dane county vandewalle & associates strand associates william o’connor

8/7/02

Dane County

Vandewalle & Associates

Strand Associates

William O’Connor

Roadway Concept Select Link Traffic

ModelingAugust 7, 2002

8/7/02

Demand Modeling Review

8/7/02

112,000

132,000

83,200

33,600

21,300

96,000110,700

128,100

82,200

33,100

34,900

95,000108,300

130,600

80,600

41,100

42,000

91,000106,300

133,000

82,000

30,300

42,900

94,600109,000

137,800

79,200

30,200

63,700

90,300106,200

138,100

79,000

29,900

73,300

89,000

104,700

67,600

49,100

29,000

14,800

68,200

109,500108,600103,900108,300104,000105,100

94,400

148,00148,600142,300141,600141,800143,200

70,500

45,600 43,100 41,400 44,400 42,700 41,700

~30,000

12,30012,30028,30029,20050,00063,500

8,400

Alt 1Alt 1A

Alt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5

Exist

System Effects ~Year 2050

Projected ADTs

8/7/02

37,00045,60045,50045,40047,60046,700

28,900

33,60033,10041,00030,30030,20031,300

29,000

13,10012,50011,80012,60013,10016,800

--

21,20034,90042,00042,90063,70069,600

14,800

12,30011,40028,30029,20050,00056,100

8,400

8,50010,50010,10010,0006,2005,700

--

8,1008,6008,0008,2009,4008,700

--

2,4002,4002,4002,2002,6002,600

--

4,8005,9004,500

23,7001,1001,400

--9,40010,1008,3005,500

44,60045,600

7,800

Alt 1Alt 1A

Alt 2Alt 3Alt 4Alt 5

Exist

10,1008,6006,5006,6001,6003,800

--

8,7007,4007,7007,3006,3006,300

--5,2002,3003,2003,0004,0002,200

--

13,60014,20026,20012,80012,40011,600

--

Oncken Rd.

ST

H 1

13C

TH

Q

CT

H M

STH 19

Northport Dr.

Phe

asan

t B

ranc

h R

d.

CTH K

Woodland Dr.

River Rd.

CT

H I

Schneider Rd.

15,90014,10013,50013,80013,30013,600

13,200

Projected ADTs

Northern Effects ~Year 2050

8/7/02

Key Conclusions - Demand Modeling

• All roadways will need to be upgraded (expanded shoulders, wider cross sections, and access control) to safely handle future traffic demands, no matter which alternative is implemented.

• The interstate will experience substantially greater traffic demands no matter which alternative is implemented.

• Freeway alternatives will draw small traffic amounts (5 to 10 percent) off of the isthmus and the south beltline. Therefore congestion remains.

• Freeway capacity will be fully used no matter which alternative is implemented.

8/7/02


• Different land use development patterns (compact vs existing trends) do not alter traffic volumes enough to reduce the need for roadway improvements (3 to 7%). Different land use development patterns do make transit options and alternate modes more viable/feasible.

• Excess capacity provided to Century Ave by some alternatives will be absorbed by local growth. Traffic volumes will remain similar to what exists today.

• Relief provided to any local collectors by the alternatives will be absorbed by local growth.

8/7/02


• The CTH M section from STH 113 to CTH Q is the greatest capacity constraint in the corridor. The largest traffic moving capabilities are observed when capacity is added to this segment

• Low build alternatives have heavy intersection volumes that will require higher level intersection improvements

8/7/02

Select Link Analysis• Select Link Analysis shows where the traffic is

coming from and where it is going to on a selected link.– Useful in understanding travel patterns

• Select link analysis does not present total volumes on other roadways feeding or being fed by the link.

• For North Mendota Parkway, all select link information has been normalized to percentages.– Reduces chance of misinterpretation

• West to East is shown, yet East to West information is essentially identical.

• All information is ~2050

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 No Build

Land Use Scenario 1CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)

West to East - Normalized to Percentage~2050

22%

40%

20% 15%

85%

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1A

No Build w/ Enhancements Land Use Scenario 1

CTH M (STH 113 to CTH K)West to East - Normalized to Percentage

~2050

27%

34%

16% 12%

88%

12%

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 3

Onken Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

16%

38%

13% 28%

60%

20%

12%

8/7/02


4-Lane Freeway Off-Alignment Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

65%

8% 53%

47%

17%

11%

34%9%

8/7/02

Observations - CTH M

East side

• Alt 1A improvements to CTH M between STH 113 and CTH K primarily influence travel patterns on Northport.

• Currently most CTH M traffic is oriented to Northport. The low build alternatives maintain this orientation. (85% to 15% split)

• With each successive improvement, more traffic is oriented towards STH 19 to the north. In alternative 3 the split is 60% to 40% and with alternatives 4 and 5 the split evens to 50% to 50%.

• With the higher build alternatives, traffic is attracted to CTH M from greater distances.

8/7/02

Observations - CTH M Select LinkWest side• In the low build alternatives, a greater proportion of the

CTH M traffic is drawn from the Century Ave corridor than CTH K or STH 19

• With the higher build alternatives, Century Ave volumes remain constant. The additional build corridor provides a greater proportion of CTH M traffic.

• The higher build alternatives draw more traffic from outside arterials.

• With the low build alternatives there is more regional and less local traffic on Century.

• With the high build alternatives there is more local and less regional traffic on Century.

• Century volumes remain constant in both cases.

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 - No Build

Land Use Scenario 1Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)


47%42%

58%

42%

8/7/02



Century Ave (CTH Q to Allen)West to East - Normalized to Percentage

~2050

46%44%

63%

33%

8/7/02


Onken-Balzer Connection

Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

46%44%

64%

26%

8/7/02


4-Lane Freeway Off Alignment Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

46% 44%

70%

26%

8/7/02

Observations - Century Ave Select Link

• Distribution remains relatively constant with all alternatives

• Higher build alternatives draw traffic from further east than lower build alternatives

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1- No Build

Land Use Scenario 1Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)


48%

10%

56%

41%

18%

10%

8/7/02



Northport (CTH M to Knutson Dr)West to East - Normalized to Percentage

~2050

12%

50%

70%

20%

3%

27%

8/7/02


Onken-Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

49%

57%

21%

3%

39%

9%

8/7/02




~2050

48%

74%

22%

26%

8%

8/7/02

Observations - Northport Select Link Analysis

• Distribution to the east remains relatively constant with all alternatives.

• In the low build alternatives, a moderate to high proportion of Northport traffic is drawn from the Waunakee area.

• In the higher build alternatives, Northport draws a greater proportion of its traffic (regional traffic) from farther west, generally along the build corridor.

8/7/02

Select Link AnalysisAlternative 1 - No Build

Land Use Scenario 1STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)


44%

50% 55%

5%

18%

8/7/02



STH 19/Main (CTH Q and Endries Rd)West to East - Normalized to Percentage

~2050

47%54%

22%

47%

8/7/02


Onken-Balzer Connection Land Use Scenario 1


~2050

46% 47%

19%

48%7%

8/7/02




~2050

50% 44%23%

45%

5%

8/7/02

Observations - Main St Select Link

• Distribution remains relatively constant with all alternatives

• Main Street tends to draw a slightly higher percentage of its traffic from the build corridor.

8/7/02

Select Link Also Performed for:

• Main Street - CTH Q and Endres

• South Beltline - Yahara Bridge

• USH 12

8/7/02

Next Steps1. Preliminary transportation recommendations

(selection & sequence of improvements) 2. Roadway and community character issues,

techniques and recommendations3. Preservation issues, techniques and

recommendations4. Intergovernmental relations issues, techniques and

recommendations5. Final transportation recommendations6. Comprehensive Implementation Package Strategy7. Project Report and, Report Adoption, Project

Completion

8/7/02

Dane County

Vandewalle & Associates

Strand Associates

William O’Connor

Roadway Concept Select Link Traffic

ModelingAugust 7, 2002

dane county vandewalle & associates strand associates william o’connor

Documents