Submitted by Ken Watts
Over the last few weeks Ken’s Korner has been publishing analysis of documents received from the Idaho Transportation Department regarding US Highway 20 from Ashton to SH 87. Conclusions from the analysis have been reported here. The plan was to continue this process in an effort to inform people about potential changes to this segment of US 20. That plan was turned upside down when Governor Brad Little announced we would be getting a four lane highway. That public statement now brings into question if ITD has circumvented the legal process for making these decisions. The governor has never once come to Island Park and asked us what “we” wanted. Is this representative government? During the first public meeting on this potential highway project, we were told that ITD was “starting from scratch”. This statement was made after there were many complaints about the process used for the Targhee Pass Project on US 20. We are “starting from scratch” was not the truth. Apparently, according to the Governor, we are getting four lanes. If you believe there was a misunderstanding during the Governor’s campaign stop in Ashton last weekend, then read the following quote from ITD’s February 2022 traffic operations report: “Many of the existing US 20 project segments currently meet the recommended minimum standards for LOS (level of service). However, as traffic volumes increase, the LOS of more segments will drop below the minimum standards. In the horizon year of 2050, most segments will not meet the minimum standards for LOS without increasing the number of lanes. Improving the highway to a four-lane configuration will bring the LOS up to, or above, the recommended minimum standards for most of the segments. For those segments that are still estimated to operate below the recommended minimum LOS with the added lanes, minor adjustments to the roadway characteristics, including increasing the free-flow speed and decreasing access density are recommended.” The people of Island Park and Ashton attended ITD’s US 20 alternatives workshop in December 2021, in good faith. We were asked to provide our input, thoughts, and solutions/alternatives. However, according to the Governor and the traffic report, a four lane was already the recommended solution/alternative. The traffic reports were withheld from the public at both public meetings. It was not until February 2022 that ITD posted three traffic studies on their US 20 website. The third report was dated February 2022, but all the data (real data) used in this report and the Passing Lanes report was old. Some data, dated back to 1993, when the speed limit was 55 mph on this section of highway. The important point is that the alternatives workshop would have had far different results if ITD would have fully disclosed the detailed traffic information with the public. They did not! Were we starting from scratch? You decide. Were we deceived? You decide. Were decisions already made? All evidence looks like it, but you decide. The good news is that this project cannot go forward without completing the NEPA process. Now is the time to build coalitions to strongly influence this project and get what Island Park wants for the Caldera. The other good news is, this is an election year. Politicians may want to listen to you. Imagine Island Park, a recreational community, with a four lane, high speed freeway right through the middle! This freeway will allow little access to local businesses. Will they survive? The “longest main street in America” will be gone. Not a pretty picture!
0 Comments
Submitted by Ken Watts.
Three traffic studies/reports have been completed for US 20 roughly between Ashton and SH 87. The first was completed in 2006, the second in 2019, and the last in February of 2022. Each study used a different method to determine the traffic volume to be used to determine the level of service for the road. The best way to understand the different methods is to read quotes from the studies. The first quote is from the 2006 study written by HDR Transportation Engineering: “Perhaps the most challenging issue confronted during the US 20 corridor planning process is the widely fluctuating traffic volumes. This fluctuation results from a higher than average seasonal variation in use, which reflects the primary summer recreation-related uses on and through the corridor. Traffic volumes reach an annual high in July and a low in January. Permanent traffic counters recorded traffic volumes in July as approximately 98 percent higher than the annual average daily traffic, and in January, traffic volumes drop 52 percent below the annual ADT. This puts summer volume highs at approximately five times greater than winter volume lows.….. A significant factor in determining appropriate improvements is the assessment of Design Hour Volume (DHV). Design Hour Volumes are commonly calculated using the 30th highest hour for the roadway, typically around 85 percent of the peak hour of traffic for the road on an annual basis. However, on US 20, the 30th highest hour is well over 90 percent of the peak hour for the road due to the makeup of the traffic using the highway (i.e. seasonal and weekend traffic). This creates concerns that improvements planned to accommodate DHV’s using this method will likely exceed the routine capacity needs for the corridor and would not support ITD’s goal of context sensitive design…. To address concerns that recommendations should be appropriate for the majority of the corridor’s traffic volumes and context sensitive, an alternative methodology was used. The Alternative Capacity Analysis method for calculating DHV is described in the AASHTO Greenbook and multiplies the average of the top three hours on the corridor by 50 percent. This analysis may or may not yield a lower traffic volume, but it should provide a LOS result that is more reflective of the actual traffic situation. This methodology is called out specifically for use in the situation where a highly seasonal use roadway is being analyzed. For the US 20 corridor, it was determined that this method would be used…...” The second quote is from the 2019 traffic study done by JUB Engineers, Inc.: “The 2016 plan states that it captures the summer recreation period by using the 30th highest hour methodology in determining the design hour volume. The 30th highest hour volume calculated in the 2016 plan was higher than the design hourly volume used in the 2006 study, which can be attributed to the methodology applied in each study, as well as a 30% increase in traffic volumes on the study section of US 20 since the 2006 study was completed.” The third quote is from the 2022 traffic study completed by Horrocks Engineers: “Traffic data used to calculate the Level of Service was collected in 2018 and a 3.4% linear growth rate was applied to each location to project to the year of 2021 and to the horizon year of 2050. Because this roadway has high seasonal fluctuations in traffic volume, the peak hour volumes were selected based on the average four highest months (June-September).” Do you see how the goalposts moved? The first study said it was inappropriate to use the 30th highest hour methodology. The second study used this methodology. The third escalated the design traffic volume by using the peak hour volumes for June to September. Why should you care? The third and last approach will result in gross over design of US 20 and will be used to justified a 4 lane, high speed highway through Island Park. It will result in significant environmental damage. Submitted by Ken Watts
Last week Ken’s Korner introduced you to a “Preliminary Traffic Operations Report” for US 20 between Ashton and SH 87, produced by Horrocks Engineers, for the Idaho Department of Transportation. This traffic report was based on incomplete data from 2018 and “fudge factors” were applied to project the data to 2021 and 2050. 32 years into the future. Horrocks did traffic projections for the highest traffic summer months and the highest traffic hour. Read last week’s Ken’s Korner for details on the suspect assumptions. This week we will examine how Horrorks Engineers calculated the level of service (LOS) for 24 US 20 road segments between Ashton and SH 87. There are 6 levels of service, A thru F. A is the best service and F is the worst. For US 20, ITD wants a level of service of B for rolling rural areas and C for mountainous areas. To get the 2021 traffic density, they increased the 2018 traffic data by 3.4% linearly based on one traffic camera located near Sheep Falls. So, in 10 years, the traffic would increase by 34% and in 32 years it would increase by 108.8% using this approach. Horrocks Engineers used the McTrans Highway Capacity Software HCS7 to calculate the LOS for the 24 road segments for the years 2021 and 2050. The calculation is based on physical highway features, like lane width, and the “peak” traffic volume among other things. Horrocks Engineers concluded that in 2021 only 7 of the 24 northbound segments meet the minimum LOS and 10 of the 24 southbound segments meet the minimum LOS. In 2050 only one northbound segment and no southbound segments would meet the minimum LOS. Remember that in 2050, ITD predicted that traffic will be 108.8% higher than 2018. Now let’s look at whether the computer program provides good predictions of the level of service for the 24 road segments. The best way to do this is to look at Figures 7 and 8 in the report and look at the calculated speed in 2021. The computer program says the average travel speed in Last Chance is 29.1 mph northbound during the peak hours, 32.9 at Ponds Lodge, 30.4 at Elk Creek, 29.8 at Mack’s Inn, 30.2 at Sawtelle, and 31.2 at Valley View. Think back to 2021. Did you ever drive thru these areas at these low speeds in 2021? If you did, you would likely have a tourist or a semi driving up your tailpipe! The point is that the computer program is generating ridiculously low travel speeds. This results in poor predictions of the level of service for these and other segments of the road. Further, it leads to justifying a four lane, high speed highway thru Island Park and possibly bypassing local businesses. One can only conclude that this traffic report is flawed. ITD should conduct a new traffic study, with real data, not calculated data, before committing 10’s of millions of dollars to this project. Let’s get it right. No phony calculations and assumptions. This results in a poor level of service for road segments between Ashton and SH 87. The rest of the year, the level of service is just fine, with great levels of service. Submitted by Ken Watts, Island Park
On February 24, 2022, the Idaho Transportation Department posted a status update on the US-20 Ashton to SH-87 planning. This was a significant update because it contained a “Preliminary Traffic Operations Report”. The Report is based on data that is four years old. The data was collected by JUB Engineers in “September” 2018 for most of the road segments from Ashton to SH-87. No traffic data was collected from Ashton north to Sheep Falls Road nor from Island Park Lodge north to SH-87. JUB Engineers applied a “fudge factor” to the data to predict traffic volume for the high traffic months of June, July, and August because their data was collected in September. Horrocks Engineers, who authored the traffic study, also applied a “fudge factor” to the data to “project” the 2018 data to 2021. This factor was a linear 3.4% per year increase in traffic. So they added about 10.2% (a guess) to the traffic volume on the road segments. It is very disappointing that ITD elected not to share the JUB Engineers traffic data at any of the public meetings held in Island Park or Ashton. This was critical data. It is even more disappointing that ITD held the road design alternatives workshop in Island Park and Ashton prior to publishing the Preliminary Traffic Operations Report. This was critical information that could have been used by the public to suggest alternatives. Adding to the disappointment is the fact that ITD has done the first “down selection” of the alternatives without public involvement. In addition, the public was told that ITD was “starting from scratch” on this project but is now using old data from 2018! This report was authored and stamped by Benjamin Burke from Horrocks Engineers. Mr. Burke is a former employee of ITD District 6 and was involved in the controversial Targhee Pass Project on US-20. The report uses the horizon year of 2050. Yes, 28 years into the future using 2018 data. The report is based on 3.4% traffic growth for 32 years. No justification is provided for projecting 3.4% growth for the next 28 years, only the first 4 years. The conclusions are based on the four peak traffic months, not on the yearly average. The peak traffic hour of the day was also used to make the traffic volume look worse. It is very important to review the conclusions and recommendations that were made in the Preliminary Traffic Operations Report by Horrocks Engineers. They are as follows: “Many of the existing US 20 project segments currently meet the recommended minimum standards for LOS (Level of Service). However, as traffic volumes increase, the LOS of more segments will drop below the minimum standards. In the horizon year of 2050, most segments will not meet the minimum standards for LOS without increasing the number of lanes. Improving the highway to a four-lane configuration will bring the LOS up to, or above, the recommended minimum standards for most of the segments. For those segments that are still estimated to operate below the recommended minimum LOS with the added lanes, minor adjustments to the roadway characteristics, including increasing the free-flow speed and decreasing access density are recommended.” So let us summarize what we know: the traffic data is incomplete and old, the planning year (2050) is 28 years away, the traffic growth rate is not based on any facts after 2021, peak traffic months and hours were used, the level of service with the current road is OK now, the report calls for a four lane road, increased speeds, less access, and road configuration changes, ITD has done a preliminary down selection of alternatives with no public involvement, the JUB Engineers data was withheld from the public at the workshops, etc. The Island Park Chamber of Commerce and the Island Park Mayor and City Council better read this report. It has profound implications for our community. (More on Horrocks Engineers next week!) |
Making Sense of It All
This blog will help you make sense out of all the information on the website, how it affects IP, our history, and how efforts continue to put IP into various forms of conservation status. Archives
May 2023
Categories |