|
|
|
Response to Policy
Policy 1
To demonstrate that the existing system is incapable
of accommodating the projected, design-year traffic, the user should develop
a carefully designed set of alternatives within Tranplan that do not rely
on the construction of an interchange. To assist in the file management
portion of the analysis, it is recommended that each new alternative be
located in a separate directory appropriately named to provide full understanding
of the alignment. Then, for each of the alignments developed, the user
should perform a complete run of the model through Tranplan to calculate
the roadway volumes that result from the alignment alternative.
After running the network through Tranplan and
returning the information to GIS, there as several analysis that should
be examined before entering any information into the HCS. The main items
to examine are 24 hour roadway volumes and either 24 hour or peak period
volume to capacity ratios. An important consideration within this process
is the potential modification of the network or factoring of the roadway
volumes to represent peak period travel in the network, as this is the
travel of most importance to the HCS.
Moving from the GIS-Tranplan analysis, the volumes
and turning movement counts can be displayed and stored to be entered
into the HCS. Then the user can run the HCS modules of ramps, freeway
operation and intersection analysis, which ever are appropriate.
Policy 2
To show that all reasonable alternatives have
been addressed, looking at the list of alternatives, there are several
options that warrant examination by someone outside the planning agency.
These include the transportation system management schemes such as ramp
metering, mass transit and HOV facilities.
The examination of all possible design alternatives
should be performed through the development of different scenarios with
the GIS-Tranplan modeling environment. To facilitate this process, developing
each new scenario in a separate directory will be most beneficial. Then
all of the new scenarios need to be modeled with Tranplan and evaluated
with the HCS as required by other policy statements.
Policy 3
Demonstrating that the proposed access does not
have a significantly adverse impact on the safety and operation of the
interstate facility and surrounding streets. This analysis will be performed
using a combination of Tranplan-GIS and HCS programs. The analysis that
needs to be performed is similar to items mentioned to response to Policy
1.
Policy 4
Demonstrating that the proposed interchange will
provide access for all turning movements is a process that will be shown
by the developers/designers of the interchange. There is not specific
modeling and analysis necessary for this policy beyond examining the proposed
design.
Policy 5
To show that the proposed interchange is consistent
with local and regional plans, the existing land-use and changes in land-use
should be shown, both with and without the GIS. Without GIS, the identification
of the number of jobs or residents that will move to the area as a result
of the interchange. Within the GIS, the production and attraction parameters
within the Tranplan network can be displayed to demonstrate appropriate
increases or decreases that would be expected as a result of the interchange.
Policy 6
For instances where multiple interchanges are
planned, all possible changes must be examined together to determine the
operating characteristics for the system.
Policy 7
The area must demonstrate that the interchange
improvements were developed as part of a comprehensive plan and the effects
have been examined with respect to the entire metropolitan area.
Policy 8
The location must contain appropriate documentation
demonstrating that the interchange location meets all planning and environment
constrants and considerations.
Select any of the options to receive more
information or click on the back button to return to the main interchange
justification page or the site map button to go to the site map.
|