Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
T03-10
NOVEMBER 2003
HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON CLARENCE V. CUFFEE * CHARLES W. BURGESS, JR. DEBBIE RITTER GORDON C. HELSEL, JR. * WILLIAM E. WARD PORTSMOUTH FRANKLIN J. THOMAS BENN, III MARK S. FETHEROLF * C. W. McCOY * ROWLAND L. TAYLOR CAMERON C. PITTS
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY JOHN J. ADAMS, SR. * MICHAEL W. JOHNSON * WILLIAM H. WHITLEY CHARLETON W. SYKES
HAMPTON SUFFOLK MAMIE E. LOCKE E. DANA DICKENS, III GEORGE E. WALLACE * R. STEVEN HERBERT * PAIGE V. WASHINGTON, JR. SURRY COUNTY ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY ERNEST L. BLOUNT W. DOUGLAS CASKEY * TERRY D. LEWIS * ROBERT C. CLAUD, SR. VIRGINIA BEACH JAMES CITY COUNTY HARRY E. DIEZEL BRUCE C. GOODSON MARGARET L. EURE * SANFORD B. WANNER * LOUIS R. JONES . MEYERA E. OBERNDORF NEWPORT NEWS PETER W. SCHMIDT CHARLES C. ALLEN JAMES K. SPORE * JOE S. FRANK JAMES L. WOOD EDGAR E. MARONEY WILLIAMSBURG NORFOLK JACKSON C. TUTTLE, II * PAUL D. FRAIM * JEANNE ZEIDLER DONALD L. WILLIAMS REGINA V.K. WILLIAMS YORK COUNTY BARCLAY C. WINN * JAMES O. McREYNOLDS W. RANDY WRIGHT THOMAS G. SHEPPERD, JR.
*EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE /MPO MEMBER
PROJECT STAFF
ARTHUR L. COLLINS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY
DWIGHT L. FARMER DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION CAMELIA RAVENBAKHT PRINCIPAL TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER KEITH M. NICHOLS TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER JOHN A. BISHOP TRANSPORTATION ANALYST
ROBERT C. JACOBS DIRECTOR OF GRAPHIC & PRINTING SERVICES MICHAEL R. LONG GRAPHIC ARTIST/ILLUSTRATOR TECHNICIAN II BRIAN MILLER GRAPHIC TECHNICIAN II RACHAEL V. PATCHETT REPROGRAPHIC SUPERVISOR
DOWNTOWN TUNNEL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN STUDY
This report was included in the Work Program for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, which was approved by the Commission and the Metropolitan Planning Organization at their meetings of March 20, 2002.
NOVEMBER 2003
T03-10 Report Documentation November 2003: Final Report
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
TITLE: REPORT DATE Downtown Tunnel November 2003 Traffic Management Plan Study GRANT/SPONSORING AGENCY FHWA/VDOT/LOCAL FUNDS
AUTHORS: ORGANIZATION NAME, John A. Bishop ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE Keith M. Nichols Hampton Roads Planning Camelia Ravanbakht, PhD District Commission 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, Virginia 23320 (757) 420-8300 http://www.hrpdc.org
ABSTRACT
The Downtown Tunnel (I-264), a major transportation corridor connecting communities east and west of the Elizabeth River, is heavily congested during the peak travel periods. The four-lane facility, which carries more than 100,000 vehicles each weekday, commonly has queues of over two miles during the peak periods. The queues also affect surface street traffic in the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth. The Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth requested that HRPDC examine short-term traffic management alternatives to relieve congestion at the Downtown Tunnel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, and the City of Norfolk, Virginia. The contents of this report reflect the views of the staff of the Hampton Roads Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO staff is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA, VDOT, or HRPDC. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfillment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be necessary.
Downtown Tunnel i Traffic Management Plan Study Report Documentation November 2003: Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION ...... i
LIST OF FIGURES...... iii
LIST OF MAPS ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... iv
INTRODUCTION...... 1
LAND USE ...... 3
TRAVEL PATTERNS...... 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 9 Traffic Volume and Trend Analysis...... 9 Traffic Volumes, Speeds, and Queues ...... 11 Crash and Incident Data...... 18 Transit Usage ...... 20 Commuter Characteristics ...... 21
ADDRESSING THE CONGESTION PROBLEM ...... 24 Transportation System Management...... 24 Transportation Demand Management ...... 25
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 39
APPENDIX A – Downtown Tunnel Traffic Count Data...... 40
APPENDIX B – Downtown Tunnel Incident Data...... 44
APPENDIX C – City-to-City Commuting Data, Southside Hampton Roads ...... 46
Downtown Tunnel ii Traffic Management Plan Study Report Documentation November 2003: Final Report
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Downtown Tunnel Annual Traffic Volume Trends, 1989 - 2002 ...... 9
FIGURE 2 Downtown Tunnel Monthly Traffic Volumes, 2002...... 10
FIGURE 3 Downtown Tunnel Daily Traffic Volumes, 2002 ...... 10
FIGURE 4 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge Daily Traffic Volumes...... 12
FIGURE 5 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 13
FIGURE 6 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 14
FIGURE 7 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge AM Peak Period Queues and Speeds .. 15
FIGURE 8 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge PM Peak Period Queues and Speeds .. 16
FIGURE 9 Transit and Ferry Ridership Between Norfolk and Portsmouth, 2002...... 21
FIGURE 10 Downtown Tunnel Weekday Volumes by Direction, 2002 ...... 30
FIGURE 11 Eastbound and Westbound Available Capacity by Time of Day...... 31
FIGURE 12 Change in Eastbound Traffic Volumes due to Congestion Pricing ...... 35
FIGURE 13 Change in Westbound Traffic Volumes due to Congestion Pricing ...... 36
FIGURE 14 Change in Westbound Traffic Volumes due to Congestion Pricing ...... 37
FIGURE 15 Change in Westbound Traffic Volumes due to Congestion Pricing ...... 38
Downtown Tunnel iii Traffic Management Plan Study Report Documentation November 2003: Final Report
LIST OF MAPS
MAP 1 Study Area Map ...... 2
MAP 2 Study Area Population ...... 4
MAP 3 Study Area Employment ...... 5
MAP 4 Trip Ends Using the Downtown Tunnel...... 7
MAP 5 Trip Ends Using the Berkley Bridge ...... 8
MAP 6 EPDO Rate per MVMT in the Vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel, 1998-2000 ..... 18
MAP 7 Alternate Routes to the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge ...... 26
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Average Traffic Stoppage Time by Incident Type, 2002...... 19
TABLE 2 Commuting Mode by Southside Jurisdiction, 2000...... 22
TABLE 3 TRAFFIX Outreach Program Summary, Downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth.... 23
TABLE 4 Transit and Ferry Usage, 2002 ...... 27
TABLE 5 Potential Impact of Ridesharing on the Downtown Tunnel ...... 28
TABLE A.1 Average Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel...... 41
TABLE A.2 Maximum Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel...... 41
TABLE A.3 Average Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel by Day of Week ...... 41
TABLE A.4 Average Daily Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel...... 42
TABLE A.5 Average Weekday Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel...... 42
TABLE A.6 Average Weekend Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel...... 42
TABLE A.7 Downtown Tunnel 15-minute Traffic Volumes, 2002 ...... 43
TABLE B.1 Incidents Responded to by the Downtown Tunnel Incident Response Team.... 45
TABLE C.1 City-to-City Commuting Data, Southside Hampton Roads ...... 47
Downtown Tunnel iv Traffic Management Plan Study Introduction November 2003: Final Report
INTRODUCTION
The Downtown Tunnel (I-264), a major transportation corridor connecting communities east and west of the Elizabeth River, is heavily congested during the peak travel periods in both directions due to high traffic volumes and roadway geometry problems. The four-lane facility, which carries more than 100,000 vehicles each weekday, is the most heavily traveled river crossing in Hampton Roads and also has the highest traffic density of any roadway throughout the region. Compounding congestion problems is the reduced roadway capacity of the tunnel, as well as a complex system of ramps leading to and from I-264 that creates problems with merging and weaving movements. Queues of over two miles are common during the peak periods, and these queues also affect surface street traffic in Downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth.
The Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth requested that HRPDC examine short-term traffic management alternatives to relieve congestion at the Downtown Tunnel. This report is broken down into the following sections: PICTURE 1 – Congestion approaching the Downtown Tunnel • Land use • Travel patterns • Existing conditions o Traffic volumes and trends o Peak hour volumes, speeds and queues o Crash and incident data o Transit usage o Commuter characteristics • Addressing the congestion problem o Transportation System Management (TSM) o Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Map 1 on page 2 details the study area analyzed in this report, which is roughly the Midtown Tunnel to the north, Ballentine Boulevard to the east, the Jordan Bridge to the south, and the I-264/Frederick Boulevard interchange to the west.
Downtown Tunnel 1 Traffic Management Plan Study Introduction November 2003: Final Report
MAP 1
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Study Area Map
Downtown Tunnel 2 Traffic Management Plan Study Land Use November 2003: Final Report
LAND USE
The study area surrounding the downtown tunnel, which was shown in Map 1 on page 2, is comprised of a wide mix of residential, manufacturing, light industrial, ports, military, and various other commercial uses. The immediate area near the tunnel and shores of the Elizabeth River tend to be industrial or commercial in use with the heaviest residential use being focused toward the outer edges of the study area. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) were used for analyzing population and employment data in the study area.
Approximately 90,528 people lived within the study area in 2000, which is 8.7% of the total population of Southside Hampton Roads. As mentioned above and shown in Map 2 on page 4, many TAZs in the study area have low populations due to the heavy concentration of industrial, port, military, and commercial uses throughout the study area. The areas with highest population concentrations are primary on the outer edges of the study area.
Map 3 on page 5 shows that there are significant concentrations of employment in the study area, especially along the shores of the Elizabeth River. There were 97,142 jobs in study area in 2000, which equates to 14.6% of all employment in Southside Hampton Roads. In addition there were 51 employers with more than 100 employees located within the study area in 2000. This includes some of the region’s most prominent employers such as Ford Motor Company and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
Downtown Tunnel 3 Traffic Management Plan Study Land Use November 2003: Final Report
MAP 2
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Study Area Population
Downtown Tunnel 4 Traffic Management Plan Study Land Use November 2003: Final Report
MAP 3
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Study Area Employment
Downtown Tunnel 5 Traffic Management Plan Study Travel Patterns November 2003: Final Report
TRAVEL PATTERNS
To analyze the travel patterns and trips that used the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge the Travel Demand Forecasting model at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission was used. This model produces trip end data based on the socioeconomic and land use data from the TAZs in the previous section. On the accompanying Maps 4 and 5 on pages 7 and 8, trip ends are displayed in the form of dots, with each dot representing 100 trip ends. A trip end is defined as either the origin or destination of the trip; therefore a trip from Portsmouth to Virginia Beach would produce two trip ends.
Nearly all trip ends that result from trips at the Downtown Tunnel occur on the Southside of Hampton Roads, but only a slight majority of these trip ends are in Norfolk and Portsmouth. While 55% of all trip ends of users of the Downtown Tunnel are located in either Norfolk or Portsmouth, the other 45% are located in other jurisdictions. Virginia Beach and Chesapeake are well represented with 20% and 14% of all trip ends respectively.
Trip ends for users of the Berkley Bridge show a similar pattern to those for the Downtown Tunnel. As with the Downtown Tunnel, 55% of all trip ends at the Berkley Bridge are in Norfolk and Portsmouth. However, the Berkley Bridge users have many more trip ends in Chesapeake than the Downtown Tunnel, with those trip ends located primarily along the Battlefield Boulevard corridor. This can be attributed to trips coming up the corridor and taking I-464 to the Berkley Bridge, thus avoiding the Downtown Tunnel. Also similar to the Downtown Tunnel pattern, nearly all of the trips at the Berkley Bridge are Southside users, with 45% of trip ends located outside of Norfolk and Portsmouth.
Downtown Tunnel 6 Traffic Management Plan Study Travel Patterns November 2003: Final Report
MAP 4
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Trip Ends Using the Downtown Tunnel- 2000
Downtown Tunnel 7 Traffic Management Plan Study Travel Patterns November 2003: Final Report
MAP 5
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Trip Ends Using the Berkley Bridge - 2000
Downtown Tunnel 8 Traffic Management Plan Study Travel Patterns November 2003: Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the report details the characteristics of the transportation network in the vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel. Included are subsections examining traffic volumes and trends; peak hour volumes, speeds and queues; crash and incident data; transit usage; and commuter characteristics.
Traffic Volume and Trends
Carrying an average of over 93,800 vehicles per day and 100,800 vehicles per weekday in 2002, the Downtown Tunnel is the most heavily traveled of the river crossings in Hampton Roads. The four-lane facility also has the highest traffic density of any roadway in Hampton Roads with 25,200 vehicles per lane per weekday. Despite receiving more attention for its congestion, the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel carried 74,900 vehicles per day and 89,200 vehicles per weekday in 2002, both significantly less than the Downtown Tunnel.
Figure 1 details the annual traffic volumes at the Downtown Tunnel between 1989 (after the facility was widened to four lanes) and 2002, during which time traffic increased 43%. Figures 2 and 3 on page 10 show traffic volume trends at the Downtown Tunnel by month of the year and day of the week respectively. Despite
FIGURE 1 – Downtown Tunnel Annual Traffic Volume Trends, 1989 - 2002
40,000,000
100,000 35,000,000
30,000,000 80,000
25,000,000
60,000 20,000,000
15,000,000 40,000
10,000,000 Annual Traffic Volumes
20,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic 5,000,000
0 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 9 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 2 – Downtown Tunnel Monthly Traffic Volumes, 2002
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000 Average Daily Traffic 40,000
Downtown Tunnel Average Daily Traffic
20,000 Downtown Tunnel Average Weekday Traffic
Downtown Tunnel Average Weekend Traffic
0 l y ry ri y ly st r r ar rch p a ne u e er u ua M u J gu b be ber n r A J m to mb m a b Ma Au te e J p Oc v ce Fe e o e S N D Source: VDOT
FIGURE 3 – Downtown Tunnel Daily Traffic Volumes, 2002
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
Average Daily Traffic 40,000
20,000
0 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 10 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
drops in December and January, monthly traffic volumes vary little at the Downtown Tunnel. Not surprisingly, Friday is the busiest day of the week at the Downtown Tunnel with an average of 106,000 vehicles. Even Saturday, which has an average volume of 84,200 vehicles, is over the tunnel’s design capacity of 75,000 vehicles per day.
Additional Downtown Tunnel traffic volume data and trends are also included in Appendix A.
Traffic Volumes, Speeds, and Queues
With the highest traffic density of any roadway in Hampton Roads, the Downtown Tunnel is congested many hours of each weekday. Compounding congestion problems is the reduced roadway capacity of all tunnel facilities. The capacity of the Downtown Tunnel is approximately 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour, as compared to 2,200 to 2,300 passenger cars per lane per hour for basic freeway segments1.
Additionally, a complex system of ramps leading to and from I-264 in the vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel creates problems with merging and weaving movements. There are two difficult merging areas approaching the entrances of the Downtown Tunnel. The ramp from Effingham Street and Crawford Street provides 15,400 vehicles per day to eastbound I-264 with an acceleration area of only about 200 feet before entering the Downtown Tunnel. The merge from northbound I-464 and Berkley Avenue to westbound I-264 is also difficult. Over 10,600 vehicles enter I-264 from this ramp each day with 350 feet of merging area before the tunnel entrance that has very restricted sight distance. Figure 4 on page 12 shows the roadway system geometry approaching the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge as well as daily traffic volumes. Figures 5 and 6 on pages 13 and 14 contain similar data for the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Weaving movements are also a problem on the Berkley Bridge, particularly in the eastbound direction. The westbound weaving area is 2,200 feet in length, and 14,200 vehicles per day (25%) must change lanes on the bridge. By comparison, the majority of vehicles in the eastbound direction on the Berkley Bridge (62%) must change lanes on the Berkley Bridge to access their ramps. With only 1,300 feet between the I-264/I- 464 merge and the Downtown Norfolk exit, traffic often slows down due to these weaving movements. This queues traffic on northbound I-464 in the morning peak period in addition to the queues in the eastbound tube of the Downtown Tunnel.
The queues that result from these high traffic volumes and unique roadway geometry can be considerable during the peak periods. Traffic backs up more than 2 miles 4 to 5 times per week during peak periods. Figures 7 and 8 on pages 15 and 16 show the interstate peak period speeds and queues during the morning and afternoon
1 Transportation Research Board, “Highway Capacity Manual”, 2000.
Downtown Tunnel 11 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
TO FIGURE 4 ST. PAULS BLVD 15,482 15,567 Downtown Tunnel FROM Traffic Management Plan CITY HALL AVE & N ST. PAULS BLVD WEST Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge 33,905 264 Daily Traffic Volumes
8,296 TO TO/FROM LEGEND WATERSIDE TIDEWATER DR EAST DRIVE 8,965 27,927 264 2002 AVERAGE 4,644 48,477 Elizabeth River WEEKDAY VOLUME
06 ,2 7 6
1 5
5 9 , 9 8 6 , , 4 9 6 3 6
Eastern Branch
Y Elizabeth River 8 E E , L G 0 8 K D I 2 R 9 R E 2
B 1 B 3 , 8 2 1 09 ,3 5 9 7, 2
10,644
41,961 8,839
TO/FROM EL NN TO CRAWFORD ST TU N FROM EFFINGHAM ST OW NT 52,605 BERKLEY AVE OW D 4,556 5,080
35,848 48,477 3,759 6,088
264 TO 35,327 33,060 BERKLEY AVE 15,417
TO/FROM EFFINGHAM ST 5,354 10,063 23,553 SOURCE: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) TO/FROM CRAWFORD ST 20,802 Southern Branch NOTE: Some traffic counts were estimated based on 2000 Elizabeth River 464 VDOT data. PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, May 2003. NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
Downtown Tunnel 12 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
TO FIGURE 5 ST. PAULS BLVD 434 DOWNTOWN TUNNEL/BERKLEY BRIDGE 1,626 Downtown Tunnel FROM TrafficTRA FManaFIC VOgementLUME PlanS CITY HALL AVE & AM PEAK HOUR N ST. PAULS BLVD WEST Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge 2,563 264 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
598 TO TO/FROM LEGEND WATERSIDE TIDEWATER DR EAST DRIVE 747 2,149 264 534 2002 WEEKDAY AM 3,245 Elizabeth River PEAK HOUR VOLUME
87 ,0 1
6
1 4
1 7
3 ,0 1 2 8
Eastern Branch
Y Elizabeth River 1 E E , L G 6 0 K D I 6 R R E 4 B B 5 8 5 9 98 6 ,1 2
789
2,392 439
TO/FROM EL NN TO CRAWFORD ST TU N FROM EFFINGHAM ST OW NT 3,181 BERKLEY AVE OW D 283 218
1,472 3,245 506 221 264 TO 2,825 2,532 BERKLEY AVE
714 TO/FROM EFFINGHAM ST 323 391 2,804 SOURCE: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) TO/FROM CRAWFORD ST 1,421 Southern Branch NOTE: Some traffic counts were estimated based on 2000 Elizabeth River 464 VDOT data. PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, May 2003. NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
Downtown Tunnel 13 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
TO FIGURE 6 ST. PAULS BLVD 2,092 DOWNTOWN TUNNEL/BERKLEY BRIDGE 953 Downtown Tunnel FROM TrafficTRA FManaFIC VOgementLUME PlanS CITY HALL AVE & PM PEAK HOUR N ST. PAULS BLVD WEST Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge 2,323 264 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
445 TO TO/FROM LEGEND WATERSIDE TIDEWATER DR EAST DRIVE 635 1,910 264 224 2002 WEEKDAY PM 3,245 Elizabeth River PEAK HOUR VOLUME
9 58
6
0 9 5 , 7
1 5 ,1 8 2 6
Eastern Branch
Y Elizabeth River E E 4 L G 8
K D 2 I R R E 5 B B 9 6 6 5 89 5 ,9 1
671
2,765 662
TO/FROM EL NN TO CRAWFORD ST TU N FROM EFFINGHAM ST OW NT 3,436 BERKLEY AVE OW D 339 386
3,721 3,346 332 276 264 TO 2,523 2,418 BERKLEY AVE
928 TO/FROM EFFINGHAM ST 455 473 1,370 SOURCE: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) TO/FROM CRAWFORD ST 2,547 Southern Branch NOTE: Some traffic counts were estimated based on 2000 Elizabeth River 464 VDOT data. PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, May 2003. NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
Downtown Tunnel 14 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 7 QUEUES AND TR AVEL SPEEDS APDoPwRnOtoAwCHn ITNunnelG THE Traffic Management Plan DOWNTOWN TUNNEL /BERKLEY BRIDGE
B DowntownAM Tunnel PEAK and PE RIBerkleOD y Bridge N A LL BL AM Peak Period Queues and Speeds E V N D TI N E LEGEND
Elizabeth River QUEUE DATA
52.8 2.8 mi. 2.0 mi. Queue data was collected in half-hour 6:00 - 6:30 intervals daily during the time period 6:30 - 7:00 7:00 - 7:30 7:30 - 8:00 from 10/21/02 to 10/25/02. 8:00 - 8:30 8:30 - 9:00 264 Listed distances are referenced from 27.9 the center of the Downtown Tunnel, except for I-464 which is referenced from the center of the Berkley Bridge.
6:00 - 6:30 6:30 - 7:00 LENGTH OF QUEUE 33.4 Eastern Branch 7:00 - 7:30 0.8 mi. 7:30 - 8:00 Elizabeth River 8:00 - 8:30 BY TIME OF DAY 28.5 8:30 - 9:00
0.0 mi.
C FREQUENCY OF QUEUE 30 A - 6: :00 M 6 00 T - 7: :30 S P 6 30 - 7: O 0 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK 00 N 7: 00 I R S - 8: F 30 A D T R 7: 8:30 0.0 mi. 1 OCCURRENCE PER WEEK 0 - E E 8:0 0 M 9:0 L D 0 - 3 L 2 - 3 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK E 8: :30 A R - 6 00 6: 00 IC - 7: 4 - 5 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK 6:30 0 K 7:3 00 - 11.4 B 7: 00 - 8: L 7:30 0 V 8:3 00 - D 8: 00 - 9: 0.9 mi. 8:30 6 :0 0 6 :3 - 0 6 7 :3 :0 - 0 0 7 0.0 mi. 7: :0 3 - 0 SPEED DATA 7 0 :3 8: - 0 0 8 0 :0 8 - 0 17.6 :3 8 0 :3 - 0 9 0.7 mi. :0 0 Speed data was collected during the
1.4 mi. E peak travel periods on 5/14/03 and
F 9.9 F I
N 5/15/03. 30 - 6: G :00 :00 6 - 7 :30 30 H 6 - 7: Southern Branch 0 D :0 :00 A 7 - 8 0 E 7:3 :30 M - 8 Elizabeth River 00 0 S 8: 9:0 2003 AM PEAK HOUR - S :30 8 MO 17.6 29.0 T AVERAGE SEGMENT
I 2.4 mi. N
E
S TRAVEL SPEEDS
264 A V (IN MILES PER HOUR)
E 55 +
464
SOURCES : QUEUE DATA: Virginia Department of Transportation.
TRAVEL SPEED DATA: HRPDC
PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Planning District NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale Commission, May 2003. Downtown Tunnel 15 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 8 QUEUES AND TR AVEL SPEEDS APDoPwRnOtoAwCHn ITNunnelG THE Traffic Management Plan DOWNTOWN TUNNEL /BERKLEY BRIDGE
N BA DowntownPM Tunnel PEAK and PE RBerkleIOD y Bridge LL BL PM Peak Period Queues and Speeds E V N D TI N E LEGEND
Elizabeth River QUEUE DATA
55 + 2.8 mi. 2.0 mi. Queue data was collected in half-hour 3:00 - 3:30 intervals daily during the time period 3:30 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:30 4:30 - 5:00 from 10/21/02 to 10/25/02. 5:00 - 5:30 5:30 - 6:00 264 Listed distances are referenced from 8.7 the center of the Downtown Tunnel, except for I-464 which is referenced from the center of the Berkley Bridge.
3:00 - 3:30 3:30 - 4:00 LENGTH OF QUEUE 50.4 Eastern Branch 4:00 - 4:30 0.8 mi. 4:30 - 5:00 Elizabeth River 5:00 - 5:30 BY TIME OF DAY 28.9 5:30 - 6:00
0.0 mi.
C FREQUENCY OF QUEUE 30 A - 3: :00 M 3 00 T - 4: :30 S P 3 30 - 4: O 0 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK 0 N 4:0 0 R 5:0 I S F 0 - 4:3 A D T R 5:30 0.0 mi. 1 OCCURRENCE PER WEEK 0 - E E 5:0 M :00 L D 0 - 6 :3 L 2 - 3 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK E 5 :30 A R 0 - 3 3:0 0 I 4:0 4 - 5 OCCURRENCES PER WEEK C 30 - K 3: :30 0 - 4 55 + 4:0 0 B - 5:0 L :30 4 :30 V 0 - 5 D 5:0 00 - 6: 0.9 mi. 5:30 3 :0 0 3 :3 - 0 3 4 :3 :0 - 0 0 4 0.0 mi. 4 :0 :3 - 0 SPEED DATA 4 0 :3 5: - 0 0 5 0 :0 5 - 0 20.4 :30 5 :3 - 0 6 0.7 mi. :0 0 Speed data was collected during the
1.4 mi. E peak travel periods on 5/14/03 and
F 30.1 F I
N 5/15/03. :30 - 3 0 G 3:0 :00 - 4 :30 :30 H 3 - 4 Southern Branch 0 D 4:0 :00 A - 5 0 E 4:3 :30 M - 5 Elizabeth River 00 0 S 5: 6:0 2003 PM PEAK HOUR - S :30 5 M 20.4 53.4 T O AVERAGE SEGMENT
I 2.4 mi. N
E
S TRAVEL SPEEDS
264 A V (IN MILES PER HOUR)
E 55 +
464
SOURCES : QUEUE DATA: Virginia Department of Transportation.
TRAVEL SPEED DATA: HRPDC
PREPARED BY: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, May 2003. NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
Downtown Tunnel 16 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
peak periods. In the morning peak period, eastbound queues are considerably longer than the westbound queues. Between 7:00 and 9:00 am, the eastbound queue at the Downtown Tunnel frequently backs up between Des Moines Avenue (1.4 miles from the center of the tunnel) and Frederick Boulevard (2.4 miles). Average eastbound travel speeds are below 10 miles per hour on the interstate segment immediately west of the tunnel.
While westbound queues do not match those in the eastbound direction, queues are still prevalent in the westbound direction during the morning peak period. Traffic frequently queues between the Berkley Bridge (0.8 miles from the center of the tunnel) and Harbor Park (2.0 miles) between 6:30 am and PICTURE 2 – Traffic queues on city streets in Norfolk and 7:30 am, with even longer queues Portsmouth approaching the Downtown Tunnel. between 7:00 am and 7:30 am.
During the afternoon peak period, traffic significantly queues in both directions at the Downtown Tunnel. Eastbound queues, while often shorter in the afternoon than during the morning peak period, back up frequently between Des Moines Avenue and Frederick Boulevard between 4:00 pm and 5:30 pm. Speeds approaching the tunnel average about 30 miles per hour, dropping down to 20 miles per hour in the tunnel itself.
Westbound queues are significantly worse in the afternoon than during the morning peak period. Queues between Harbor Park (2.0 miles from the center of the tunnel) and Ballentine Boulevard (2.8 miles) occurred frequently between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Westbound speeds between Brambleton Avenue and I-464 average below 9 miles per hour during the afternoon peak period.
These queues and low speeds are the result of recurring congestion due to high volumes and roadway geometry problems. Often, congestion can be worse than is detailed in this report due to incidental delay caused by the high number of crashes and incidents (detailed in the next section) in the vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel.
The backups from the Downtown Tunnel also create congestion on the city streets of Downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth. Traffic frequently backs up on Effingham Street from the Naval Shipyard to the south and London Boulevard to the north. In Downtown Norfolk, traffic queues on several city streets, especially Saint Paul’s Boulevard. In addition, according to city staff a significant number of drivers use the Waterside Drive exit to access the City Hall Avenue ramp and bypass the long queues on westbound I-264 east of Harbor Park, which further exacerbates the congestion in Downtown Norfolk.
Downtown Tunnel 17 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
Crash and Incident Data
The Hampton Roads Regional Safety Study2 included a detailed analysis of the locations of crashes on interstates and at intersections throughout the region. High- crash locations were determined by using Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) crash rates, which take into account crash severity as well as crash frequency. Map 6 shows the EPDO rates for interstate segments in the study area as well as the formulas used to calculate the EPDO crash rate.
Among the 151 interstate segments analyzed in the Hampton Roads Regional Safety Study, three segments in the study area were among the top ten most hazardous regionwide. Eastbound I-264 between Effingham Street and I-464 (which includes the Downtown Tunnel) was the second most hazardous interstate segment in Hampton
MAP 6 – EPDO Rate per MVMT in the Vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel, 1998-2000
Source: VDOT EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes EPDO = Property Damage Only Crashes + 3 x Injury Crashes + 12 x Fatality Crashes EPDO Crash Rate = (1,000,000 x Yearly EPDO) / (365 x ADT x Segment Length)
2 Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, “Hampton Roads Regional Safety Study Part 2: Interstate and Intersection Crash Findings”, June 2003.
Downtown Tunnel 18 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
Roads with an EPDO rate of 5.01, as a result of an average of 61 crashes and 42 injuries per year between the years 1998 and 2000. Eastbound I-264 between Des Moines Avenue and Effingham Street ranked fourth and westbound I-264 between Tidewater Drive and I-464 (which includes the Berkley Bridge) ranked ninth regionwide in the study.
These crashes not only compromise the safety of travelers in the study area, but also have a significant effect on congestion, especially when they occur during the peak periods. Other types of incidents, such as disabled vehicles, vehicles that are out of gas, debris in the roadway, routine maintenance, etc., can also have a significant effect on congestion levels. VDOT maintains an incident management program at the Downtown Tunnel and PICTURE 3 – VDOT maintains an incident Berkley Bridge to quickly respond to management team at the Downtown Tunnel. crashes and other incidents at those facilities. In 2002, the incident management team responded to 2,334 incidents, which is an average of nearly 6.5 incidents each day. Additional data regarding incidents at the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge is included in Appendix B.
Bridge openings at the Berkley Bridge also can affect congestion levels. The Berkley Bridge was opened for boat traffic (closed to vehicular traffic) 783 times in the year 2002. However, these openings occur outside of the peak travel periods so their effects on recurring congestion are minimal.
Table 1 shows the average traffic stoppage time for incidents that were responded to by the incident response team in 2002. This is the amount of time that the response team stopped traffic to attend to each incident type. The average amount of time traffic was stopped for incidents at the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge was just under 10 minutes in 2002. Not surprisingly, crashes had the longest average traffic stoppage time at just over 15 minutes.
TABLE 1 – Average Traffic Stoppage Time by Incident Type, 2002 Average Traffic Incident Type Stoppage Time Disabled Vehicles 9.9 minutes Debris 3.4 minutes Wideloads 5.3 minutes Crashes 15.2 minutes Bridge Lifts 10.0 minutes TOTAL 9.9 minutes Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 19 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
Transit Usage
Route 45 is the only bus route that uses the Berkley Bridge and Downtown Tunnel, with service operating between the Downtown Norfolk transit center and Victory Crossing in Portsmouth. This route is also interlined with Route 2, which operates between the Downtown Norfolk transit center and the Navy Exchange Mall on the Norfolk Naval Base.
Route 45 operates seven days a week and provides service between Victory Crossing, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, County and Court Streets in Portsmouth, and Downtown Norfolk. Thirty-five trips are available to the public each day with service beginning at 4:30 AM and ending at midnight on weekdays and Saturdays. Thirty-minute service is provided until 7:00 PM, with 60-minute headways until midnight. On Sundays, thirteen trips are available between the hours of 6:45 AM and 10:30 PM.
Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) classifies Route 45 as a “successful” route with a passenger per vehicle hour rate of 21.7. 3 The capacity of the bus is 44 riders. On an average day, over 2,100 boardings are recorded on this route. Twenty percent or approximately 400 of those boardings represent commuter ridership during the periods of 6:00-9:00 AM and 3:00-6:00 PM.
Hampton Roads Transit also operates a ferry service between Downtown Norfolk and Downtown Portsmouth. HRT’s Elizabeth River Ferry is a system of three 150- passenger ferry boats, one of which runs on natural gas. The ferry travels between North Landing and High Street in Portsmouth and Downtown Norfolk at the Waterside Festival Marketplace. The ferry operates every 30 minutes with 15-minute service at peak times on weekends. Most of the year only one ferry operates daily, while two ferries operate during the summer and the third one is used during the special events.
On an average day, 1,260 passengers use the ferry service between Portsmouth and Norfolk. Commuters represent 20% of the total ridership or slightly over 250 passengers during the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM and 3:00-6:00 PM. A majority of those commuters are Coast Guard employees taking advantage of this service to avoid rush hour congestion at the Downtown Tunnel.
Figure 9 on page 21 shows current boardings for Route 2/45 and the ferry service between Norfolk and Portsmouth. The average peak hour ridership for Route 2/45 and the ferry service is approximately 66 and 50 passengers, respectively. These figures represent a very small portion of the peak hour traffic of over 6,700 vehicles traveling via the Downtown Tunnel.
3 HRT’s acceptable productivity level is 20 riders per hour.
Downtown Tunnel 20 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 9 – Transit and Ferry Ridership Between Norfolk and Portsmouth, 2002
2,500 2121 2,000
1,500 1260
1,000 Average Boardings 500 399 252
0 Transit Route 2/45 Norfolk-Portsmouth Ferry Daily Average Boardings Commuter Period (6:00-9:00 am, 3:00-6:00 pm) Average Boardings
Source: Hampton Roads Transit.
Commuter Characteristics
While the cities on either side of the Downtown Tunnel have the highest carpooling and transit usage rates in South Hampton Roads (Table 2 on page 22), this trend is not evident at the Downtown Tunnel. VDOT collects occupancy rates at the Downtown Tunnel in the westbound direction during the afternoon peak period. In 2003, the peak period occupancy rate at this location is 1.13 occupants per vehicle. By comparison, the average occupancy rate in Hampton Roads during the afternoon peak period is 1.18 occupants per vehicle. During the afternoon peak period, 89% of all westbound traffic at the Downtown Tunnel is composed of single occupancy vehicles. This compares to a regionwide average of 87% during the afternoon peak period.
Additional commuter characteristic data, including city-to-city commuting data, is located in Appendix C.
Traffix, the regional Transportation Demand Management Program for Hampton Roads is a coordinated regional approach to reduce traffic congestion by encouraging ridesharing, transit usage, and peak hour spread. Traffix works with employers on a one-on-one basis to establish employer-based transportation alternatives programs.
Downtown Tunnel 21 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
TABLE 2 – Commuting Mode by Southside Jurisdiction, 2000 Commuting Mode in 2000 (by %) Total Number of Jurisdiction of Public Workers Residing Motorcycle or Worked at Residence Drove Alone Carpooled Transpor- Bicycle/Walk in Jurisdiction Other Means Home tation Chesapeake 96,975 83.9% 10.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.0% 2.4% Isle of Wight 13,985 84.4% 10.8% 0.1% 1.2% 0.5% 3.1% Norfolk 112,085 66.8% 14.2% 4.6% 7.2% 3.4% 3.8% Portsmouth 43,920 72.9% 15.6% 3.0% 3.9% 1.9% 2.7%
Suffolk 28,370 80.4% 13.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7%
Virginia Beach 222,648 82.0% 10.8% 0.7% 2.3% 1.4% 2.8%
Peninsula 229,785 80.2% 12.0% 2.1% 2.6% 0.9% 2.2%
Southside 531,410 78.3% 12.1% 1.8% 3.2% 1.8% 2.9%
Hampton Roads 761,195 78.9% 12.1% 1.9% 3.0% 1.5% 2.7% Source: 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package
TRAFFIX conducts Transportation Needs Assessment Studies to develop programs that relieve traffic congestion due to projected growth, construction work zones and other recurring congestion.
A Transportation Needs Assessment Study was completed for Downtown Norfolk in 2002. The purpose was to review current public transportation services, commuter travel patterns, parking conditions, and to assess transportation alternatives to enhance mobility in the Study area. The primary goal was to increase the number of employees using alternative modes of transportation such as transit, carpooling/vanpooling, biking, and walking. The study included a comprehensive employee-based survey, which showed that 42% of employees that currently drive to work alone were very or somewhat likely to consider ridesharing at least once per week.
Table 3 on page 23 shows a summary of the current outreach program for Downtown Norfolk and Downtown Portsmouth. As shown in Table 3, subsidized parking in downtown Norfolk discourages employees from ridesharing. The Coast Guard is currently participating in a Park-and-Sail program subsidizing vanpools and ferry rides between Portsmouth and Norfolk. The majority of employers in the study area are not participating in any outreach program to promote ridesharing. Therefore, there is a strong need for a more coordinated effort between TRAFFIX staffs and various employers in both Norfolk and Portsmouth to promoting ridesharing as an alternative mode.
Downtown Tunnel 22 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
TABLE 3 – TRAFFIX Outreach Program Summary, Downtown Norfolk and Downtown Portsmouth Employer Outreach Program Participation Norfolk Naval Shipyard Ridesharing Supports and Subsidizes Van and Transit Riders Vanpool Transit Coast Guard Park and Sail Subsidizes Van and Ferry Rides 80 Spaces in Portsmouth Provided for Park and Sail 5 Spaces in Harbor Park provided for Park and Sail Colonnas Rideshare/Vanpool No Participation Downtown Norfolk Employers Rideshare Employers Subsidize Parking; No Incentives for Employees to Rideshare Metro Machine Rideshare/Vanpool No Participation Norshipco Rideshare/Vanpool No Participation Portsmouth Naval Hospital Rideshare/Vanpool No Participation Source: Hampton Roads Transit
Downtown Tunnel 23 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
ADDRESSING THE CONGESTION PROBLEM
As stated in the previous section, there is heavy recurring congestion at the Downtown Tunnel during the peak periods. Relieving this congestion by constructing a new facility at the Downtown Tunnel, however, is not financially feasible in the near future. The Hampton Roads Long Range Transportation Plan4 does not include capacity improvements at the Downtown Tunnel or Berkley Bridge. In addition, widening of alternative Elizabeth River Crossings such as the Midtown Tunnel and the I- 64 Bridge (the High Rise Bridge) are not included in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Without any long-range capacity improvements planned at the Downtown Tunnel, smaller short-term congestion mitigation methods need to be examined. There are two means of addressing congestion in the short term: Increasing the efficiency of the network through Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies or managing the demand through Transportation Demand Management (TDM). This section will examine various TSM and TDM remedies.
Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies help improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system without constructing new facilities. This can be done by increasing the capacity of existing infrastructure, or by better utilizing the entire transportation network by moving vehicles from congested facilities to those that have excess capacity.
One of the ways to increase capacity of existing infrastructure is with various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives. ITS initiatives include various PICTURE 4 – Variable message signs, as well as an incident management program, are currently in place at advanced traveler information systems, the Downtown Tunnel. advanced traffic management systems, and incident management systems. The Downtown Tunnel already has in place many of these initiatives, including an instrumented roadway that ties into a traffic management center, variable message signs to relay information to the traveling public, and an incident management program that quickly responds to incidents at the facility.
4 Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, “Hampton Roads Draft 2026 Regional Transportation Plan”, August 2003.
Downtown Tunnel 24 Traffic Management Plan Study Traffic and Trend Analysis November 2003: Final Report
Another TSM strategy is to better utilize existing infrastructure by redistributing traffic onto uncongested alternate routes. In Hampton Roads, where there are a limited number of water crossings, most of the bridges and tunnels are congested during peak travel periods.
Four alternate routes to the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge were analyzed for this study. They include:
• Using the Gilmerton and Campostella Bridges via I-64, Military Highway, Bainbridge Boulevard, Portlock Road, Atlantic Avenue, and Campostella Road. • Using the Jordan and Campostella Bridges via Victory Boulevard, Elm Avenue, Poindexter Street, Liberty Street, 22nd Street, Wilson Road, and Campostella Road. • Using the High Rise and Campostella Bridges via I-64, Battlefield Boulevard, Atlantic Avenue, and Campostella Road. • Using the Midtown Tunnel via Frederick Boulevard, Turnpike Road, MLK Freeway, and Brambleton Avenue.
Map 7 on page 26 shows these routes and includes a description of each route, including route lengths, travel times, and route deficiencies. In spite of congestion at the Downtown Tunnel, none of the alternative routes provide significantly faster travel times.
Another TSM approach is to regulate traffic during the peak periods at the ramp junctions approaching the Downtown Tunnel. By merging traffic on the interstate mainlines to the left lane before the last entrance ramp before the tunnel, the tunnel capacity reductions related to the ramp merging problems will be removed. Although this has proven effective after special events in Portsmouth, it would need further testing during the peak periods.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Travel Demand Management programs are designed to reduce the number of vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to those who wish to travel. The term TDM encompasses both alternatives to driving alone and the techniques or supporting strategies that encourage the use of these modes. The application of such TDM alternatives and the implementation of supporting strategies can occur at individual employment sites, or at the area-wide level, where many employers are grouped together. In general, TDM consists of three types of actions:
• Improved alternatives to driving alone • Incentives and supporting actions to encourage use of those alternatives • Measures to shift the time at which a vehicle trip occurs, or a reduction in the number of days that the trip is made at all
Downtown Tunnel 25 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
MAP 7
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Management Plan
Alternate Routes to the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge
Description of Alternative Routes to the Downtown Tunnel Length Morning Peak Travel Time Evening Peak Travel Time Alt. # Route Description (miles) Northeastbound Southwestbound Northeastbound Southwestbound Comments I-264 via the Downtown Tunnel 9.8 18 min 56 sec 13 min 32 sec 13 min 34 sec 21 min 19 sec This route is generally the quickest route during the peak periods, in spite of travel times well below the free flow travel time of 11.5 minutes due to Downtown Tunnel 0 congestion. I-64/Military Hwy/Bainbridge Blvd/ 12.4 24 min 32 sec 24 min 3 sec 25 min 42 sec 23 min 50 sec This route is not congested during the peak periods, but it is almost 3 miles longer 1 Portlock Rd/Campostella Rd/ than Alternative 0. There are several signalized intersections, some of which are Atlantic Ave/Campostella Rd congested during peak periods. There are also bridge openings at the Gilmerton Bridge during the peak periods. I-264/Victory Blvd/Elm Ave/ 10.9 22 min 21 sec 21 min 49 sec 32 min 37 sec 23 min 16 sec This route is a mile longer than Alternative 0 and is for the most part not 2 Poindexter St/Liberty St/22nd St/ congested during peak periods. However, this route is not quicker than Wilson Rd/ Campostella Rd Alternative 0 due to several signalized intersections that require better coordination. The route is also narrow and hard to follow in the South Norfolk neighborhood. There is also a 50 cent toll at the Jordan Bridge. I-64/Battlefield Blvd/Atlantic Ave/ 14.3 22 min 49 sec 22 min 27 sec 21 min 6 sec 20 min 53 sec Although average travel speeds are the highest on this route, it is 4.5 miles longer 3 Campostella Rd than Alternative 0. Congestion at the High Rise Bridge can also be a problem during peak periods. I-264/Frederick Blvd/Turnpike Rd/ 11.3 23 min 4 sec 22 min 26 sec 27 min 44 sec 21 min 54 sec Midtown Tunnel experiences extreme congestion in both directions during both 4 MLK Freeway/Midtown Tunnel/ peak periods. Brambleton Avenue has many signalized intersections and is Brambleton Ave congested during peak periods. Downtown Tunnel 26 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
Existing and Potential TDM measures evaluated for this study include:
• Transit service improvements including local bus, express bus and ferry services • Ridesharing (carpooling, vanpooling) • Park-and-Sail program • Park-and-Ride lots to support additional ridesharing • Flexible work schedule • Telecommuting • Value pricing
National experience shows that that the potential for vehicle trip reductions for work trips to a worksite ranges from 1 percent to 2 percent for information-based, voluntary, and modest TDM programs, to a 30 percent or more reduction for programs that provide significant time and/or financial savings to those who choose not to commute by driving alone.5
Transit
The previous section included a review and analysis of current bus and ferry riderships between Downtown Norfolk and Downtown Portsmouth. Table 4 shows the impact of those services in reducing total traffic at the Downtown Tunnel. Current bus and ferry services account for 2.0% of the daily traffic and 1.5% of the peak hour traffic at the Downtown Tunnel. The average ridership on Route 45 is 21.7 persons per hour while the capacity of the bus is 40 persons. Similarly, ferries between Norfolk and Portsmouth can carry up to 150 riders at 30-minute headways, while the hourly ridership is currently 50 passengers, or one-sixth of its capacity.
Transit measures to increase ridership, particularly during the peak periods, are helpful in reducing traffic and congestion. It is important to note that this measure alone is not sufficient to address current congestion at the Downtown Tunnel. Today, the Downtown Tunnel carries an average of 100,800 vehicles per day, and remains congested during morning and afternoon peak periods. This tunnel is operating well above its design capacity of 75,000 vehicles per day. TABLE 4 – Transit and Ferry Usage, 2002 2002 Average Daily Traffic 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Transit and Ferry (both directions) (both directions) Downtown Tunnel Traffic Volume 100,800 6,739 Vehicle Occupancy Rate 1.14 1.14 Avg Ferry Ridership 1,260 50 Avg Transit Ridership 1,061 67 Total person trips (bus+ferry) 2,321 117 Total Vehicle Trips (bus+ferry) 2,036 103 Percent of Total Traffic 2.0% 1.5% Sources: VDOT, Hampton Roads Transit.
5 U.S.D.O.T., Implementing Effective Travel Demand Measures, September 1993.
Downtown Tunnel 27 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
Ridesharing
Table 5 shows potential impacts of ridesharing in reducing vehicle trips at the Downtown Tunnel. A 20% increase in carpooling would result in less than a 2% decrease in vehicle trips using the Downtown Tunnel. Several employee-based surveys conducted in Hampton Roads have consistently indicated ridesharing is the preferred alternate mode for commuters. However, this measure alone will not relieve the current delay and backups at the Downtown Tunnel.
Park and Sail
As mentioned in the previous section, HRT is currently operating a Park-and-Sail program to carry commuters between Downtown Portsmouth and Downtown Norfolk. The Coast Guard is the primary employer participating in this program. Eighty parking spaces are reserved for commuters in Downtown Portsmouth for park-and-sail and only a few parking spaces are made available to commuters in Harbor Park on the Norfolk side. Any future expansion of this program requires additional park-and-sail lots in both Downtown areas.
Flexible Work Schedule
The travel behavior of workers can be modified in ways other than shifting the individual from single occupancy vehicles to a higher-occupancy mode. Short-term traffic congestion relief can sometimes be obtained by shifting travelers to a less congested time of day, or by finding ways to entirely or partially eliminate their trip to the workplace. These measures are appealing in that they are somewhat easier to implement than mode choice actions, even though they represent concessions from employers in being able to access their staff within precisely defined time periods.
TABLE 5 – Potential Impact of Ridesharing on the Downtown Tunnel 2002 Average Daily Traffic 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Rideshare (both directions) (both directions) Total Traffic 100,800 6,739 Work vehicle trips 23,184 3,370 Person work trips (using occupancy rate of 1.14 - VDOT Counts) 26,430 3,841 Persons sharing ride for work and not driving (person trips- vehicle trips, or 12% of person trips) 3,246 472 Increase rideshare by 20% (that is 15% of person trips are rideshare) 3,895 566 Work vehicle trips (person trips-rideshares). New occupancy 1.17 22,535 3,275 Vehicle Trip Reduction 649 94 Percent of Total Traffic 0.6% 1.4% Sources: VDOT, Hampton Roads Transit, 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package.
Downtown Tunnel 28 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
Telecommuting
Telecommunications technology and personal computers are making it increasingly possible for many employees to work at home or at a remote site, either on an occasional basis or on a nearly daily basis. By working at home or at a satellite work center, the commute trip is eliminated or shortened. Persons who telecommute may do so full-time or on a part-time basis. Depending on the number of employees that participate, a substantial number of trips can be eliminated by telecommuting.
The Governor’s Congestion Relief Program in 2003 has funded a regional telecommuting initiative among fourteen other projects in Hampton Roads. Currently there are no telecommuting sites in the region. HRT will work very closely with major employers in the region to develop and implement such a program.
Value Pricing
The previous section provided a detailed analysis of existing traffic volumes and recurring congestion at the Downtown Tunnel and its approaches. While the traffic analysis showed extremely congested conditions occur at the Downtown Tunnel during the morning and afternoon peak periods, the facility operates under acceptable traffic conditions (Level-of-service D or better) during off-peak periods (Figure 10 on page 30). The available capacity at the Downtown Tunnel during off-peak periods is shown in Figure 11 on page 31.
The rationale for value pricing derives from the relationship between road capacity, traffic levels, and congestion. In general, many facilities are congested during weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. Except in a few situations, the problem is not a shortage of road capacity in aggregate. Furthermore, plenty of capacity is also available in terms of unused seats in each vehicle, since on average only a little over one seat per vehicle is utilized. Thus, if some peak period users of congested facilities were persuaded to shift to off-peak times, to higher occupancy modes, or to less congested facilities and destinations, many travelers would benefit. Also, since the relationship between the level of traffic and congestion is nonlinear, relatively small reductions in vehicular demand can produce significant improvements in speed and reductions in congestion delays.
Value pricing is a TDM method that can reduce congestion significantly by encouraging peak period travelers to shift to off-peak times, to alternate modes, to less congested facilities, and to eliminate certain low-value trips. It promises to increase peak period travel speeds, to reduce delays, and to enhance transit ridership. It is also likely to enhance other TDM measures such as ridesharing, telecommuting and flexible work schedules.
Downtown Tunnel 29 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 10 – Downtown Tunnel Weekday Volumes by Direction, 2002 1,000
900
LOS D 800
700
600
500
400
15 Minute Traffic Volume 300
200
100 Westbound Eastbound 0
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A A A A AM A A A A P P P PM P P P P PM P P P 0 AM 0 0 0 AM 0 0 :0 00 :0 00 00 00 00 :0 00 00 :00 AM :0 00 00 00 00 00 :0 :0 00 00 00 00 00 2 1: 2 3: 4: 5: 6: 7 8: 9: 0 1 2: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5 6 7: 8: 9: 0: 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1
Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 30 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 11 – Eastbound and Westbound Available Capacity by Time of Day 800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Available Capacity per 15 Minute Interval Available Capacity per 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 0:00 1:0 2:00 3: 4:00 5:00 6:0 7:00 8:0 9:00 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: -100
-200 Time of Day
WB Current Available Capacity EB Current Available Capacity
Downtown Tunnel 31 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has instituted a value pricing (also known as congestion pricing) pilot program under both ISTEA and TEA-21 to support the development, operation, and evaluation of pilot tests of innovative road pricing projects. Value pricing projects have been launched throughout the country including I- 15 in San Diego, California; SR-91 in Orange County, California; Katy Freeway (I-10) in Houston, Texas; and the Caloosahatchee River Bridges in Lee County, Florida6. The California and Texas projects involve tolling on High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to make better use of available capacity. The project in Lee County, Florida involves the use of peak and off-peak toll variations to provide an incentive to shift travel out of the most heavily traveled times. Thus far, all four projects have produced excellent results with full public acceptance.
Furthermore, a May 2003 report published by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that: 7
• “Congestion pricing has promise for improving use of transportation infrastructure…”
• “Congestion Pricing can potentially reduce congestion by providing incentives for drivers to shift trips to off-peak periods, use less congested routes, or use alternate modes, thereby spreading out demand for available transportation infrastructure…”
• “Congestion pricing also has the potential to create other benefits, such as generating revenue to help fund transportation investment.”
According to the GAO report, there is renewed interest in the role that congestion pricing can play in improving mobility as evidenced by several recent proposals to institute pricing policies from industry, interest groups, and the Department of Transportation.
The remainder of this section will describe details and assumptions used for applying congestion pricing measures to the Downtown Tunnel. The primary objective is to reduce congestion and improve the level of service from an existing LOS E/F to an acceptable LOS D during the peak periods. It is important to note that this pricing measure takes into account a number of other TDM measures including ridesharing, alternative route, travel time change, and alternate mode.
6 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 95, “Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes”, 2003. 7 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Reducing Congestion: Congestion Pricing has Promise for Improving Use of Transportation Infrastructure”, May 2003.
Downtown Tunnel 32 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
Value Pricing Assumptions and Analysis
As mentioned previously, the primary goal of value pricing strategies is to reduce traffic to an acceptable level of service during peak travel times. This can be accomplished by charging a variable toll rate only during the peak travel periods. Figure 11 on page 31 shows the available capacity below LOS D for each fifteen- minute period of the day for each direction. The periods where the available capacity is below zero correspond to the periods in Figure 10 on page 30 where traffic volumes exceed LOS D. These time periods as well as those before and after them are the targets of the value pricing strategy. After implementation of value pricing measures, users have four alternatives for transportation on the facility during peak periods:
• Carpool or use transit (carpoolers will be exempt from the toll) PICTURE 5 – I-15 in San Diego, California, which currently utilizes value pricing • Change time of travel to free or reduced-toll measures. Source: SANDAG time periods • Choose alternate route to avoid toll • Pay the toll
By implementing modest tolls, enough facility users are influenced to choose alternatives to paying the toll that the level of service is improved to acceptable levels during the peak periods.
The value pricing scenario used in this analysis assumes that tolls would be placed on certain alternate facilities to reduce the impact on facilities that are already overburdened during the peak period. These facilities include the Midtown Tunnel, High Rise Bridge (I-64), and the Gilmerton Bridge (Military Highway). The toll at the Jordan Bridge would remain in place although it would not be operated using congestion pricing measures. This strategy would not only keep from adding volume to already overburdened facilities, it would increase pressure to carpool, use transit, or change the time of travel.
For this analysis a three-tier toll system of $0.50, $0.75, and $1.00 was used. The reason for the tier system in value pricing is that in order to move trips from the peak periods to off-peak periods, there must be available capacity in the off-peak time periods immediately surrounding the peak periods. The effect is that users in the most expensive time periods would have the option of moving to a time period with lower toll levels, while it is easier for people who normally travel in what is now designated a lower toll level time period to move to a free time period thus making room in the time period for users from the peak period. Implementation was estimated to produce the following results within the impacted time zones:
Downtown Tunnel 33 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
• $0.50 = 7.5% reduction • $0.75 = 12.5% reduction • $1.00 = 15% reduction
The predicted reductions represent trips that are removed due to users choosing to:
• Carpool/transit – 20% increase during the affected time periods • Use alternate routes – 5% of total reduction • Change time of travel - Remainder of total reduction
The westbound evening peak period was the only time period that required use of the highest of the three-tier tolls. This is due to the lengthy duration of the westbound peak period, which runs from approximately 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm. All other peak travel periods were short enough that only the two lower toll levels were necessary.
After implementing the above assumptions, the analysis showed traffic levels dropped to or below LOS D in all time periods. Figures 12 and 13 on pages 35 and 36 show the implemented tolls by time period and the associated volume changes for eastbound and westbound traffic respectively. It is worth noting that in some time periods where a toll was implemented there is actually an overall increase in traffic. This is due to users from a more expensive time period choosing to use a lower tolled time period, but the overall usage for these time periods still remains at or below LOS D. In Figures 14 and 15 on pages 37 and 38, there is a comparison of existing volumes to new volumes using value pricing for eastbound and westbound travel. These figures show that traffic volumes are lowered in peak periods where it had previously exceeded LOS D, and they demonstrate in part where that traffic has gone by an increase in periods that had previously had lower traffic volumes. The resultant effect is that while there are now more time periods with heavy usage, there are no longer any time periods with unacceptable levels-of-service.
The Value Pricing scenario used in the analysis resulted in a total of 42,245 vehicles paying a variable toll rate during the peak travel periods. This represents 42% of the average weekday traffic volume and could generate an annual estimated revenue of $6.5 million using the example pricing scenario used in the study.
Were this value pricing scenario to be put into use at the Downtown Tunnel, a much more in-depth study would be required, and the tolling levels per time period would likely need to be dynamic and adjustable due to the changing traffic patterns of the facility rather than being predetermined. This analysis, however, shows that value pricing on the Downtown Tunnel may be a viable alternative in the future.
Downtown Tunnel 34 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 12 – Change in Eastbound Traffic Volumes due to Value Pricing
200
No Toll 150 Low Level Toll ($0.50) Mid Level Toll ($0.75) 100 High Level Toll ($1.00)
50
0 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 14:45 15:15 15:45 16:15 16:45 17:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 19:15 13:15 13:45 14:15 -50
-100
-150 Change in Volume per 15 Minute Interval Change in Volume AM Peak Period PM Peak Period -200 Time of Day
Downtown Tunnel 35 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 13 – Change in Westbound Traffic Volumes due to Value Pricing
200 No Toll Low Level Toll ($0.50) 150 Mid Level Toll ($0.75) High Level Toll ($1.00) 100
50
0 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 14:45 15:15 15:45 16:15 16:45 17:15 17:45 18:15 18:45 19:15 13:15 13:45 14:15 -50
-100 Change in Volume per 15 Minute Interval Change in Volume
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period -150 Time of Day
Downtown Tunnel 36 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 14 – Change in Eastbound Traffic Volumes due to Value Pricing
1,000
900
LOS D 800
700
600
500
400
15 Minute Traffic Volumes 300
200
100 Existing EB Total Projected EB Total 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 0 :0 0 :00 0 :00 :0 0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 0 :0 0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 0 0 1: 2 3: 4 5: 6 7 8: 9 1 3 4: 6: 8 0 2 3: 10 1 12 1 1 15 1 17 1 19 2 21 2 2
Downtown Tunnel 37 Traffic Management Plan Study Addressing the Congestion Problem November 2003: Final Report
FIGURE 15 – Change in Westbound Traffic Volumes due to Value Pricing
1,000
900
LOS D 800
700
600
500
400
15 Minute Traffic Volumes 300
200
100 Existing WB Total Projected WB Total 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :00 :00 0 0 0 :00 :0 :0 :0 00 0 0 0 00 00 :00 :00 :00 00 0 0 0 00 0 1 2 3: 4: 5: 6 7 8 9 0: 1: 2: 9: 0: 1: 1 1 1 13: 14: 15: 16 17 18 1 2 2 22: 23:
Downtown Tunnel 38 Traffic Management Plan Study Summary and Conclusions November 2003: Final Report
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Downtown Tunnel, which has the highest traffic density of any roadway segment in Hampton Roads, is often congested in both directions during the peak periods. With over 100,000 vehicles using the four-lane facility most weekdays, average peak period speeds are at times below ten miles per hour with queues in each direction regularly over two miles. These queues also affect the surface street traffic in Norfolk and Portsmouth. Additionally, a complex system of ramps leading to and from I- 264 in the vicinity of the Downtown Tunnel creates problems with merging and weaving movements. These factors make the facility one of the most hazardous in the entire region.
The few alternate routes that are available are congested during the peak periods and do not provide quicker trips than the Downtown Tunnel. Without funding available to increase its capacity, short-term measures such as Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) are the only methods available to relieve congestion at the Downtown Tunnel. Some methods such as incident management are already in place, while significant increases in transit usage and ridesharing are not enough to improve congestion levels in the tunnel and its approaches. Value pricing can potentially reduce congestion in the tunnel and its approaches by providing incentives for drivers to shift trips to off-peak periods, increase carpooling, or use alternative modes.
Downtown Tunnel 39 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
APPENDIX A
Downtown Tunnel Traffic Count Data
Downtown Tunnel 40 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
TABLE A.1 - Average Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel Average Weekday Average Weekend Average Daily Year Volume Volume Volume 1993 71,799 58,135 67,906 1994 74,620 57,551 69,710 1995 89,863 66,646 83,184 1996 91,046 64,606 83,533 1997 92,088 65,638 84,552 1998 90,915 64,781 83,468 1999 94,123 67,430 86,517 2000 99,044 73,225 91,567 2001 103,937 78,835 96,785 2002 100,801 76,204 93,793 Source: VDOT
TABLE A.2 - Maximum Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel Number of Days with Volumes Maximum Daily Year > 100,000 vehicles Volume 1993 0 88,900 1994 0 91,000 1995 14 103,400 1996 15 103,400 1997 16 103,500 1998 2 101,300 1999 41 106,500 2000 127 112,796 2001 206 115,351 2002 189 112,811 Source: VDOT
TABLE A.3 - Average Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel by Day of Week Year Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Average 1993 69,806 71,353 71,388 71,871 74,525 62,913 53,357 67,906 1994 71,181 74,106 75,042 74,358 78,415 62,040 52,977 69,710 1995 85,285 88,727 89,233 91,512 94,560 74,338 59,099 83,184 1996 85,511 90,381 91,558 92,160 95,740 71,365 57,846 83,533 1997 88,483 92,231 91,370 91,623 96,746 72,627 58,650 84,552 1998 88,162 90,938 91,052 89,772 94,673 71,646 57,915 83,468 1999 89,208 94,352 94,525 94,123 98,325 74,781 60,079 86,517 2000 95,169 96,765 99,255 99,627 104,406 80,912 65,539 91,567 2001 98,954 102,881 103,797 104,241 109,907 86,558 71,112 96,785 2002 97,452 99,896 100,885 99,379 106,412 84,160 68,248 93,793 Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 41 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
TABLE A.4 - Average Daily Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 1993 72,223 65,907 66,697 69,397 68,203 71,277 67,765 68,123 67,653 66,973 66,170 64,383 67,906 1994 60,965 65,857 68,787 69,577 65,329 75,860 71,394 73,490 70,993 71,665 70,667 71,832 69,710 1995 70,900 75,150 86,290 84,587 85,065 85,520 84,435 84,568 84,720 87,229 87,823 81,465 83,184 1996 76,758 77,893 83,061 84,543 85,500 86,857 86,194 87,848 83,293 85,152 83,620 81,448 83,533 1997 82,255 84,768 83,594 86,467 86,971 87,440 86,168 87,235 83,857 84,306 80,540 81,042 84,552 1998 79,603 81,196 83,432 85,287 83,155 86,997 85,155 81,742 84,643 86,390 82,383 81,594 83,468 1999 81,561 86,161 88,948 87,673 85,113 89,573 87,635 88,258 82,630 87,974 88,257 84,452 86,517 2000 78,123 90,379 91,042 89,080 91,341 93,462 88,255 98,871 94,728 95,840 95,217 92,587 91,567 2001 93,659 97,809 101,047 100,671 99,917 100,918 100,074 102,203 94,401 92,024 90,684 88,093 96,785 2002 85,749 94,068 93,101 95,098 97,025 96,651 97,139 98,344 91,917 96,013 90,964 89,453 93,793 Source: VDOT
TABLE A.5 - Average Weekday Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 1993 72,548 70,340 70,143 72,636 73,590 74,414 69,959 71,968 71,786 73,613 71,445 69,394 71,799 1994 68,457 71,165 73,396 75,800 67,591 77,645 76,571 77,265 76,168 79,052 73,659 78,359 74,620 1995 78,023 81,780 90,152 92,210 91,265 91,368 92,214 90,691 92,376 93,318 94,682 89,862 89,863 1996 84,383 87,038 91,600 91,500 91,791 95,740 92,543 95,400 90,671 91,883 91,362 89,073 91,046 1997 89,135 92,995 92,229 94,032 94,268 95,543 92,935 94,929 90,759 92,243 89,000 87,383 92,088 1998 86,432 88,090 91,650 92,673 91,710 94,268 92,057 89,586 91,573 94,264 90,467 87,991 90,915 1999 91,381 94,500 96,487 95,395 92,514 96,300 94,832 96,850 88,809 95,824 95,268 91,248 94,123 2000 86,748 98,367 98,391 98,705 97,794 98,825 94,932 105,309 101,655 103,283 102,299 101,448 99,044 2001 100,297 105,533 108,452 108,715 106,177 108,148 106,808 107,867 103,170 99,313 97,793 95,149 103,937 2002 91,997 101,666 101,924 102,136 103,295 104,398 103,130 105,348 100,617 102,125 97,849 95,563 100,801 Source: VDOT
TABLE A.6 – Average Weekend Volumes at the Downtown Tunnel Year January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 1993 71,540 54,825 56,788 60,488 56,890 62,650 62,400 58,722 56,288 53,027 51,663 49,974 58,135 1994 45,230 52,588 55,538 55,056 59,800 70,950 60,520 62,638 56,763 56,150 62,438 55,878 57,551 1995 53,489 58,575 75,188 69,340 67,238 69,438 68,100 66,963 66,856 72,344 68,963 63,830 66,646 1996 54,838 53,888 65,130 65,413 67,413 69,090 67,938 69,389 66,078 65,800 65,556 62,811 64,606 1997 62,475 64,200 65,460 65,663 69,133 68,533 66,713 71,080 64,875 61,488 63,620 62,813 65,638 1998 62,911 63,963 63,344 64,975 65,190 67,000 65,313 65,270 65,588 67,144 63,522 63,200 64,781 1999 60,940 65,313 67,275 66,438 69,570 71,075 70,044 67,256 65,638 71,490 68,975 64,913 67,430 2000 60,010 69,413 69,913 69,830 72,788 78,712 74,235 80,364 78,565 77,648 75,742 73,977 73,225 2001 74,573 78,501 82,944 81,900 81,921 84,049 83,612 85,921 76,862 71,068 71,132 73,276 78,835 2002 67,786 75,074 74,572 75,742 78,996 81,156 79,913 81,224 71,618 78,441 74,896 74,518 76,204 Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 42 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
TABLE A.7 – Downtown Tunnel 15-minute Traffic Volumes, 2002
Start Westbound Westbound Hourly Eastbound Eastbound Hourly Combined Combined Hourly Time End Time Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes Volumes 0:00 0:15 201 184 385 0:15 0:30 184 154 338 690 561 1251 0:30 0:45 144 120 263 0:45 1:00 162 103 265 1:00 1:15 109 84 193 1:15 1:30 122 73 195 429 291 721 1:30 1:45 107 69 176 1:45 2:00 92 65 157 2:00 2:15 116 62 178 2:15 2:30 92 59 152 387 245 632 2:30 2:45 91 64 154 2:45 3:00 88 60 148 3:00 3:15 83 60 142 3:15 3:30 83 61 144 348 259 606 3:30 3:45 87 64 151 3:45 4:00 95 74 169 4:00 4:15 118 69 187 4:15 4:30 140 83 222 724 429 1153 4:30 4:45 176 128 304 4:45 5:00 291 149 440 5:00 5:15 403 203 606 5:15 5:30 535 308 843 2336 1473 3809 5:30 5:45 631 453 1085 5:45 6:00 767 508 1275 6:00 6:15 776 617 1394 6:15 6:30 794 841 1635 3181 3228 6408 6:30 6:45 804 886 1691 6:45 7:00 806 883 1689 7:00 7:15 786 876 1661 7:15 7:30 811 853 1663 3196 3245 6442 7:30 7:45 809 767 1576 7:45 8:00 791 750 1541 8:00 8:15 761 747 1508 8:15 8:30 750 802 1553 3042 2999 6041 8:30 8:45 775 749 1524 8:45 9:00 756 700 1456 9:00 9:15 623 586 1208 9:15 9:30 628 687 1315 2454 2489 4942 9:30 9:45 590 662 1252 9:45 10:00 613 554 1167 10:00 10:15 563 519 1082 10:15 10:30 664 635 1300 2283 2365 4647 10:30 10:45 563 601 1164 10:45 11:00 493 609 1102 11:00 11:15 684 640 1325 11:15 11:30 662 676 1338 2668 2696 5364 11:30 11:45 653 712 1366 11:45 12:00 668 667 1335 12:00 12:15 682 672 1354 12:15 12:30 523 700 1223 2627 2674 5301 12:30 12:45 670 626 1295 12:45 13:00 752 676 1429 13:00 13:15 677 583 1260 13:15 13:30 726 561 1287 2805 2473 5278 13:30 13:45 642 635 1276 13:45 14:00 760 694 1454 14:00 14:15 708 684 1392 14:15 14:30 745 705 1450 3110 2942 6052 14:30 14:45 827 734 1561 14:45 15:00 831 819 1650 15:00 15:15 746 721 1467 15:15 15:30 873 847 1720 3314 3204 6518 15:30 15:45 823 793 1616 15:45 16:00 872 843 1715 16:00 16:15 879 844 1724 16:15 16:30 871 859 1731 3543 3346 6889 16:30 16:45 897 857 1754 16:45 17:00 896 786 1681 17:00 17:15 895 792 1687 17:15 17:30 896 898 1794 3436 3374 6810 17:30 17:45 857 859 1716 17:45 18:00 787 826 1613 18:00 18:15 851 777 1628 18:15 18:30 839 769 1608 3113 2832 5945 18:30 18:45 783 694 1478 18:45 19:00 639 592 1231 19:00 19:15 577 534 1110 19:15 19:30 675 600 1275 2289 2089 4378 19:30 19:45 475 446 921 19:45 20:00 562 509 1071 20:00 20:15 511 450 961 20:15 20:30 512 425 937 2000 1595 3595 20:30 20:45 499 385 884 20:45 21:00 477 335 813 21:00 21:15 525 390 915 21:15 21:30 510 359 869 1937 1456 3393 21:30 21:45 460 357 817 21:45 22:00 443 350 793 22:00 22:15 430 321 751 22:15 22:30 415 312 727 1547 1184 2731 22:30 22:45 362 289 651 22:45 23:00 340 263 603 23:00 23:15 329 278 607 23:15 23:30 317 267 584 1145 1029 2174 23:30 23:45 275 253 528 23:45 0:00 224 231 455 Source: VDOT Downtown Tunnel 43 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
APPENDIX B
Downtown Tunnel Incident Data
Downtown Tunnel 44 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
TABLE B.1 – Incidents Responded to By the Downtown Tunnel Incident Response Team Stalled Out of Miscellane Bridge Tunnel Bridge Year Vehicles Flat Tires Gas Escorts Crashes Fires ous Total Total Total Openings 1996 1,116 180 485 12 422 16 979 1,266 1,944 3,210 1,011 1997 1,135 242 404 43 371 25 925 1,040 2,105 3,145 768 1998 1,139 260 357 49 332 13 309 883 1,576 2,459 739 1999 1,052 245 373 27 365 16 135 833 1,380 2,213 780 2000 1,024 252 442 38 389 7 161 874 1,439 2,313 1,076 2001 736 149 269 26 333 7 123 607 1,036 1,643 907 2002 1,042 255 375 27 544 17 74 778 1,556 2,334 783 Source: VDOT
Downtown Tunnel 45 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
APPENDIX C
City-to-city Commuting Data Southside Hampton Roads
Downtown Tunnel 46 Traffic Management Plan Study Appendix November 2003: Final Report
TABLE C.1 – City-to-City Commuting Data
WORKING IN
rs h te t c u e h h a m k g t e a i u B a m e o l p W a u o f lk m lk i C a n s r l s o fo ts o i n e e r r ff g i ta h le o r n th s o u i e o C I N P S V P O T Chesapeake 38,680 294 24,904 9,976 1,850 15,394 3,220 2,659 96,977 Isle of Wight 526 5,118 674 787 1,284 281 4,086 1,230 13,986 Norfolk 6,877 120 74,572 4,380 588 17,717 4,035 3,794 112,083 Portsmouth 7,620 462 8,430 19,875 1,644 2,942 2,103 906 43,982 Suffolk 3,190 1,615 3,528 3,440 11,309 1,644 2,451 1,195 28,372 Virginia Beach 18,541 205 55,963 7,318 1,223 127,961 5,125 6,312 222,648
LIVING IN Peninsula 2,442 880 11,344 2,301 975 3,764 Other 3,285 3,105 5,848 1,792 1,616 3,914 Total Commuters 81,161 11,799 185,263 49,869 20,489 173,617 Source: Census Transportation Planning Package, 2000.
Downtown Tunnel 47 Traffic Management Plan Study