-MS-AR Urbanized Area – – – – – – – – – – Carbon Monoxide(CO)–NotapplicabletoMississippi Target Volatile OrganicCompounds(VOCs) Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) Annual hoursofpeakhourexcessivedelaypercapita Percent ofnon-SOVtravel
PM3 CongestionMitigationandAirQuality N/A 16.6% Baseline (2017) Memphis, TN-MS-ARUrbanized Area N/A 16.5% 2-Year Target (2019) 18.8 16.5% 4-Year Target (2021) Table 9.15. 211
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Table 9.15 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
Tennessee Mississippi Baseline (FY 2-Year Target 4-Year Target Baseline (FY 2-Year Target 4-Year Target 14-17) (FY 18-19) (FY 18-21) 14-17) (FY 18-19) (FY 18-21) Total Emissions 230.025 30.698 61.396 28.000 >0 >0 Reductions (VOC) kg/day Total Emissions 530.282 75.000 150.000 N/A N/A N/A Reductions (CO) kg/day Total Emissions 363.399 62.840 125.680 85.000 >0 >0 Reductions (NOx) kg/day
By agreeing to support the states’ (Mississippi and Tennessee) System Performance, Freight, and CMAQ targets, the Memphis MPO agrees to:
• Work with the states and relevant stakeholders to address areas of concern related to travel reliability, freight movement, traffic congestion, and emissions reduction within the metropolitan planning area
• Coordinate with the states and include the system performance, freight, and CMAQ targets for those measures in the long-range regional transportation plan (RTP)
• Integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process, the system performance, freight, and CMAQ goals, objectives, performance measures and targets described in other state transportation plans and processes
• Include a description in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving system performance, freight, and CMAQ targets in Livability 2050, linking investment priorities in the TIP to those targets
Table 9.16, below, includes examples of PM3: System performance projects included as part of the Livability 2050 RTP Fiscally Constrained Project List (Table 8.2). Implementation of these types of projects and investments will help contribute to the overall goal of achieving the targets set for our area.
Table 9.16 PM3 System Performance Examples
RTP ID Project Name Project Description Construct roundabouts at I-40 on and off ramps on both 507 I-40 at Airline Road Interchange sides of the interchange 41 SR-57 Widening Widen from 2 to 5 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with grade separation at rail road 60 Shelby Drive track and new 4 lane road connecting to existing Paul Lowry 501 Holmes Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen existing variable width road to a four-lane divided 28 Getwell Road typical section
212 The requirementtodevelopa Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan(PTASP) wasmadeafinalrulebyFTA on Table 9.17 Organization (MPO)approvedaresolutiontosupportMATA’s transittargets,whichareshownin On August 23,2018,the Transportation PolicyBoard(TPB)oftheMemphisUrban Area MetropolitanPlanning information andtargetsforthefollowingfourstateofgoodrepairperformancemeasures: guideways, andisa Tier Oneagencydevelopinga Transit Asset ManagementPlan,MATA hasdeveloped As theMemphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) isthemajorpublictransportationprovider, hasfixed-routerail providers mustcoordinatewiththeMPOinselectionof TAM performancetargets. 2016. As similarlyrequiredthroughFHWA’s TPM targetsettingprocess,tothemaximumextent practicable,transit FTA publishedthe Transit Asset Management(TAM) FinalRuleonJuly26,2016withaneffectivedateofOctober1, 9.4.4 By agreeingtosupportMATA’s Transit Asset Managementtargets,theMemphisMPOagreesto: • • • • • • • Measures Transit Asset ManagementPerformance Rolling Stock(AllRevenueVehicles) Equipment (Non-RevenueVehicles) Facilities (AllBuildingsOrStructures) Infrastructure
targets achieving thetransitassetmanagement targetsinLivability2050,linkinginvestmentpriorities inthe Include adescriptioninthe TIP (Transportation Improvement Program)oftheanticipatedeffect TIP toward targets describedinMATA’s Transit Asset ManagementPlan Integrate intothemetropolitantransportationplanningprocess, thetransitassetmanagementmeasuresand regional transportationplan(RTP) Coordinate withMATA andinclude thetransitassetmanagementtargetsforthosemeasuresinlong-range have aratinglessthan3.0onthe TERM Scale. Infrastructure: The percentageoftracksegments (bymode)thathaveperformancerestrictions,consideredto Requirements Model(TERM)Scale. Facilities: The percentageoffacilities(bygroup)thatareratedlessthan3.0onthe Transit Economic Equipment: The percentageofnon-revenueservicevehicles(bytype)thatexceedtheULB. Rolling Stock: The percentageofrevenuevehicles(bytype)thatexceedtheusefullifebenchmark(ULB).
Safety Plan(PTASP) Transit Asset ManagementandPublicTransportation Agency
Transit AssetManagementPerformanceMeasures Streetcars Asset Type/Group Regular Buses Trucks &Wreckers MATA PlusBuses Improvements Auto ServiceCars Shop &Garage Structure &Building Streetcar Misc. Equipment Systems Signals Tracks Memphis Area Transit(MATA)Memphis Area Authority 71% Baseline (2018) 27% 90% 31% 40% 95% 89% 35% 0% 100% 0% 81% 50% Target (2019) 20% 50% 20% 30% 50% 50% 30% 0% 50% 0% 50% Table 9.17: TIP tothose 213
Chapter 9 - Plan Performance LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
July 19, 2018, with an effective date of July 19, 2019. The rule requires operators of public transportation systems, such as MATA, that receive federal funds under certain FTA grants to develop safety plans that include processes and procedures to implement Safety Management Systems (SMS). The plan must include safety targets and be certified by the transit agency annually. Transit operators must certify they have a plan in place by July 20, 2020. Future PTASP targets will be added to Livability 2050 as needed.
Table 9.18, below, includes examples of PM3: System performance projects included as part of the Livability 2050 RTP Fiscally Constrained Project List (Table 8.2). Implementation of these types of projects and investments will help contribute to the overall goal of achieving the targets set for our area.
Table 9.18 PM4 Transit Asset Management Examples
RTP ID Project Name Project Description The transit O&M costs equal the available Transit funds 1018 Transit O&M minus transit capital projects 14 Memphis Innovation Corridor Implementation of BRT service Greenways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and amenities, 1012/1036 Bike/Ped/Complete Streets/Safety streetscaping 58 Poplar Avenue (Complete Streets) Reduce Poplar from 6/7 lanes to 5 lanes
9.4.5 Target Setting Timeline Further action is required by the Memphis MPO as performance targets must be updated and incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. The timeline below provides an overview of needed MPO action to meet federal requirements. PM: Target Setting Timeline
2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
PM1: Safety
PM2: Infrastructute Pavement Bridge
PM2: Infrastructute Pavement Bridge
TAM: Transit
PTASP: Transit
MP Action Re uired
214
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
216 (http://www.memphismpo.org/sites/default/files/public/ CMP%20Report_FINAL.pdf). forward intotheFAST Act. MoreinformationontheCMP analysis processcanbefoundintheCMP document not introducedwhentheCMP wasadopted. However, requirementsforCMPsintroducedinMAP-21werecarried of FederalRegulations(23CFR 450.322(f)(4)). The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) was of theresultsCMP intheRTP isconsistentwiththeFederalrequirement providedin Title 23oftheCode with therequirementsofMoving Ahead forProgressinthe21stCentury Act (MAP 21).Further, consideration The Transportation PolicyBoardoftheMemphisMPOadoptedCMP on August 27,2015. The CMP complies in theregionbyprovidingforimprovedaccessandmobility usingabroadrangeofstrategiesandsolutions. The projectsevaluatedthroughtheCMP providemultimodalstrategiestoreducecongestionandimproveairquality that provideforthesafeandeffectivemanagementoperation oftheregion’ The CMP providesaconsistentbasistoevaluatetransportationinvestmentdecisions relatingtotrafficcongestion Source: American CommunitySurvey(ACS) Figure 10.1 State ofMississippi. displays theannualestimatedpercentageofNon-SOVtravelforMemphisUZA,State for Non-SOVtravelisprovidedinthemostrecent American CommunitySurvey(ACS)5-year estimates.Figure10.1 can includetravelviacarpool,van,publictransportation,commuterrail,walking,bicycling,andtelecommuting.Data Non-SOV travelisdefinedasanymodeotherthandrivingaloneinamotorizedvehicle,and and operations. that managedemand,reducesingleoccupantvehicle(SOV)travel,andimprovetransportationsystemmanagement provides strategiestomitigatecongestionandimprovemobilitythroughouttheregion. development ofLivability2050. The CMP describesprocesses usedtoidentifyexistingandfuturecongestion The CMP isanimportantcomponentoftheMemphisMPO’s transportationplanningprocessandisintegraltothe and ObjectivesofthePlan. conditions andneedsassessment.ProjectswerethenevaluatedusingasetofcriteriabasedontheV Process (CMP),theinvolvementofkeystakeholders,publicprocess,andresultsexisting needs for transportation improvementprojectswereidentifiedthroughthe MemphisMPO’s CongestionManagement The identificationandevaluationofprojectsfortheLivability2050R 10.1 Process 10.0 14.0% 14.5% 15.0% 15.5% 16.0% 16.5% 17.0% 17.5%
CMPSummary
Percent ofNon-SingleOccupantVehicleTravel Congestion Management 17.2% Memphis UZA (TN,MS, AR) 2013 16.4% 16.3% 16.8% 15.9% 2014 16.3% Mississippi TP Updatewasamultiplestepprocess. The 16.5% 15.6% 2015 s multimodaltransportationsystem. 16.3% Tennessee The CMP identifiesstrategies T 16.6% ennessee, andthe 2016 15.3% ision, Goals 16.4% 217
Chapter 10 - Congestion Management Process LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
To assess the change in congestion over the region, the Memphis MPO began preparing biennial congestion management reports in 2016. The most recent biennial congestion management was completed by the MPO in 2018. These reports can be found on the MPO’s website at http://memphismpo.org/plans/safety-mobility/cmp.
10.1.1 Future Year Congested Network The Livability 2050 horizon year 2050 congested roadway network was estimated using the Regional Travel Demand Model to screen roadway segments based on the volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio) and Level of Service (LOS). The Memphis MPO defines congestion as those roadways that operate with LOS E or F. The Existing and Committed (E+C) roadway network is used to estimate where congestion is likely to occur in the future if no other transportation improvements are implemented. The roadways in the E+C network are those roadways currently open for traffic and those that are identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with construction funding anticipated to be open for traffic before the end of the current TIP cycle.
Therefore, the horizon year 2050 demographic and employment data was evaluated using the E+C roadway network in the evaluation of projected future congestion. Using the E+C roadway network with the future year employment and demographic data demonstrates the traffic impact of not constructing roadway capacity improvement projects beyond those projects that have been committed. Once the horizon year 2050 congested network was identified, applicable strategies from the CMP were applied to the congested corridors to estimate the impacts to congestion.
10.1.2 Identification of CMP Strategies The CMP identifies potential strategies to mitigate existing and future year congestion. Categories of strategies include demand management, operational improvements, multimodal strategies, and strategic capacity enhancements. There were ten congestion management strategies from the CMP evaluated as part of Livability 2050 development. A listing and description of each strategy by category is provided below:
Demand Management • Land use – Developing areas of employment, shopping, and recreation with high concentrations of both workers and users that allows use of alternative travel modes.
• Commuter programs – Carpooling, vanpooling, guaranteed ride home programs, alternative work hours, telecommuting, paratransit services, and park and ride facilities to encourage reduction in SOV use.
Operational Improvements • Operational improvements & ITS – Access management, one-way flow operation, constructing two-way left turn lanes, parking management, and weather or incident alerts for motorists to improve traffic flow and provide information about alternative routes.
• Incident management – Traffic surveillance, dynamic message signs, and control systems to reduce recurring and non-recurring congestion.
• Intersection improvements – Interconnected and coordinated signals, and addition of exclusive lanes to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.
• Freight improvements – Freight diversion, increase in capacity on truck freight routes, and improvement of alternative freight modes to reduce travel time.
Multimodal Strategies • Transit improvements – Increased frequency of service, decreased travel times, and transit information systems to encourage more transit use.
• Bicycle & Pedestrian facilities – Facilities to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians to reduce SOV use.
218 decreases. Conversely, withfewerdriveways,oraccesspoints, totheroadway, thecapacityofroadway typically collector roadways.Generally, asthenumber ofdrivewaysincreasesonaroadway, thecapacityof theroadway openings, intersections,andinterchanges. Access managementimprovestheefficiencyofarterial andmajor Access managementisatool tocontrolthedesign,spacing,andlocationofdriveways, medians andmedian of bothworkersandusers.Densemixed-usedevelopment generallycorrespondswellwithhightransitridership. Activity center strategies involve developing areas of employment, shopping, and recreation with high concentrations Tools usedtoguidedevelopmentcauselessimpactonthetransportationinfrastructureinclude: that exploreincreasesindevelopmentdensityandintensitysupportthispurpose. conserve adequateprovisionsfortransportation….” The Memphis3.0ComprehensivePlanisanalyzingscenarios and encouragingsuchdistributionofpopulationclassificationlandusesaswilltendtofacilitate residents oftheCityMemphisandShelbyCountybylesseningorpreventingcongestioninpublicstreets… A statedpurposeoftheUDCisthatitdesignedandenactedfor“promotinghealth,safetywelfare other municipalitiesintheregion. unincorporated areasofShelbyCounty. As isoftenthecasewiththistypeofordinance,italsousedasaguidefor the UnifiedDevelopmentCode(UDC)toguidefuturegrowthanddevelopmentinCityofMemphis development ordinances. The MemphisandShelbyCountyOfficeofPlanningDevelopment(OPD)developed Local governmentsplayacrucialroleinthedevelopmentofcommunitythroughlanduseplanning,zoning,and Land Use evaluation ofitseffectiveness. to identifytheeffectivenessofthesestrategiesinregion. the futurelevelofeffectiveness,historicdatafrombothlocalprogramsandnationalresearchwasconsulted The abilityofCMP strategiestoreducecongestionvariesgreatlydependingonanumberoffactors. To determine 10.1.3 both theexistingandfuturecongestionnetworks. these strategiesalsoconsideredthefuturecongestionnetworktoensurethatselectedwilladdress resolve congestion.Someofthestrategiesaremoreregional,whileotherscorridorspecific. Each ofthecorridorsoncongestednetworkwerereviewedtodeterminestrategiesmostappropriate Strategic CapacityEnhancements • • • • • • • • • •
Development impactmitigation. Affordable housing,and Jobs/Housing balance, Transit andpedestrian-orienteddevelopment, Connectivity, Mixed landuses, Compact employmentandactivitycenters, Compact residentialdevelopment, SOV use. Dedicated lanes–HighOccupancyVehicle (HOV),busbypasslanes,andHigh-Occupancy Toll (HOT)toreduce providing routesonnewlocationtoimprovetrafficflowandreducecongestion. General purposelanes– Adding capacitybyprovidingadditionalunrestrictedlaneageonexistingroadwaysor
Effectiveness ofCMP Strategies The followingdescribeseachspecificstrategyandthe The selectionof 219
Chapter 10 - Congestion Management Process LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
increases. A related benefit associated with a reduction in the number of driveways along a roadway is a potential for decrease in the number of crashes. Although difficult to quantify, a reduction in the number of crashes will result in reduced congestion on the arterial roadways.
Planning and education is critical to implementation of access management, as some of the techniques may be perceived as resulting in adverse impacts to existing access to residents and businesses along the roadway. Example roadways in the metropolitan area that currently employ access management techniques are:
• Germantown Parkway from the Wolf River to U.S. 64/Stage Road, Memphis;
• U.S. 72/SR 86 from Poplar Avenue to Quinn Road, Collierville;
• Singleton Parkway from Austin Peay Highway to Paul Barrett Parkway, Shelby County; and
• Houston Levee Road from Poplar Avenue to the Wolf River, Collierville.
Commuter Programs Rideshare programs include carpooling, vanpooling, guaranteed ride home programs, alternative work hours, telecommuting, paratransit services, and park and ride facilities, and are usually employer based, government sponsored, or based on agreements between private individuals.
Generally, rideshare programs are more productive if there are employee or provider incentives, if the cost of parking is high, and if the average one-way trip length is 30 miles or greater. The Memphis Area Rideshare program is affiliated with the Commute with Enterprise service. Find information related to the MemphisArea Rideshare program on the website www.commutewithenterprise.com.
Guaranteed Ride Home Programs provide rides for people using the carpool, vanpool or rideshare programs that, due to extenuating circumstances, require a ride separate from their standard mode of transportation. For instance, if someone participating in a vanpool program has a family emergency and must leave work early, the guaranteed ride home program would provide a means for that person to leave early to attend to the emergency. The benefits of this strategy typically are applied with and considered a part of the carpool, vanpool, or rideshare program.
The Memphis Area Rideshare program, offered through the Shelby County Air Quality Improvement Branch, provides information to individuals and employers to help create transportation options for workers. The program results in a reduction in single occupied vehicle trips, fuel spending, and vehicle miles traveled. Table 10.1 shows the summary of benefits associated with this program for 2017 and 2018.
Table 10.1 2017 Memphis Area Rideshare Program
Analysis Year Measures of Effectiveness 2017 2018 Trips Eliminated 81,023 73,463 Miles Eliminated 4,699,336 4,260,856 Fuel Saved (Gallons/Year) 186,481 169,082 Fuel Saved (Dollars/Year) 419,583 422,704 Carbon Monoxide Reductions (Tons/Year) 70.2 63.7 Source: Shelby County Air Quality Improvement Branch Alternative work hours require cooperation from employers and are currently conducted locally on a relatively small scale. There are several large employers in the Memphis MPO region, such as FedEx, that maintain operations in the off peak periods. If an aggressive campaign to promote alternative work hours was executed, a reduction in vehicular traffic during the peak periods could be experienced.
Park and ride lots are facilities provided for motorists to park and transfer to public transit, carpool, vanpool, or other means of transportation with a higher occupancy rate. In the metropolitan area there are existing park and ride facilities, and a number of future park and ride facilities are identified as part of Livability 2050.
220 coordination isacongestionmanagement strategyusuallyappliedtourbanmajorandminor arterialroadways. increases intersectioncapacity andreducesdelaybyprovidingprogressedtrafficflow alongacorridor projects arelocatedonmajor andminorarterialroadways. Traffic signal coordination andsynchronization Coordinated trafficsignalsystems areinplaceorplannedforimplementationthroughout theregion. motorist. are generallydevelopedbynon-governmentalagenciesto provide dataavailablefromgovernmentagenciestothe travelers ofnon-recurringcongestionissues,constructiondelays, andweatheralerts.In-vehicleinformationsystems Commonplace in-vehicleandphoneglobalpositioningsystems (GPS)allowtravelerstonavigateandnotify weather conditions,andotheritems. roadway orpriortodepartureregardingdelaysfromnon-recurring congestion,constructiondelays,speedlimits, navigation andinformationsystems. These systemsareprovidedtoconveyinformationthetraveleron Highway informationsystemsconsistofchangeablemessage signs,highwayadvisoryradio,and/orin-vehicle Mississippi, anda TMC inSouthaven monitorstrafficconditions. MDOT iscurrentlyworkingontrainingprogramsforfirstresponders. A 511 systemcoversmajorhighwaysin traffic conditions. signs (DMS)alongthefreewaysystemtoalertmotoristsofdelaysandprovidegeneralinformationonroadway tourism, orothertravelrelateddata. Additionally, theFreewayManagementSystemprovidesdynamicmessage can dial511 onacellularphoneorlandline,andreceiveinformation abouttrafficcongestion,constructiondelays, through aseriesofrequestsrelatedtotheroadwaysystemthroughout TDOT’s TN511 systemallowsfortelephonecallerstouseanautomatedvoiceresponseguidethem com. zones, androadwayconditions.Findadditionalinformationabout SmartWay system providesuptodatetrafficinformationformotoristsoncongestion,incidents,construction The SmartWay systemincludes TN511, theHELP program,andtheoverallIntelligent Transportation System. The incident. In Tennessee, theincidentmanagementisaddressedaspartofSmartWay system. Incident managementisaneffectivetoolforreductionofdelaysandnon-recurringcongestionsubsequentto extsites.kimley-horn.com/projects/TennesseeITSArchitecture/memphis.html. approved byFHWA onMarch1,2019.FindmoreinformationtheMemphisMPO’s ITS Architecture athttps:// Architecture providesfortransportationsystemintegration. The MPORegionalITS Architecture updatewas ITS hasthepotentialtoreducebothrecurringandnon-recurringcongestion. techniques including: electronics appliedtosolvingsurfacetransportationproblems.”ITSutilizesalargerangeoftechnologiesand integration ofcurrentandemergingtechnologiesinfieldssuchasinformationprocessing,communications, management, andmotoristinformationservices. The U.S.Departmentof Transportation definesITSas“the Intelligent transportationsystems(ITS)includeadvancedpublicsystemtechnology Operational ImprovementsandITS • • • • • • •
Regional multimodaltravelerinformationsystems. Emergency managementsystems,and Railroad gradecrossingwarningsystems, Incident managementsystems, Transit managementsystems, Freeway managementsystems, Traffic signalcontrolsystems, TDOT’ T ennessee. Withthissystem,motorists s SmartWay Systemat www.TNSmartWay. The MemphisMPORegionalITS , incident . Traffic signal These 221
Chapter 10 - Congestion Management Process LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Intersection Improvements Intersection capacity can also be improved through a number of operational modifications with the addition of exclusive lanes on intersection approaches for right and left turns. This allows for more free-flow movement of the through lanes at the intersection while the turning movements are stored in an exclusive lane waiting to be served by the signal or find a gap in traffic to make the turning movement.The benefit of adding turn lanes at intersections depends on the volume of turning vehicles and their opposing volume. Additional intersection improvements involve widening lanes, establishing proper curb radii, utilizing roundabouts, upgrading traffic control devices, or other innovative intersection treatments that can promote better traffic flow and reduce delays and queues.
Freight improvements Freight diversion or an increase in capacity can lead to a reduction in delay and congestion on truck freight routes. An alternative to the truck freight mode in the region includes rail, waterways, and air. Capacity for freight rail systems can be increased by improving or adding to the infrastructure, increasing rolling stock, and allowing for higher speeds and more efficient operations. To be effective for a reduction in truck freight congestion in this region, these types of improvements must be implemented across a regional or national rail network. Depending on the location, type, and frequency of intermodal operations, freight diversion to rail could result in an increase in delay due to intermodal operations. Freight diversion to waterways is limited due to the type of bulk commodity that is generally shipped using this mode. Because of these issues, the effectiveness of truck freight related congestion management strategies is limited to increases in capacity of truck freight routes.
Transit Improvements Improvements to transit encourage a mode shift from single occupant vehicles, which can help to reduce congestion. Transit improvements include transit service enhancement or expansion, transit information service, transit traffic signal preemption, exclusive transit right-of-way, and mode change facilities. Installation of transit traffic signal preemption can enhance transit service on arterial and major collector roadways. Traffic signal preemption for transit vehicles provides an extended amount of green time for an approaching bus or trolley. On-street transit vehicle preemption is generally limited to the extension of green time for the approach on which the transit vehicle is traveling. It will not truncate the green phase for an opposing direction. For transit vehicles in separate rights-of-way, preemption of traffic signals occurs in a manner similar to railroad preemption.
Providing real time transit information to those accessing the transit system is an enhancement that may increase ridership over time. Information regarding the status of the service may include bus arrival times, headways, and route identification of the next bus. This provides real-time information to those at the local bus stop, via the Internet or mobile devices, or through in-vehicle systems. Further study should be conducted to determine the potential impact of this strategy in increasing transit ridership. This strategy becomes more important with the expansion of the fixed rail transit systems. MATA currently provides real-time transit information for its riders.
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) provides quarterly and year-to-date estimates of unlinked transit passenger trips for the current and previous years. Unlinked passenger trips are defined as the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles, regardless of how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. Figure 10.2 shows the number of unlinked transit passenger trips for the Memphis Area Transit Authority from 2013-2017.
222 using theMemphis Travel DemandModel. been evaluatedandfoundtobeineffective.Evaluationofthe impactofaddinggeneralpurposelanesisconducted emissions. Therefore, theadditionofgeneralpurposelanes isconsideredonlyafteralloftheotherstrategieshave required. Itgenerallyhasthehighestcostandtendstoincrease vehiclemilestraveled(VMT)and,insomecases, In caseswheretheotherstrategieswillnotprovidecongestion relief,theadditionofgeneralpurposelanesmaybe General PurposeLanes metered ramps. These strategiesareeffectiveinincreasingHOVusewhen coupledwithotherHOVstrategies. encountering delayeitherbyprovidingdirectexclusiveaccess tothefreewaysystemorbyprovidingseparatenon- and busbypasslanesramps. These exclusivefacilitiesenableHOVstoaccessthefreewaysystemwithout interchange densityincreases.Severalmethodshavebeendevelopedtoaddressthisissue. occur asthesevehiclesmovetowardtheaccesspointstofreewaysystem. attempt toenterorexittheHOVlanes,frictionbetweenHOVsandothervehiclesingeneral-purposelanes interstate typefacilities.Usedalone,theselanesareeffectiveforcommutersarrivingfromsuburbanareas. vehicles. IntheMemphisarea,HOVlaneshavebeenconsideredamethodtoincreasevehicleoccupancyon HOV andbusbypasslanesrampsarefacilitiesusedtoimprovethetraveltimeassociatedwithhighoccupancy Dedicated Lanes enforcement, andevaluationstrategiestomaintainsafeefficientfacilitiesarealsoprovided. the Livability2050RTP Updatedevelopment.Recommendationsforengineering,education,encouragement, the MemphisMPO’s RegionalBicycleandPedestrianPlanaswellpedestrianbicycleneedsupdatedduring shared-use pathsareprovidedin and strategiestoexpandthenetworkofsidewalks,on-streetbicyclefacilities,off-streetfacilitiessuchas the non-motorizednetworkandimplementingabikeshareprogramwithinCityofMemphis.Recommendations occupant vehicleuse. The Memphisregionisdemonstratingitscommitmenttonon-motorizedtravelbyexpanding Provision forbicyclistsandpedestrianspromotestheiruseasatravelmodehasthepotentialtoreducesingle Bicycle andPedestrianFacilities TransportationPublic Association Source: American Figure 10.2 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
January
February
Memphis AreaTransitAuthority(MATA)Ridership
March Section 8.1. These recommendationsandstrategiesweredeveloped basedon 2014 April
May 2015
June 2016
July
August 2017 September This problemismadeworseasthe
October These includeHOV
November
December As HOVs 223
Chapter 10 - Congestion Management Process LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
10.1.4 Project Evaluation and Project List As applicable, all CMP strategies apart from the addition of general purpose lanes were applied to corridors in the future year congested network based on the facility type, area type, and type of strategy. These strategies do not provide capacity through the addition of general purpose lanes on the roadway network. The benefit of each of these strategies was evaluated using an off-model approach to identify the resulting Level of Service. For those facilities that remained congested following application of the non-capacity adding strategies, the addition of general purpose lanes was evaluated using the Travel Demand Model. Projects were coded into the Travel Model and the resulting level of services was identified. The results of the evaluation of the existing and committed congested corridors for Livability 2050 horizon year of 2050 are shown in Appendix F. The table in this appendix shows the limits of each congested corridor, volume to capacity ratio (v/c), LOS, and peak hour volume of the congested corridors before application of the CMP strategies. The off-model CMP strategies evaluated and the resulting Level of Service are also provided.
224 impacts onthetransportationnetworkarestillrelativelyunclear specifically inurbanareas.However, thecurrentandfuture to haveasignificantimpactontransportationinthefuture, ridesharing point-to-pointopportunities. TNCs havethepotential such asUberPOOL andLyft Line,thatprovidecustomerswith expanded theirservicestoincludesharedtransportationoptions, convenience ofamobileapplication.Inaddition, TNCs have door-to-door non-stoptransportationservicethroughthe world. TNC’s offercustomersasafe,reliable,andeconomical in citiesthroughouttheUnitedStatesandotherpartsof as UberandLyft, havebecomeacommontransportationservice Since 2012, Transportation NetworkCompanies(TNCs),such Transportation NetworkCompanies account for54%ofnewcarsalesgloballyby2040. International Energy Agency estimatesthatelectricvehicleswill vehicles inthefuturevarysignificantly. A reportproducedbythe market sales. The projectionsestimatingtheadoptionofelectric the early2000s,conventionalvehicleshavestilldominated electric vehiclessoldintheUnitedStateshasincreasedsince Although thenumberofplug-inelectricvehiclesandhybrid Electric Vehicles drastically changeandimprovetheperformanceofU.S.transportationsystem. advances innavigationsystemswithrealtimeinformationareexamplesofemergingtechnologiesthathavethepotentialto move andthemovementofgoodsinfuture.Emergingelectricvehicletechnology Various advancementsintechnology, bothwithinandoutsideofthetransportationsector, coulddrasticallychangethewaypeople Emerging Trends:Technology . advisories, andinformationregardingotheremergencyevents. with updatesregardingcrashes,severeweatheralerts,safety Information Systems(ATIS) havetheabilitytoprovide users information andnavigationguidance, Advanced Traveler equipped withGPStechnology. Inadditiontotraveltime of personalsmartdevicesandvehiclenavigationsystems data hascoincidedwiththebroadavailabilityanddistribution The increasingavailabilityofreal-timenavigationtoolsand transportation networks. understanding oftheissuesassociatedwiththeirrespective the potentialtoprovidetransportationagencieswithabetter introduction andincreasingavailabilityofthesedatasetshas as vehicles,personalsmartdevices,andinfrastructure. The implementing strategiestousedataderivedfromsourcessuch agencies haverecentlybeenbegunexploringopportunitiesand throughout theU.S.Federal,state,andregionaltransportation are continuallybecomingavailabletotransportationagencies Robust collectionsofdatadetailingtravelpatternsandbehavior Systems Big DataandEnhancedNavigation , accesstorobustcollectionsofdata,and 225
Chapter 10 - Congestion Management Process LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Impacts of Technology on Transportation Planning and MPO Operations
Regulating the Operation of TNCs: • Due to the increasing popularity of TNCs, many states have, and several cities, have established regulations to control the manner in which TNC’s operate. These states have taken measures to address insurance requirements and financial liability, established driver and vehicle requirements, established operational requirements, implement passenger protections, establish data reporting requirements, and establish regulatory and rule-making authority.
Potential Role of TNC’s in Reducing Congestion and Improving Shared Mobility: • Some studies have produced evidence that TNCs may be contributing to congestion and are reducing the use of other forms of transportation, such as transit, bicycling, and walking.
• A report produced by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) found that ridesourcing options, along with other shared transportation services, have the potential to complement public transit and enhance urban mobility by reducing the number of cars owned per household. In addition, ridesourcing services are most frequently used between the hours of 10 P.M. and 4 A.M., when walking, bicycling, or public transit may not be a viable option. In addition, various studies have indicated that TNCs have the potential to help address certain issues associated “first mile/last mile” transit connections.
Integrating New Data Collections into Transportation Planning and Operations: • As transportation agencies become more familiar and comfortable with new data collections, they will have the opportunity to assess various aspects of the transportation network in greater detail and depth.
Impact of Real-Time Data and Navigation Systems on the Transportation Network • While several studies have shown that the navigation systems using real-time traffic information have the potential reduce traffic congestion along major roadways, these studies have also shown that they have the potential to increase congestion on alternate transportation routes. Alternate routes such as local and collector streets with largely residential land-uses are often not equipped to withstand increases in travel demand.
226
LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
228 areas arefoundtobeapplicableanddescribedas: applicable criteriaandprocedureshavebeensatisfied(40 CFR93.109-a). found toconform,theMPOandUnitedStatesDepartment of Transportation (USDOT)mustdemonstratethatthe program (TIP),andFederalHighway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) projecttobe Planning Regulations(23CFR450)implementingFAST-Act Requirements.Foreachtransportationplan(RTP), the Tennessee andMississippi Transportation ConformityRules; andMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(MPO) Regulations, Title 40,Parts51and93(40CFR93,i.e. Transportation Conformity RuleRequirements); regulations: UnitedStatesFederalRegister, Volume 69,Page40004(69 FR40004);UnitedStatesCodeofFederal The conformitydeterminationwasperformedaccordingtoproceduresprescribedbythefollowingfederalandstate maintenance ofthe20088-hourozoneNAAQS. 2023 Transportation ImprovementProgram(TIP)anddoesnotjeopardizeShelbyCounty’s orDesotoCounty’s supports theimplementationoffinanciallyconstrainedLivability2050R Conformity analysiswasdonetodemonstratethattheShelbyCountyandDeSotomaintenanceareas determination waspreparedbasedontheapplicable8-hourOzoneNAAQS. coordinated transportationandairqualityplanningthroughthemetropolitanprovisions. This conformity the 21stCentury(MAP-21);andFixing America’s Surface Transportatiopn Act (FAST-Act) reinforcedtheneedfor Flexible, Efficient TransportationEquity Act: ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEA-LU);Moving AheadforProgressin The Transportation Equity Act forthe21stCentury(TEA-21)anditssuccessorlegislation,Safe, Accountable, establishes policy, criteria,andprocedures fordemonstratingandassuringconformityoftransportationactivities. attainment oftheNAAQSoranyrequiredinterimmilestone. The transportationconformityrule(40CFRpart93) Ambient Air QualityStandards(NAAQS);increasethefrequencyorseverityofNAAQSviolations;delaytimely means thatfederalfundswillnotbespentonprojectscauseorcontributetoanynewviolationsoftheNational projects toconformthe Tennessee andMississippiStateImplementationPlans(SIP).ConformancetoaSIP Conformity Rulesrequiretransportationplans,improvementprograms(TIP),and The 1990Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), Tennessee Transportation ConformityRules,andMississippi 11.2 (DeSoto CountyConformityDemonstration). conformity determination,pleasereferto for mobilesourceemissionsassociatedwithregionaltransportationplans.Foramorein-depthdiscussiononthe This chapteroftheplanaddressescompliancewithfederalregulationsthatgovernairqualityrequirements 11.1 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 11.0
The conformitydetermination mustcomplywithFAST-Act andMPOPlanningRegulations. and Timely implementationofapplicable Transportation ControlMeasures(TCM)fromtheSIP mustbeprovidedfor; agencies, localairqualityand transportationagencies,USDOT, andtheEPA; MPOs andstatedepartmentsoftransportationmustprovide reasonableopportunityforconsultationwithstateair The conformitydeterminationsmustbebaseduponthelatest emissionestimationmodelavailable; The conformitydeterminationsmustbebaseduponthemost recentplanningassumptions; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fortransportationconformitypurposes,oraninterimemissionstest; The TIP andRTP mustpassanemissionsbudgettestwithathat hasbeenfoundtobeadequatebythe
Introduction Background
Air Quality Appendix H(ShelbyCountyConformityDemonstration)and The followingcriteriafornon-attainment TP UpdateandtheFiscal Year 2020- Appendix I 229
Chapter 11 - Air Quality LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
Conformity Determination was conducted from the Shelby and DeSoto Counties’ portions of the Livability 2050 RTP Update and the FY 2020-2023 TIP. The Marshall and Fayette Counties’ portion of the Memphis MPO are in attainment with all EPA standards; therefore all transportation projects are exempt from conformity. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) version MOVES2014b model was used to derive emissions as required by the EPA. An interagency consultation process was conducted throughout the development of the conformity determination documents. The details of the consultation process can be found in Appendix H and Appendix I. 11.2.1 Attainment Status Ozone (O3) On April 30, 2004 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-AR as a 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area (69 FR 23858). Included in this designation were two counties: Shelby, TN and Crittenden, AR. The 8-hour ozone area designation was effective on June 15, 2004. On September 15, 2004 EPA reclassified the area from moderate to marginal. This reclassification indicated the area was expected to reach attainment sooner than originally anticipated. Following this reclassification, the Memphis,TN-AR area demonstrated attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in January 2010 (75 FR 56, January 4, 2010). A 10- year maintenance plan was established for NOX and VOCs, with new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs). The last year of this maintenance plan is 2021.
EPA designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a 2008 8-hour ozone marginal nonattainment area effective July 20, 2012. The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, 2012. Following this redesignation, the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP Requirements Rule revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standards for all purposes, including transportation conformity on April 6, 2015. Included in the 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area designation was Crittenden County, AR in the West Memphis MPO area, Shelby County, TN, and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary at the time of the designation. The West Memphis MPO is responsible for demonstrating conformity for Crittenden County, AR.
Consistent with EPA guidance, Mississippi and Tennessee developed separate MVEB’s and SIPs for DeSoto County and Shelby County, respectively. EPA found these budgets adequate and the Memphis MPO elected to determine conformity for the two counties independently. Figure 11.1 illustrates the for ozone nonattainment area for 2008 8-hour standard.
EPA redesignated DeSoto County from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard effective May 9, 2016 as published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2016 (81 FR 20543). In this same Federal Register notice, the maintenance SIP for continued attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard with MVEB’s for NOX and VOCs was approved. The last year of this maintenance plan is 2027.
EPA redesignated Shelby County from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard effective July 25, 2016 as published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40816). In this same Federal Register notice, the attainment SIP for continued maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard with MVEB’s for NOX and VOCs was approved. The last year of this maintenance plan is 2027.
On November 16, 2017, EPA designated all of the counties in the Memphis MPO area as attainment/unclassificable for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard, including Shelby County, TN and DeSoto County, MS (82 FR 54232). The effective date of the final ruling was January 16, 2018. The revised 2015 ozone NAAQS provides a greater protection of public health and the environment than the previous 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
230 end oftherequirementtodemonstrateconformityforCO NAAQSisprovidedin Therefore, theareanolongerneedstodemonstrateconformity forCONAAQS. A letterfromEPA documentingthe 2006. The second10-yearmaintenanceperiodfortheShelbyCountyCO NAAQSendedonDecember26,2017. for ShelbyCountywasdocumentedin71FR62384(October 25,2006)withaneffectivedateofDecember26, motor vehicleemissionbudget(MVEB)containedinit. The approvalofthe10year maintenanceplanforCO Shelby County’s attainment statusforCOwasrevisitedinthesecond10-yearmaintenanceplanand 1990 CAAAs. into two10-yearmaintenanceperiodsforCOduringwhich theareademonstratedcontinuedcompliancewith attainment status for the CO standard was published in 59 FR 44958 (August 31, 1994). Shelby County then entered attainment fortheCOstandardon August 31,1994.EPA’s reclassificationoftheMemphisnon-attainmentareato area forcarbonmonoxide(CO).Duetoimprovementsinambientairquality, EPA redesignatedShelbyCountyto On March3,1978,EPA designatedShelbyCounty, TN, amoderate(lessthan12.7partspermillion)non-attainment Carbon Monoxide(CO) Figure 11.1
Memphis, TN-MS-AR20088-HourOzoneNon-AttainmentArea Appendix H. 231
Chapter 11 - Air Quality LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
11.3 Interagency Consultation and Public Participation
Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.112, and 23 CFR 450. Since the conformity determination for Shelby County is being done concurrently with DeSoto County, consultation and requirements for both Tennessee and Mississippi were considered.
The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with numerous stakeholders and review agencies, including Shelby County, Shelby County Health Department, DeSoto County, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), TDOT, MDOT, FHWA, FTA, EPA, and other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO held teleconference calls and email correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the Shelby County Conformity Demonstration, such as the latest planning assumptions. Verbal and written comments from these calls have been addressed (see Appendix H and Appendix I). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, a pre-consensus plan was developed for the ozone analysis. This document, titled “Livability 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Air Quality Conformity Demonstration Pre-consensus,” was reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received.
The Memphis Urban Area MPO’s Public Participation Plan, adopted on November 20, 2014, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and ETC meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed; these are provided in Appendix C. 11.4 Methodology and Results
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to regularly update its mobile source emission models. EPA continuously collects data and measures vehicle emissions to make sure the Agency has the best possible understanding of mobile source emissions. This assessment, in turn, informs the development of EPA’s mobile source emission models. MOVES represent the Agency’s most up-to-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. MOVES also incorporates several changes to EPA’s approach to mobile source emission modeling based upon recommendations made to the Agency by the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to the MOVES model, the Memphis MPO’s Travel Demand Model was used to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) information. The emissions factors are based on a number of inputs including temperature, presence of inspection and maintenance programs, and vehicle type mix. It was determined that the emissions estimates for the ozone precursors, Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Oxide of Nitrogen (NOx ) are lower than the corresponding emission budgets for each horizon year. Tables 11.1 and 11.2 show the estimated mobile source emissions compared to the MVEBs for VOC and NOx for Shelby County and DeSoto County, respectively. More details, including the detailed calculation methodology, are provided in Appendix H and Appendix I.
232 Standards 2023 TIP andtheLivability2050RTP Updateconformunderthe20088-hourozoneNational Ambient Air Quality tests forbothShelbyandDesotoCountiesOzone.ItisthedeterminationofthisanalysisthatFY Livability 2050RTP UpdateandFY 2020-2023 Transportation ImprovementProgram(TIP)meetstheconformity The analysisindicatesthatprojectedemissionslevelsbasedontheprojectscontainedinMemphisUrban 11.5 Table 11.2 Table 11.1 Analysis Year Analysis Year
Conclusion 2050 2040 2030 2050 2027 2040 2030 2027
DeSoto CountyMobileSourceEmissionsandMVEBs Shelby CountyMobileSourceEmissionsandMVEBs Baseline/Budget Baseline/Budget Attainment SIP Attainment SIP Volatile OrganicCompounds(VOC) Volatile OrganicCompounds(VOC) 19.01 19.01 19.01 19.01 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 DeSoto CountyEmissions(tons/day) Shelby CountyEmissions(tons/day) Modeled Modeled 1.531 1.319 1.474 4.796 1.612 4.648 5.882 6.688 Baseline/Budget Baseline/Budget Attainment SIP Attainment SIP 61.56 61.56 61.56 61.56 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Oxides ofNitrogen(NO Oxides ofNitrogen(NO Modeled Modeled 10.961 10.686 12.125 2020- 4.008 3.134 2.959 3.100 9.677 x x ) ) Area 233
Chapter 11 - Air Quality LIVABILITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE connecting people & places 2050
This page is intentionally left blank.
234