APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING RESULTSprojects.horrocks.com/MAGstudy/assets/appendix b travel...The Travel Demand Model (TDM) was run for several scenarios. These scenarios included:

MAG Springville/Spanish Fork Transportation Study

APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING RESULTS

MAG Springville/Spanish Fork Transportation Study Page 1

APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING RESULTSThis section will present the results of the travel demand modeling for existing (2011) conditions and 2040 conditions for several scenarios.

The Travel Demand Model (TDM) was run for several scenarios. These scenarios included:

1. 2011 Base Year2. 2040 No Build - includes all projects from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) except

the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange, the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange, and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension

3. 2040 MTP - includes all projects from the MTP4. 2040 MTP without the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange -

includes all projects from the MTP except the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension

5. 2040 MTP without the Center Street Interchange - includes all projects from the MTP except the Center Street Interchange

6. 2040 MTP without the 1600 South Extension - includes all projects from the MTP except the 1600 South extension

7. 2020 No Build - includes all projects from the MTP planned for 2011-2020 except the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange, the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange, and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension

8. 2030 No Build - includes all projects from the MTP planned for 2011-2030 except the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange, the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange, and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension

B.1 2011 BASE YEAR, 2040 NO BUILD, AND 2040 MTP SCENARIOSTravel Demand Model Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs)Several Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) were calculated in the study area from the TDM. A key focus was on congested roadways, which were assumed to be those with Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratios greater than or equal to 0.9 as calculated by the TDM. The MOEs used in this analysis include:

• Roadway lane-miles with V/C ≥ 0.9 (• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with V/C ≥ 0.9• Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) with V/C ≥ 0.9• Total VMT• Total VHT• Total daily delay in hours

Table B-1 shows the comparison of the 2011 and 2040 No Build scenarios. This comparison demonstrates the expected congestion growth within the study area if the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange, the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange, and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension are not constructed. Table B-2 shows a comparison of the 2040 No Build and the 2040 MTP scenarios. This comparison demonstrates the expected benefits of building the two interchanges and the road extension as proposed in the MTP.


Table B-1 MOE Comparison of 2011 and 2040 No Build Scenarios within the Study Area

Measure of Effectiveness 2011 2040 No Build Difference % Change

Total Daily Delay (Hours) 1,510 4,350 2,840 188%

Lane-Miles with V/C ≥ 0.9 7.3 19.2 11.9 163%

VMT with V/C ≥ 0.9 17,000 46,500 29,500 174%

Total VMT (Miles) 2,046,600 4,292,700 2,246,100 110%

VHT with V/C ≥ 0.9 680 2,380 1,700 250%

Total VHT (Hours) 44,900 99,700 54,800 122%

Table B-2 MOE Comparison 2040 No Build and 2040 MTP Scenarios within the Study Area

Measure of Effectiveness 2040 No Build 2040 MTP Difference % Change

Total Daily Delay (Hours) 4,350 3,690 -660 -15%

Lane-Miles with V/C ≥ 0.9 19.2 14.4 -4.8 -25%

VMT with V/C ≥ 0.9 46,500 34,000 -12,500 -27%

Total VMT (Miles) 4,292,700 4,308,300 15,600 0.4%

VHT with V/C ≥ 0.9 2,380 1,740 -640 -27%

Total VHT (Hours) 99,700 98,600 -1,100 -1%

Table B-1 shows that when the proposed interchanges are removed from the MTP network, congestion in 2040 is expected to increase by as much as 250 percent over the 2011 levels. Table B-2 shows that when the interchanges are included in the 2040 network, congestion will be reduced by up to 2= percent over the No Build scenario. It should be noted that the total VMT and total VHT do not measure congestion directly, but they do provide a good indication of the expected growth in traffic within the study area.

Roadway Level of Service EstimatesLevel of Service (LOS) is a term used by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to describe the traffic operations of an intersection or roadway, based on congestion and average vehicle delay. LOS ranges from “A” (almost no congestion or delay) to “F” (traffic demand is above capacity and the intersection or roadway experiences long queues and delay). LOS C or better is generally considered acceptable for rural roadways. LOS D or better is generally acceptable for urbanized roadways. LOS E is the threshold when the roadway approaches maximum capacity.

LOS for the roadways within the study area was estimated by using the V/C ratios calculated by the TDM. Roadway LOS was estimated to be LOS E or F for V/C greater than or equal to 0.9, LOS D for V/C between 0.8 and 0.9, and LOS C or better for V/C less than 0.8. The following figures show the PM LOS estimates for 2011, 2040 No Build, and the 2040 MTP. The dots shown at some intersections indicate the intersection Level of Service, which will be discussed in Section 4.0 - Microsimulation Modeling.

Figure B-2 shows that under the 2040 No Build scenario, Springville 400 South and Spanish Fork Main Street both experience significant congestion and poor LOS. When the interchanges at Spanish Fork Center Street and Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North are included in the network, Main Street north of Center and 400 South both show LOS D or better (see Figure B-3).


Figu

re B

-1 2

011

PM R

oadw

ay L

evel

of

Serv

ice

and

V/C

2011

BA

SE Y

EAR


Figu

re B

-2 2

040

No

Build

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2040

NO

-BU

ILD


Figu

re B

-3 2

040

MTP

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2040

MTP


B.2 ADDITIONAL 2040 NO BUILD SCENARIOSScenarios that considered the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North and Spanish Fork Center Street Interchanges separately were analyzed. These included the 2040 MTP without the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange and the 2040 MTP without the Center Street Interchange. When the interchanges are considered separately, it can be observed that each interchange provides a different benefit.

2040 MTP without the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North InterchangeFigure B-4 shows the 2040 MTP without the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange Scenario. This scenario includes all projects from the MTP (including the Center Street Interchange), except for the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange and Springville 1600 South widening/extension. When the Center Street Interchange is included but the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange is not, Spanish Fork Main Street is shown to improve to LOS D north of Center Street; however, 400 South remains at LOS E and F.

2040 MTP without the Center Street InterchangeFigure B-5 shows the 2040 MTP without the Center Street Interchange Scenario. This scenario includes all projects from the MTP (including the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange), except for the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange. Under this scenario, Spanish Fork Main Street remains at LOS E and F, but Springville 400 South improves to LOS D or better.

The analysis of the 2040 MTP without the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange Scenario and the 2040 MTP without the Center Street Interchange Scenario suggests that the primary traffic operations benefit of the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange is to relieve traffic congestion from 400 South, and the primary traffic operations benefit of the Center Street Interchange is to relieve traffic congestion from Spanish Fork Main Street north of Center Street.

Also, based on discussions with the project team, it was determined that although the main purpose of the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange is to relieve congestion on Spanish Fork Main Street, an added benefit of the interchange is to provide better connectivity and multi-modalism for the proposed Utah Transit Authority commuter rail station adjacent to the interchange.

The Travel Demand Modeling results show that the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange relieves congestion on Spanish Fork Main Street and the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange relieves congestion on Springville 400 South. Both proposed interchanges will be required to maintain acceptable traffic operations by 2040.


Figu

re B

-4 2

040

with

out

Sprin

gvill

e 16

00 S

outh

/Spa

nish

For

k 27

00 N

orth

Inte

rcha

nge

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2040

MTP

WIT

HO

UT

THE

SPR

ING

VIL

LE 1

600

SOU

TH/S

PAN

ISH

FO

RK

270

0 N

OR

TH IN

TER

CH

AN

GE


Figu

re B

-5 2

040

with

out

Cen

ter

Stre

et In

terc

hang

e PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2040

MTP

WIT

HO

UT

THE

SPA

NIS

H F

OR

K C

ENTE

R S

TREE

T IN

TER

CH

AN

GE


B.3 2040 MTP WITHOUT THE SPRINGVILLE 1600 SOUTH EXTENSION SCENARIOThe 1600 South widening project, from Spanish Fork Main Street to US-89, is listed as a separate project in the MTP. The section between SR-51 and US-89 is a new roadway alignment, so a scenario with this section excluded from the network was analyzed using the TDM. The 2040 MTP without the 1600 South Extension Scenario includes all projects from the MTP (including the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange) except for the 1600 South extension and the Center Street Interchange (see Figure B-6).

Springville 400 South shows improvement to LOS D, but it is not as much improvement as with the 1600 South extension (see Figure B-5). Also, the existing local roadways near 1600 South between SR-51 and US-89 show considerably more congestion. These results suggest that with the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange there is a need to extend 1600 South to US-89 to relieve additional congestion from 400 South and keep traffic off the existing residential streets near 1600 South.


Figu

re B

-6 2

040

with

out

the

1600

Sou

th E

xten

sion

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2040

MTP

WIT

HO

UT

THE

SPR

ING

VIL

LE 1

600

SOU

TH E

XTE

NSI

ON


B.4 PROJECT PHASING (2020 AND 2030 NO BUILD)To help determine when the Spanish Fork Center Street and Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchanges will be needed, the TDM was run for the interim years 2020 and 2030. The 2020 No Build scenario included all projects from the MTP planned for 2011-2020 except the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension and interchange. The 2030 No Build scenario included all projects from the MTP planned for 2011-2030 except the Spanish Fork Center Street Interchange and the Springville 1600 South widening/extension and interchange. Figure B-7 shows the Spanish Fork Main Street beginning to experience congestion in 2020, but Springville 400 South operates as LOS C or better. Figure B-8 shows Main Street with additional congestion for 2030 over 2020, and 400 South begins to experience some congestion. From a traffic operations perspective, these figures indicate that the Center Street Interchange would provide congestion relief as early as 2020, but the Springville 1600 South/Spanish Fork 2700 North Interchange would likely not be required until after 2030. These conclusions are the results of the input values that were used in the TDM, including the socioeconomic growth assumptions for the study area. If the land use in the study area grows at a faster rate than was assumed, either interchange may be required earlier than indicated by the model.

The Travel Demand Modeling results indicate that the Center Street Interchange would be needed by 2020.


Figu

re B

-7 2

020

No

Build

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2020

NO

BU

ILD


Figu

re B

-8 2

030

No

Build

PM

Roa

dway

Lev

el o

f Se

rvic

e an

d V

/C

2030

NO

BU

ILD

Documents

APPENDIX B: TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING RESULTSprojects.horrocks.com/MAGstudy/assets/appendix b travel...The Travel Demand Model (TDM) was run for several scenarios. These scenarios included: