September 14, 2010 Fiscal Years 2011 - 2040

Transcription

20
40
Fiscal Years 2011 - 2040
September 14, 2010
Metropolitan Transportation Plan New Orleans Urbanized Area Regional Planning Commission 10 Veterans Memorial Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70124 (504) 483‐8500 (504) 483‐8526 (fax) www.norpc.org [email protected] The preparation of this document was financed in part through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration in accordance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU; P.L. 109‐59).
CONTENTS PART I: Introduction and Overview of the Planning Process .................................. 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
The New Orleans Urbanized Area ........................................................................... 3
Introduction and Hurricane Katrina ........................................................................ 3
Demographics ......................................................................................................... 4
Transportation ........................................................................................................ 6
The Regional Planning Commission ........................................................................ 8
Definition of MPO ................................................................................................... 8
Statutory Planning Authority & Funding Sources ................................................... 9
Transportation Philosophy in Legislation, Guidance, and Best Practice ............ 12
Transportation Philosophy in SAFETEA‐LU ........................................................... 12
Beyond SAFETEA‐LU .............................................................................................. 13
Summary ............................................................................................................... 16
Metropolitan Transportation Plan Overview ....................................................... 18
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18
Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures .................................................... 19
Project Selection Process ...................................................................................... 33
Funding / Financing ............................................................................................... 39
PART II: Highway and Transit Project Descriptions by Functional Category ........ 46
Maintenance, Repair and Preservation ................................................................ 47
Roadway Preservation .......................................................................................... 47
Transit Preservation .............................................................................................. 54
Capacity ................................................................................................................... 60
New Roadway Construction / Capacity Increases ................................................ 60
Non‐Motorized Capacity ....................................................................................... 62 Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------3
Safety ....................................................................................................................... 65
Highway Safety / Hazard Elimination ................................................................... 65
Non‐motorized Safety ........................................................................................... 67
Operational Improvements ................................................................................... 70
Computerized Traffic Signal Upgrade and Replacement ...................................... 70
Intelligent Transportation / Incident Management System Deployment ............ 72
Advanced Public Transportation Systems ............................................................ 74
Transportation Systems Management Projects ................................................... 75
Transit Connectivity .............................................................................................. 77
Intermodal Facilities.............................................................................................. 80
Transportation Support .......................................................................................... 82
Transportation Enhancements ............................................................................. 82
Livable Communities Street Improvements ......................................................... 84
Environmental Studies .......................................................................................... 85
Travel Demand Management ............................................................................... 86
Major Projects ......................................................................................................... 88
Almonaster Bridge Replacement .......................................................................... 88
Canal Street Transit Terminal ............................................................................... 90
Riverfront Streetcar Extension .............................................................................. 91
Downtown Circulator Streetcar Lines ................................................................... 92
East‐West Corridor Transit .................................................................................... 94
Florida Avenue Bridge and Boulevard at the IHNC ............................................... 95
Interstate 10 Bottleneck Elimination & Interchange Reconstruction .................. 97
I‐10 East Widening, Elysian Fields to Bullard ........................................................ 98
I‐10 Claiborne Expressway Removal Study ......................................................... 100
LA 3145 – Relocated Hickory (Gardner to Mounes / Mounes to LA 48) ............ 102
Lapalco Widening ................................................................................................ 103
Peters Road Corridor .......................................................................................... 105
Earhart Corridor .................................................................................................. 106
Causeway Boulevard Widening .......................................................................... 108
Harvey / Lapalco – Harvey Canal Crossing .......................................................... 109
I‐49S / I‐310 Elevated Section ............................................................................. 110
Tulane Avenue Complete Streets Project ........................................................... 112
PART III: Project Funding and Phasing in Federal‐Aid Format ............................ 114 Tier 1 ‐ Highway Projects ‐ FY 2011‐14 .................................................................... 116 Tier 2 ‐ Highway Projects ‐ FY 2015‐24 .................................................................... 164 Tier 3 ‐ Highway Projects ‐ FY 2025‐40 .................................................................... 170 Tier 1 ‐ Transit Projects ‐ FY 2011‐14 ....................................................................... 174 Tier 2 ‐ Transit Projects ‐ FY 2015‐24 ....................................................................... 186 Tier 3 ‐ Transit Projects ‐ FY 2025‐40 ....................................................................... 190 Appendix A – The Eight Planning Factors ........................................................... 193
Appendix B ‐ RPC Project Ranking Scorecard ..................................................... 194
Appendix C – Funding Category Abbreviations .................................................. 209
Appendix D – Public Survey Comments Received .............................................. 211 Appendix E ‐ Public Comments Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------5
Part I - Introduction and Overview of the Planning Process
INTRODUCTION
A transportation system is a global term describing the network of travel modes for people and goods movement. The nature of the system is to cross local, state, and national jurisdictions creating a complex, interconnected network of facilities requiring an immense investment from various funding sources. Transportation needs tend to result in exceptionally large infrastructure projects taking a long time to plan, construct, and administer. The transportation system fulfills a public service, requires public revenues to build and maintain, and is, therefore, a shared public asset. Because the transportation system is a public asset, the role and involvement of the federal government in transportation planning and implementation has always been large. Significant federal legislation, the Intermodal Surface Efficiency Act of 1991, or ISTEA, was passed as a comprehensive transportation bill, funded at $155 billion for six years through September 30, 1997. The next authorization was the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, nicknamed TEA‐21. It was approved in March 1998 and authorized funding through fiscal year 2003. TEA‐21 exceeded the ISTEA funding level, authorizing $214 billion over the life of the Act and validated a continuing central role for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and a financially constrained long range Metropolitan Transportation Plan, hereinafter known as the MTP. The successor bill to TEA 21 was passed in September, 2005, for a five‐year period, FY06 through FY20. The reauthorization is known as SAFETEA‐LU; an acronym for Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users. Funding over the life of the bill totals $244 billion. SAFETEA‐LU reaffirmed the underlying tenets of the two previous transportation bills while expanding the growing national emphasis on global economic competitiveness through new or improved transportation connections to port and intermodal terminals and increasing attention for a more efficient national freight rail system. Another notable tenet of SAFETEA‐LU was the integration of transportation safety (i.e., Safety Conscious Planning) into the metropolitan planning process with emphasis on vehicle crash reduction and improved pedestrian and bicycle safety. SAFETEA‐LU mandated linkages between transportation planning, database systems and evaluation, and deployment Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------1
of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies with Homeland Security preparedness and response. SAFETEA‐LU covers the five year period FY 06 through FY 10. At the writing of this plan, the original lifetime of SAFETEA‐LU has expired, but the act has been extended through Continuing Resolutions as was done for previous transportation bills. While the contents and requirements of SAFETEA‐LU’s successor bill are not known, guidance offered by the federal government, as well as new trends in the field of transportation planning, indicate key themes that will likely be included in future legislation. Previous legislation’s commitment to safety will likely be continued, as will the need to strike a responsible balance between new transportation construction and more efficient use of the current system. Beyond these, it is expected that greater emphasis will be placed on integrating transportation planning with other important policy areas, namely economic development, community livability, and environmental sustainability. The transportation system has a substantial impact on each of these, and vice versa, but until recently integrated policies directing each have been limited and difficult to administer. In the near future transportation agencies will be expected to increase their cooperation and coordination with non‐traditional yet critical partners, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, and Economic Development Administration. The scope of projects included in this MTP is based on historic revenue levels. The MTP cannot designate a spending program larger than the funds reasonably expected to accrue over the next 30 years. It is hoped that this extensive documentation of the planning process employed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization will provide an improved mechanism for public understanding and therefore enhance the public’s ability to participate in the planning process. 2---------2040 MTP
Regional Planning Commission
THE NEW ORLEANS URBANIZED AREA
Introduction and Hurricane Katrina
The New Orleans metropolitan area, including St. Tammany Parish, is comprised of a historically significant central city surrounded by contemporary suburban areas with a total population of about 1.3 million people. Its strategic location on the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain led to its role as a significant port city, and the extensive network of waterways in the region remains a defining factor in its economy, geography, and travel patterns. In addition to port activities, the past several decades saw an increase in the region’s participation in the energy, tourism, and healthcare industries. There have also been population shifts that conformed to the trends seen in many major American cities. While Orleans Parish saw its population steadily decline after the 1960s, the surrounding parishes were more intensively developed and populated. This has not only led to more complex travel patterns and lengthier trips, but also strengthened the need for increased regional cooperation in long term transportation planning. The City of New Orleans was founded nearly 300 years ago, yet one of the most defining events in the region’s history occurred only recently, with the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. On or about August 29, 2005, the New Orleans area and counties on the Mississippi Gulf Coast were struck by Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane made landfall in Buras, Louisiana in Plaquemines Parish, approximately 52 miles southeast of downtown New Orleans. Eighteen hours prior to landfall, Katrina was a category five hurricane on the Safford‐Simpson scale (most powerful in terms of wind speed), and the fourth most powerful storm ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. The hurricane proceeded due north, over Breton Sound and St. Bernard Parish, making final landfall in eastern St. Tammany Parish. Storm surges of over 25 feet and sustained winds in excess of 130 miles per hour proved devastating to the region. The eastern areas of St. Tammany Parish, particularly the City of Slidell and the surrounding areas, were severely damaged, having taken a direct hit from the land‐falling storm. Moreover, the hurricane protection system in place on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain, particularly in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, suffered catastrophic failure. The subsequent inundation of these areas forced the relocation of hundreds of thousands of residents, and has had far‐reaching impacts across the nation. The hurricane has proven not only to be the costliest, but the scale of devastation is unprecedented in the American experience, with 90,000 square miles of devastation over three states, an area equal to that of Great Britain. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------3
Significant amounts of federal resources have been deployed to the region to assist in the recovery effort. Billions of dollars in recovery aid have been appropriated by Congress, and much of the funds remain unspent. Projects that have long been recognized by the community as needed but unfunded for a variety of reasons may potentially be undertaken with a renewed sense of urgency and purpose through the use of disaster and hazard mitigation‐related sources, pending receipt and expenditure of recovery dollars as intended by Congress. The Regional Planning Commission has been working closely with member parishes to support and supplement many functions that can no longer be undertaken by individual parishes. RPC is working with Federal Highway Administration on behalf of our member parishes to implement the Emergency‐Relief (E‐R) program, as one example. RPC also worked with the Federal Transit Administration toward implementing provisions of Section 7025 of the 4th Emergency Supplemental funding bill passed by the 109th Congress to assist local transit agencies in using formula Section 5307 Capital dollars toward operating expenses through 2010. Five years after Katrina the storm’s lingering effects have a major impact on many aspects of life in the region, and are a major consideration when planning for its future. A substantial amount of repair and reconstruction work remains to be done, both on individual properties and public infrastructure. There are also major uncertainties about the location and characteristics of the population, and the future of the regional economy. These issues significantly influence all public policy and infrastructure planning decisions. As the New Orleans area continues to recover from Katrina, planners must constantly be mindful of the long‐lasting effects of the storm while also looking to a future in which the region is no longer “in recovery.” Demographics Growth in the region prior to Hurricane Katrina was slow (about 0.5% per year). The 2000 census indicated that the most dramatic population shift occurred in St. Tammany Parish between 1990 and 2000, growing by nearly 47,000 individuals. Orleans and Jefferson experience minor changes with Orleans losing approximately 12,000 and Jefferson gaining approximately 7,000 persons. Plaquemines and St. Bernard each experienced small increases, approximately 1,200 and 600 respectively while St. Charles parish, an outer ring suburb on the south shore, gained approximately 5,600 persons. This snapshot indicates that prior to Katrina Orleans Parish was encountering the same fundamental problems all central cities are up against. While host to the bulk of the unique cultural character that the region is 4---------2040 MTP
known for, it suffered from deteriorating infrastructure due to its age. It was also home to a disproportionately large low income population. Katrina, however, caused a displacement of residents that makes it extraordinarily difficult to develop an accurate profile of the region’s current population. Many of these displaced residents have, at this writing resettled elsewhere within the region, or out of the New Orleans urbanized area entirely. It is unknown whether displacees will stay wherever they are permanently, or repopulate their former neighborhoods over a long period of time. This creates a singularly unique circumstance in transportation planning. Population, employment and socio‐economic growth trends that were years and decades in the making have accelerated into a timeframe of several months, while uncertainties about future population shifts abound. Fundamental questions about where former residents are living and whether they intend to return to their former residence are hinder the establishment of base conditions that inform population, income, age, and other demographic variables. These data in the post‐Katrina New Orleans area can only be arrived at through complex and potentially erroneous estimation techniques. Previous forecasts for many of these trends are now very fluid and may well prove irrelevant. There are currently multiple entities providing population estimates, based on a number of different analysis techniques. Generally the RPC relies on data provided by either the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or Louisiana Tech University. The most recent estimates for the four core Southshore parishes (Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines and St. Bernard) indicate a population of approximately eight hundred thousand people, down from just over one million in 2000. Beyond these estimates, planners and analysts have been speculating about the composition of the post‐Katrina population. Some believe that low‐income and minority populations have had a more difficult time returning, and the region has therefore become less diverse but also more wealthy. There is also some speculation that the massive rebuilding effort has led to an influx of migrant construction workers, many of whom are of Latino descent and include some undocumented immigrants. Others have suggested that New Orleans has become a popular destination for young, well‐educated, and socially‐active people looking to both contribute to the rebuilding process and live in an intriguing place. There are numerous other possibilities, and none are mutually exclusive. The truth to these theories remains to be seen, as does their implications for transportation planning. The 2010 Census is expected to provide much of the missing information, but it will be some time before those data are available. Moreover the Census will only provide a limited snapshot of the region in 2010. It will not provide information about future repopulation or continued demographic shifts as a result of Katrina’s lingering aftereffects. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------5
Transportation The location of the New Orleans region along the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico has shaped two extensive and interdependent freight transportation gateways (other than highway) through the urbanized area. Maritime and rail systems converge, producing significant multi‐modal interactions and operations. Multiple ports and a portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway are inside the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In response to maritime development, a parallel expansion of the railroad industry has equipped the New Orleans region as the origination point for six Class I railroads, one regional short line railroad, and the only publicly owned railroad in the State of Louisiana, the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad. The trucking industry, with direct access to the Interstate highway network, services port, rail, and aviation connections at intermodal terminals and has the unique ability among freight transport to make doorstep deliveries outside terminal facilities. Both port and aviation networks are actively pursuing Latin American trade and the expansion of North/South hemispheric markets. The large number of natural and man‐made bodies of water in and around the New Orleans Metropolitan Area also serve as a natural restraint on urban sprawl and provide special challenges to the growth of the passenger transportation system. Many of the congestion problems in the area are related to bottlenecks created by the small number of facilities crossing water features. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that much of the population growth in recent decades has taken place in locations that are physically separated from the central city by water, such as the West Bank of Jefferson Parish and St. Tammany Parish. Despite these challenges, most national measures of highway congestion suggest that for a region of its size, the New Orleans area has relatively moderate congestion. RPC seeks to maintain and improve upon this distinction by more efficiently using the current roadway network, constraining VMT growth by maximizing alternative mode choices, and selectively increasing network capacity. Bus transit service operates in four of the five parishes of the Metropolitan Planning Organization – Orleans (Regional Transit Authority), Jefferson (Jefferson Transit Authority / Regional Transit Authority), St. Bernard (St. Bernard Urban Transit), and St. Tammany (St. Tammany Area Transportation). In addition, the River Parishes Transit Authority operates bus service in St. Charles and St. John Parishes, which are within the MPO’s “planning horizon area.” The Regional Planning Commission continues to encourage increased integration and cooperation between the transit operators, a goal that has become more attainable since the RTA, JeT, and RPTA have each contracted a single firm, Veolia Transportation, for management services. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the Regional Transit Authority had the distinction of having one of the largest riderships per population in the nation. Commuter patterns indicated growing 6---------2040 MTP
linkages between New Orleans East and job centers in East Bank Jefferson Parish such as Elmwood Business Park and Lakeview Shopping Mall and on the West Bank, Avondale Industries. These desired origins and destinations were basically rewriting historic commuter patterns that formerly directed routes to downtown locations. Since Hurricane Katrina, transit ridership has changed significantly in the region. RTA is still the dominant transit provider in the region, but has experienced a 75% decline in ridership, a direct result of the depopulation of New Orleans. Moreover RTA has lost much of its ability to provide adequate service due to a loss of farebox revenues and substantial damage to its vehicle fleet caused by Katrina. The reduced population has also effectively reduced population density in many areas, resulting in areas that are still largely transit dependent not having large enough populations to support fixed‐
route transit service. As a result Veolia has experimented with on‐demand, point pick‐up services using 12 passenger vans. This service has proven to be a costly program and is being phased out in 2010‐2011. In addition, two surface passenger rail lines (Amtrak) serve the New Orleans region, stopping at the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal near the Central Business District. The Sunset Limited train provides service west to Los Angeles three days per week. Service to Jacksonville, Florida was indefinitely suspended after Katrina. The Crescent train runs 7 days per week to New York City, and the City of New Orleans train travels three times per week to Chicago. New Orleans’ Louis Armstrong International Airport experienced a dramatic decline of emplanements and deplanements after Hurricane Katrina, going from a 2004 high of 9.7 million annual boardings to gradually rebuilding to a projected 8 million annual passenger boardings in 2010. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------7
THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Definition of MPO Under federal requirements a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must be designated for each Urbanized Area (UZA) with a population of 50,000 persons or more. Tasked with planning and programming a substantial portion of the federal transportation funds allocated to the region, these Metropolitan Planning Organizations play an integral role in regionally implementing the strategies contained in SAFETEA‐LU. They provide the vehicle to ascertain regional problems, analyze alternatives, and facilitate community involvement when resolving difficulties. Finally, they contribute information to state and federal transportation agencies, furnishing critical feedback in a reiterative communication loop so further enhancements can be made. The Transportation Policy Committee of the Regional Planning commission is the MPO for the New Orleans, Slidell, and Mandeville‐Covington Urbanized areas. There are ten urbanized areas in the state of Louisiana and eight MPOs designated by the governor. The Regional Planning Commission is the only Metropolitan Planning Organization in the state representing three urban areas. Traditionally the primary responsibilities of the Regional Planning Commission have been highway, transit, and transportation management, as well as planning for congestion and air quality performance considerations. However, an increasing awareness of the benefits of a multi‐modal transportation system is leading to an increased emphasis on creating a diversity of transportation choices, including non‐motorized modes. Nationally, vehicle miles travelled (VMT), has grown dramatically, increasing nearly 46% between 1989 and 2009.1 With this kind of dramatic increase in traffic it is critical to encourage the use of a variety of modes and apply skillful management strategies to the elements that influence these figures. The Commission also hosts a policy group called the Transportation Policy Committee, which has final decision‐
making authority concerning federal transportation programs. The RPC broadened the Transportation Policy Committee in 1991, adding significant modal representatives to provide for a broader constituency on regional 1
Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/10jantvt/10jantvt.pdf 8---------2040 MTP
transportation issues. In addition, St. Charles Parish joined the Transportation Policy Committee in May 2001 and St. John the Baptist Parish Joined in January 2002. The eastern edge of St. Charles Parish had been included in the 20 year urban forecast area for many years because of its steady rise in population. St. Charles Parish continues to be represented by South Central Planning in Houma, Louisiana for all other regional planning needs. Other members include representatives from various transportation modes: port; aviation; passenger rail; freight rail; trucking; and, transit, along with current commission members. The Regional Planning commission retains a professional staff with expertise in transportation planning, program management, air quality conformity analysis, environmental planning, and geographic information systems (GIS). The staff works closely with the Commission to formally evaluate the transportation needs of the urban area and make recommendations to the Transportation Policy Committee. RPC staff also facilitates community input, assists in project management, and adheres to and guides the Metropolitan Planning Process outlined in SAFETEA‐LU. The Regional Planning Commission undertakes its role in the planning process through a contractual relationship with the DOTD and several funding administrations within the US Department of Transportation. The tasks to be undertaken in this relationship are defined in a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) prepared each year by the RPC staff. The UPWP provides a summary of all federally‐funded transportation planning activities within the region. Tasks listed within any study design may be carried out by any of the participating agencies and/or their consultants, and may respond to specific problems or to broad policy issues. The UPWP considers a range of possible responses to transportation deficiencies with an emphasis on balanced, financially feasible solutions. Statutory Planning Authority & Funding Sources A major component established by ISTEA (1991) and preserved in SAFETEA‐LU is the statutory thrust to grant the local Metropolitan Planning Organizations with decision‐making authority, legally empowering them with decisive planning and coordination abilities. MPO activities and responsibilities are undertaken pursuant to 23 CFR 450. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------9
The MPO is authorized to act as the focal point, judging the viability of plans, regulating funds, and ranking projects with a broad brush planning approach. Although previously enabled to adhere to a regional perspective, the expanded responsibilities include programming (identifying and prioritizing) all projects in the Urbanized Area. The Regional Planning Commission has direct programming supervision of an annual allocation of approximately $15 million dollars in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, with similar amounts of $17 to $18 million dollars from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funds. In addition to these recurring funds, other discretionary or selective funds are also programmed when available. By law, the MPO must program all SAFETEA‐
LU funds targeted for the Urbanized Area. They must also identify and analyze the impacts of all regionally significant projects funded through state and local general funds, and toll collections or local bond issues. Each year, states, and, in turn the Metropolitan Planning Organizations throughout each state, receive a commitment or obligation of the federal government to pay through the reimbursement of the federal share of project costs. There is a cap on reimbursable amounts, called an obligation ceiling. The funds that are obligated must be used or they may possibly be lost. If scheduled project phases are delayed for any reason, the planned MPO allocation remains with the State Department of Transportation and Development. At the DOTD’s discretion, the DOTD can raise their own obligation ceiling for the year using MPO funds or may allow the MPO to roll it into later years. Substantial changes of responsibility for MPOs occurred in the areas of Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Functioning essentially as block grants, the MPO is allowed to program a substantial portion of the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the largest single source of discretionary funding for urbanized areas outlined in SAFETEA‐LU. STP funding can be applied to projects that cross the historic separations in highway, transit, and non‐motorized transportation, promoting flexibility in the selection of projects in the region. In addition, ten percent of Surface Transportation Program funds are designated for Transportation Enhancement activities. Enhancement activities are applicable to non‐traditional, transportation‐related projects. The state DOTD has chosen to administer this fund source as a state‐wide competitive program. Though municipalities and parishes are generally the project sponsors and principle applicants, the application process requires coordination with the MPO. The RPC has frequently taken the lead in the application process, assisting local applicants to carry out the steps 10---------2040 MTP
necessary for receiving funding. Eligible projects fall under 12 categories and include provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicycles; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; tourist and welcome center facilities; landscaping and scenic beautification; historic preservation; rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings or structures; preservation of abandoned railway corridors; control and removal of outdoor advertising; archeological planning and research; mitigation of water pollution due to highway run‐off or reduction in vehicle caused wildlife mortality while maintaining connectivity; and establishment of transportation museums. Since the inception of the Transportation Enhancement Program, the region has successfully pursued funding for numerous projects, including bicycle paths, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other enhancements. The STP allocation is, therefore, the best reflection of the local priorities and needs in politically diverse regions. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------11
TRANSPORTATION PHILOSOPHY IN LEGISLATION, GUIDANCE, AND BEST PRACTICE
Transportation Philosophy in SAFETEA-LU The significance of ISTEA, TEA‐21, and SAFETEA‐LU was in their comprehensive nature. ISTEA introduced and subsequent legislation upheld a re‐directed federal, state and regional program emphasis by the incorporation of institutional change. It was a purposeful transition for transportation users and providers. Formerly an inflexible, categorical funding strategy existed, conceptually and fiscally separating highway and transit systems. These bills encouraged flexibility in funding across traditional categories and agencies formed in previous decades when other needs, distinct for those periods, were in focus. They also moved to encourage flexible funding within regions in order to address the specific concerns of communities. In particular, the new comprehensive view promoted improved operational strategies, intermodal solutions to problems, safety requirements, traffic monitoring and management systems, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes and roadway enhancements. It also encompassed traditional highway building and maintenance issues. Early transportation philosophy was dominated by large highway construction projects, especially when the construction of the interstate system was a priority. The shift in emphasis found in ISTEA demanded more interaction with the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Each of these new federal laws played a role in setting the performance standards for air quality and meeting transit requirements of disabled Americans under ISTEA and subsequent legislation. In addition, for the first time diverse transportation interests also clamored for representation. ISTEA culminated the growing cognizance that the transportation environment was made up of wide‐ranging interests and needs. As a result of the emphasis placed on reducing pollution and increasing alternatives to the automobile, ISTEA endorsed transit projects and issues. Demonstrating long‐term credibility of the concept, TEA‐21 and SAFETEA‐LU supported and enacted similar language. Consideration of preservation and identification of used and unused rights‐of‐ways for future transit corridors, the establishment of a methodology to expand and enhance transit services; and, capital investments resulting in increased security for transit systems were all emphasized. While six new management systems were recommended, TEA‐21 mandated that MPO’s develop only one, a Congestion Management Plan. SAFETEA‐LU expanded the mandate to broaden the scope of congestion management 12---------2040 MTP
as a collaborative effort between the MPO, state, and local operators of major transportation modes in the coverage area. The Regional Planning Commission has assisted local jurisdictions to produce a Pavement Management Plan and has assisted several local communities in developing the tools necessary to implement a pavement management system, and has informally, but no less rigorously effectuated plans and projects for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Intermodal Transportation Systems. For example, the recently opened Regional Transportation Management Center represents a joint effort between the Louisiana DOTD and the Regional Planning Commission. The center integrates Intelligent Transportation Systems from across the region and will be used to coordinate and improve operations of the region’s transportation system. While ISTEA incorporated a new planning paradigm of Fifteen Metropolitan Planning Factors, TEA‐21 condensed them into seven factors, and SAFETEA‐LU introduced an eighth planning factor – Security (See Appendix A for a listing of all eight planning factors). The Planning Factors are established as an integral piece of the selection and criteria policy framework used to guide the parameters of any project evaluation. Ultimately it was recognized that for the U.S. to compete effectively in the fluctuating world market, financial accountability and constraint; cost effectiveness; community support and extensive community input must be mandated. The link to economic development considerations established under ISTEA were continued under TEA‐21, and enhanced further in SAFETEA‐LU. Beyond SAFETEA-LU
A successor bill to SAFETEA‐LU is expected to be drafted and approved by Congress in the near future, and the RPC has attempted to use recent federal guidance and current transportation planning best practices to anticipate potential policy emphasis areas in the preparation of this MTP. Several of the more significant issues are discussed below. Accessibility vs. Mobility One of the most significant trends in transportation planning philosophy in both practice and policy is a shift away from maximizing personal mobility towards optimizing accessibility. In other words, the primary measure of the effectiveness of a transportation system is how easily one can access basic needs, work, recreation, and amenities (i.e. accessibility), as opposed to evaluating a transportation system based on how far and how quickly one can travel (i.e. mobility). This is a fundamental paradigm shift that more accurately recognizes the purpose of urban transportation: a Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------13
means by which users accomplish necessary or desired tasks. Striving to improve accessibility more fully recognizes that people use the transportation system to achieve certain tasks such as going to work, shopping, or accessing community amenities. The narrower focus on maximizing mobility assumes that the user’s primary goal is to travel as far and as fast as possible. Transportation’s Multiple Interrelationships Another important concept that has received increasing recognition is the interrelationship between transportation and other important issues affecting metropolitan areas, most notably land use, the economy, the environment, and quality of life. These connections were first acknowledged in legislation in ISTEA, and policy emphasis on them has steadily increased since then. Land Use: The density and mix of land uses has a strong impact on the transportation modes that can most effectively serve them; conversely, available transportation options will affect the types of land uses that develop. Economy: A quality transportation system is essential to a well‐functioning economy. It is the means by which goods and services are delivered, workers access employment, and customers reach businesses. Strategic investment in transportation infrastructure can have a profound effect on economic development. Environment: The effects of transportation on the environment are twofold. First, vehicles and infrastructure are direct sources of pollution, such as vehicle emissions and urban runoff. Second, the natural resources and human activities required to sustain and interact with the built environment are greatly determined by land use patterns, which in turn have a strong relationship with transportation. Quality of Life: The ease with which people can access basic needs, recreation, and community amenities directly affects their quality of life, a concept that is also closely tied to the economy and environment. Efficient Use of the Existing Transportation System A number of important considerations have led to an increasing emphasis on more efficient uses of existing transportation infrastructure, as opposed to constructing new additions to the system. First, basic fiscal responsibility dictates that if operational effectiveness can be improved through lower‐cost measures rather than costly new construction projects, they should be pursued first. Similarly the increasing scarcity of maintenance funds combined 14---------2040 MTP
with aging infrastructure has lead transportation agencies to more carefully consider taking on future maintenance obligations that they may not be able to satisfy. Finally, the construction of new transportation infrastructure may not always be the most effective way to address transportation problems and delays. In a phenomenon known as “induced demand,” increasing infrastructure supply can frequently lead to a corresponding increase in travel demand, resulting in a higher capacity system that has the same problems and delays that existed before “improvements” were made. Recognizing the difficulties and limitations of adding new transportation infrastructure has lead to policies and projects that attempt to improve system performance through multiple strategies, with new construction only taking place when all other options have been exhausted and after careful consideration. Diversity of Choices For several decades transportation planning and construction in the U.S. was primarily concerned with accommodating automobile travel. This focus, accompanied by large‐scale infrastructure construction projects, resulted in a national highway system of unprecedented quality and extent. However, creation of such an impressive system meant that single‐occupant vehicles were given priority over public transit, walking, biking, and rail; as accommodations for each of these modes declined, so too did people’s ability to use them. Entire communities have been planned and built around accommodating cars, and many Americans are automobile‐dependent, having lost the freedom to choose the transportation mode that most appropriately fits their needs. Recent transportation policy has sought to correct this imbalance by funding and encouraging projects that will create a diversity of transportation choices, especially within metropolitan regions. While private automobiles will always be the preferred mode of choice for many people, developing a more balanced transportation system offers people the opportunity to choose a mode of transportation that best fits the requirements of individuals and families. Performance‐Based, Objectives‐Driven Planning A practice that has become increasingly important is the use of decision‐making processes that clearly identify objectives and the performance measures used to evaluate their achievement. Measurable objectives bring a level of accountability to the planning process, and allow both planners and the public to evaluate the success of various initiatives. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------15
Stakeholder Participation Transportation systems that effectively serve the public cannot be developed without significant input and guidance from the affected stakeholders. For this reason more sophisticated and robust public outreach methods are continually being developed and refined, and the importance of stakeholder input on program development and project selection continues to grow. The value of public participation has been acknowledged in legislation at all levels of government, and its inclusion in the planning process can only be expected to become increasingly common and necessary in the future. Smart Growth Smart Growth, as defined by the Smart Growth Network, is development that serves the economy, community, and environment. Smart Growth evolved as both a social and fiscal response to the impacts of unplanned development on local and regional infrastructure and quality of life. It is an outcome‐oriented movement that applies sustainable, equitable development principles to current development practices. These development principles include the belief that communities should strive for: Mixed land uses; Compact building design; Mixed housing opportunities including different styles and levels of affordability; Walkable neighborhoods; Distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; Preservation of open space, environmentally sensitive land, and culturally significant areas/buildings; Reinvestment in existing buildings/communities and balanced regional development; mixed transportation options; fair, cost‐effective development options; and active citizen participation in the development process. Many of these principles align naturally with the RPC’s mandate and the concepts previously discussed in this chapter. SUMMARY The transportation philosophy promulgated in SAFETEA‐LU, and the best practices that have developed in subsequent years, reflect a trend towards a more holistic approach to transportation that acknowledges the need for more balanced planning that is well integrated with other important issues. Transportation systems should be safe and effective, but should also contribute to economic development, community livability, and environmental sustainability. Moreover, the decision‐making process should include both objective measures of success and stakeholder input, with a constant emphasis on optimizing the efficient use of the existing system. As will be discussed later, the RPC has sought to incorporate these concepts into this Metropolitan Transportation Plan as well as its other initiatives through various policies and programs, such as its Smart Growth Policy and Complete Streets 16---------2040 MTP
Advisory Committee. These are intended to influence the development of the future transportation system in a manner that most effectively meets the wide variety of the region’s current and future needs. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------17
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN OVERVIEW
Introduction
There are two complementary planning documents to meet the MPO responsibilities to prioritize projects in the urbanized area. The first, required pursuant to 23 CFR 450.322, is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). It is the chief legal document reflecting the resources, the fundamental planning process, and the selection of projects for the region. The MTP describes the long‐term transportation needs and goals over the next 30 years. The second, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), details funding and programming for the first four to five years of the plan. Pursuant to changes in the Air Quality status of the region, as well as regulatory changes brought about by SAFETEA‐LU, the RPC reviews the MTP every four years and the TIP is completed (revised) bi‐annually. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan is a 30‐year forecast of transportation improvements and projected funding in the Metropolitan Planning Organization urbanized area. It incorporates policy considerations and related long term impacts. Discussions with parish officials and planning departments encompass land use changes, population growth and density patterns, and commercial and residential zoning questions. Any effects, achieved or desired, resulting from improved Transportation System Management, are also carefully included when writing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Being fiscally constrained, the MTP must be revised every four years so those incoming or newly identified projects can rotate on to the list if they are deemed a high priority. All regionally significant projects are identified in the plan regardless of their funding source; and, in many cases, projects are funded with combinations of state, federal, and local funds. The Transportation Improvement Program for the New Orleans UZA is a bi‐annual update of the first five years of the MTP. This provides an immediate map for upcoming projects and follow‐up phasing. It is a baseline, specifically for the first two years, while years three to five give an outline of projects in the pipeline. It is the opinion of the Commission that the inclusion of these future projects is warranted to best inform all stakeholders well in advance of potential start dates. No project will be accepted into the annual Transportation Improvement Program unless it is in accordance with the policies, goals, objectives, strategies, or projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 18---------2040 MTP
Projects which surface from local parish initiatives often overlap high priority deficiencies discovered in RPC evaluations for the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Should similar parish and MPO priority projects exist, trades can be worked out between the RPC and parish programs to improve the implementation schedules for regionally significant projects. Often locally funded projects can move faster than those requiring federal funds. Thus, it is paramount that the MPO and parishes interact cooperatively, cultivating a good relationship to move high priority projects quickly. As always, all regionally significant projects are reflected in the TIP and MTP documents. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
The Goals set forth in the MTP will serve as guides for program and strategy selection. By orienting projects toward clearly defined goals, the RPC can ensure its efforts will achieve desired transportation outcomes. Satisfying specific objectives will mark progress towards goal achievement, and pre‐determined performance measures will serve as evaluation tools to reach stated objectives. This model for goal achievement is substantially more thorough and well‐
defined than previous iterations of the MTP, and is in keeping with a growing emphasis on objectives‐driven, performance‐based planning. The use of clearly defined goals and objectives is expected to help the RPC monitor the outcomes of its own work, as well as provide a greater level of accountability to the public and elected officials. Federal guidance encourages the use of “SMART” objectives, which can be explained as follows: Specific – Objectives should clearly state a desired end result Measurable – The results of an objective should be able to be quantified or objectively evaluated Agreed – Stakeholders have reached a consensus about the objective’s ability to help the region progress toward the achievement of a stated goal Realistic – Achievement of the objective can reasonably be expected to occur Time‐bound – The objective states a specific time period in which it shall be achieved or completed The RPC has incorporated this guidance into the MTP and other initiatives. Wherever possible, attempts have been made to use SMART objectives to mark the achievement of broader goals. The objectives outlined in this plan were each created to adhere as closely as possible to the SMART criteria. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------19
Development Process 
o
o

o
o
Goals, objectives, and performance measures were developed through consultation with 3 sources, (1) the general public; (2) federal, regional, state, and local stakeholder agencies; and (3) RPC staff. Guided by its Public Involvement Plan, the RPC has pursued multiple means to solicit public input on the development of the MTP’s Goals and Objectives. A transportation opinion survey was developed and distributed by the RPC, in both paper form and online, and at the writing of this plan has received over 300 responses. The results of the survey have been compiled, statistically analyzed, and summarized for use in all of the RPC’s planning efforts. RPC staff have also conducted several neighborhood‐specific information sharing meetings with the dual purpose of informing residents of the RPC’s purpose and to solicit opinions, advice, and concerns about future policies and projects. Finally, a region‐wide public information meeting was held prior to the writing of this plan to offer an additional forum for the public to interact with RPC staff and provide input into the planning process. It is important to note that Public Involvement is an ongoing process at the RPC, as outlined by its Public Involvement Plan. Public input is considered at all stages of the planning and project development process. See the next section of this plan, “Project Selection Process,” for further explanation of the role of public involvement in the selection of specific projects in the MTP. For the purpose of Goals and Objectives development, RPC staff have identified and incorporated the major, recurring issues and themes in public surveys and meetings. The major concerns and comments are summarized below, and individual comments are listed in Appendix D. Roads – Input on roadways focused on the repair and upgrading of the existing system, specifically: Repair of damaged or deteriorated roadways is critical, as is adequate maintenance. Traffic operations controls should be improved to reduce congestion, including traffic signals, signage, intersection geometry, and particularly the provision of more left turn lanes. Public Transit – Comments regarding public transit generally indicated that more people would use transit if the following issues are addressed: Lack of service reliability is a major problem and a deterrent to higher transit usage. A greater level of transit connectivity is necessary, particularly between parishes and to areas outside of central New Orleans, including New Orleans East, the Lower Ninth Ward, and the New Orleans International Airport. 20---------2040 MTP
o
o

o
o
o
The construction of more streetcar lines is strongly desired by many residents, and streetcars are generally preferred over buses as a mode of transit. Public transit should be made easier to use by better signage, maps, fare systems, and traveler information systems. Non‐motorized Transportation – Lack of safety for pedestrians and cyclists was a frequently commented‐on topic. Areas for improvement include: There is a strong desire for more bicycle facilities, particularly bike lanes, to improve safety and connectivity for cyclists. The repair and maintenance of roads is as important to cyclists as it is to drivers. Sidewalks are deteriorated and in need of repair and maintenance. Federal, regional, state, and local stakeholder agencies also significantly influenced the goals and objectives set forth in this plan, and will further be important partners in their achievement. The RPC works extensively with Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and other federal agencies on various programs and initiatives. This relationship allows for an ongoing conversation about the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of federal agencies in the metropolitan transportation planning process. Similarly, the RPC maintains close ties with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and has used that experience to shape this plan. Perhaps most importantly, the region’s member parishes, municipalities, and transit operators each have a strong influence on the long‐term direction of RPC’s planning efforts. Input from local stakeholders is one of the strongest determinants of the RPC’s activities at all levels – from broad‐brush, long‐term goals to project‐specific implementation strategies. Using all available stakeholder input, the RPC’s staff is responsible for finalizing the goals and objectives laid out in the MTP, and for developing the performance measures that will be used to evaluate their achievement. Staff offer expertise in a variety of topics, including transportation, land use, environment, economic development, information technology, and Geographic Information Systems. Moreover, the RPC staff has significant experience in resolving the often conflicting goals of stakeholders to develop programs and projects that benefit the entire region. MTP 2040 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures The Goals described below will serve to direct the RPC’s long‐term planning efforts. They broadly state the RPC’s role in planning for the most important transportation‐related issues in the region. Several Objectives are listed for each Goal. These are specific statements of desired future conditions that, if achieved, will serve to accomplish the broader Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------21
Goal. For each Objective, Example Strategies are listed to illustrate the types of policies, programs, or projects that could be used to satisfy the given Objective. It should be noted that these are provided as examples only; the specific projects that the RPC plans to implement are discussed in Part II of the MTP. Finally, Performance Measures have been developed for each Objective. These are quantitative or objective measures that will be used to assess the achievement of particular Objectives. As discussed previously, the Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures listed below were developed with significant stakeholder input and RPC staff expertise. They conform with the letter and spirit of federal transportation legislation (SAFETEA‐LU), and further incorporate applicable federal guidance and transportation planning best practices. Goal 1: Safety – Continually improve the safety of the regional transportation system for all users. Safety is the first priority of any transportation planning, construction, or improvement process. It is the RPC’s responsibility to the public to ensure that the transportation system is as safe as possible. The commission and its staff are committed to protecting the health and wellbeing of the region’s residents and visitors. Transportation projects will only be advanced if they include all possible considerations for the maintenance or improvement of system safety, regardless of the purpose of the project. Moreover, the RPC will continue to implement projects with the explicit purpose of improving system safety. Objective 1A — Reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes Example Strategies Coordinate efforts with the State of Louisiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan Identify common crash types (e.g., road departures), and address through low cost, system‐wide improvements. Identify high fatality locations and prioritize safety improvements. Performance Measures Overall crash rates Fatalities caused by motor vehicle crashes 22---------2040 MTP
Objective 1B — Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety Example Strategies Performance Measures Include the consideration of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements within the larger planning process Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities Maintain or repair existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities Conduct outreach and education programs for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists Miles of bike facilities Number of striped and/or signed crosswalks Number of vehicle‐pedestrian crashes Number of vehicle‐bicycle crashes Objective 1C — Improve transit safety and security Example Strategies Implement Advanced Public Transportation System technologies that reduce the likelihood of transit vehicle crashes Identify and implement methods for reducing criminal activity on transit vehicles and at transit stops Performance Measures Number of transit vehicle crashes Number of crimes committed on transit vehicles or at transit stops Goal 2: Livable Communities – Coordinate transportation investments with other community needs to strategically foster more livable neighborhoods and an overall higher quality of life for the region. The transportation system is inextricably linked to community livability. It is the physical link through which people connect with each other, access work, recreation, and basic necessities. A seamless, easy‐to‐use transportation system improves community livability by making everyday tasks easier to accomplish. Offering residents a range of transportation choices that can fit their specific needs contributes to their quality of life, and has an overall positive impact on the community. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------23
Moreover, the physical infrastructure that makes up the transportation system forms a large, integral part of every community’s public space. It has a direct and powerful impact on the physical appearance of a community, and more importantly the manner in which community members can interact with each other and their living environment. This important connection means that transportation infrastructure strongly impacts a community’s dynamics, its sense of identity, and its residents’ quality of life – all of which contribute to the overall concept of community livability. Recognizing the impact that its work has on the community, the RPC will seek to implement projects that have a positive impact on community livability. Achieving this goal will require the consideration of project impacts beyond basic measures of mobility, such as accessibility and context‐sensitive design. Improving livability may also require coordination with entities that have not traditionally been a part of the transportation planning process, including housing agencies, economic development organizations, and advocacy groups. Integrating the RPC’s efforts with those of other, non‐transportation related agencies is key to improving overall community livability. Objective 2A — Offer travelers greater mode choice by improving the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of public transit Example Strategies Decrease headways and improve system reliability through the use of ITS, improved vehicles, and/or expanded fixed‐guideway service Facilitate greater coordination between transit operators Work with transit operators to ensure that routes are planned in a way that offers all residents reasonable access to transit Performance Measures Average headways On‐time performance Ridership & Mode Share Percentage of population within walking distance of transit 24---------2040 MTP
Objective 2B — Improve motor vehicle travel by reducing congestion Example Strategies Continued implementation of the RPC’s Congestion Management Process Improve operational effectiveness of existing roadways Increase roadway capacity Performance Measures RPC’s Congestion Management Index Hours of delay Travel time reliability Objective 2C — Ensure that walking and biking are convenient and safe modes of transportation within and between neighborhoods. Example Strategies Performance Measures Miles of bike or pedestrian facilities constructed, improved, or repaired Number of crosswalks installed or upgraded Construction of bike lanes, paths, and shared use facilities Construction and repair of sidewalks Installation and upgrading of crosswalks Installation of secure bike parking facilities Objective 2D — Design and implement all projects in a manner that is sensitive to the social and environmental context of the affected communities, taking special care to positively impact traditionally disadvantaged or underserved populations Example Strategies Conduct public outreach throughout the project feasibility and design process to identify community needs and concerns Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------25
Consult with relevant elected officials during the project development process Identify the potential impacts of projects on traditionally disadvantaged or underserved populations Include the consideration of aesthetics, scale, and community impact in all decision‐making processes Invest in projects that explicitly seek to improve the appearance of the transportation system Performance Measures Input from general public and elected officials regarding implemented projects Projects implemented or funds invested towards the improvement of transportation infrastructure for aesthetic or community livability purposes Objective 2E — Invest in transportation improvements that increase the accessibility of jobs, affordable housing, recreation, shopping, and other needs. Example Strategies During project development, ensure impacts on access are included in feasibility and design analyses Develop methods for assessing accessibility of various needs from analysis areas Performance Measures Accessibility, as measured by travel time per mode from analysis areas to basic needs Goal 3: State of Good Repair – Protect and maximize previous investments through comprehensive and timely infrastructure maintenance and modernization. The transportation system in the New Orleans region developed over centuries and continues to evolve. It represents a massive public investment that provides the backbone for nearly all the activities that take place in the region. Given the significance of the system, its maintenance is one of the RPC’s most important tasks. The RPC recognizes that system preservation does not simply extend the useful life of investments made in the past; it also prevents the need for expensive mitigation of the effects of deferred maintenance. A balance must also be struck between the construction of new infrastructure and more efficient use of the existing system. New infrastructure can take the burden off of parts of an aging system, but will in turn stretch 26---------2040 MTP
maintenance resources even thinner. More efficient use and preservation of the existing system can be less expensive than new construction, but an overburdened system sacrifices functionality and requires more frequent and intensive maintenance. The RPC is mindful of this challenge and will continue to strive for a strategic balance between preservation and new construction. In the past preservation projects such as overlaying or reconstructing roadways have been a substantial component of the RPC’s work program, and they will remain so. The RPC will also continue to support the preservation of infrastructure critical to other modes, such as transit vehicles and sidewalks, by working with partner agencies and providing guidance and assistance where necessary. Objective 3A — Maintain an inventory of the major components of the regional transportation system and their conditions. Example Strategies Identify and coordinate methods used by the state, parishes, transit operators, and other partner agencies to track the condition of their relevant properties. Utilize GIS to track deficiencies in major infrastructure Performance Measures Percentage of network for which condition data is available Implementation of maintenance tracking programs by partner agencies Objective 3B — Proactively identify upcoming preservation needs and ensure they are completed in a timely manner. Example Strategies Coordinate with partner agencies to identify and prioritize preservation tasks Implement preservation projects before infrastructure deterioration impacts safety or system performance Performance Measures Pavement Quality indices Other infrastructure condition measures Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------27
Objective 3C — Select and implement projects that minimize the need for construction of new infrastructure, while recognizing that new infrastructure is often necessary to prevent overburdening of the current system. Example Strategies Include considerations of all non‐construction alternatives in the project development process When outcomes are similar, give preference and priority to projects that preserve existing infrastructure rather than requiring new construction Coordinate with partner agencies to encourage transportation uses and development patterns that do not require new infrastructure Performance Measures Ratio of preservation projects to new construction projects Goal 4: Economic Competitiveness – Utilize the strong link between infrastructure and the economy to encourage economic development, growth, and resiliency. Transportation infrastructure directly impacts the regional economy in a number of important ways. It provides a means for workers to access employment, and allows customers to access businesses. Businesses use it to deliver goods and services, and it is the means by which visitors reach the region. Finally, the shipment of goods to, from, and through the region via all freight modes is a significant source of employment and revenue. The transportation system also plays a critical role in future economic development. Business decisions are made in part based on the available transportation infrastructure because of the need to receive and send goods and services, and for customer access. Due to this relationship transportation investments can have a significant influence on the location of new development as well as the economic revitalization of existing areas. Public transit service to a neighborhood can support new and existing businesses, and the widening of a highway in an undeveloped area can draw new development. Alternatively, lack of access can contribute to loss of customers and economic decline in a neighborhood, or serve as a disincentive to new investment. 28---------2040 MTP
The significant relationship between transportation and the economy means that the RPC’s transportation decisions can have a substantial impact on the regional economy, as well as the development or revitalization of specific locations throughout the region. Individuals are also impacted in their ability to access jobs, affordable housing, and basic needs, an especially important consideration for traditionally disadvantaged or underserved populations. The RPC has a responsibility to not only recognize these impacts, but to strategically direct its transportation investments to those projects which will have the most positive impact on the strength and resiliency of the regional economy, both now and in the future. Objective 4A — Invest in projects that improve freight movements and improve the region’s competitiveness in global and domestic shipping markets, taking advantage of the region’s unique location along several major freight corridors. Example Strategies Maintain an inventory of intermodal facilities, the connections to them, and their condition Garner input from freight facility operators and freight carriers Foster relationships with freight stakeholders that are traditionally not part of the planning process, such as forwarders, brokers, and 3PLs Include freight considerations in the development phases of all projects Develop a methodology for introducing freight‐specific projects into the RPCs overall program Performance Measures Percentage of program dedicated to freight Number of projects advanced with freight‐related components Freight project identification methodology Objective 4B — Use infrastructure investments to encourage economic growth, development, and revitalization in strategic locations. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------29
Example Strategies Invest in projects that may have a demonstrable positive impact on economic growth Select for implementation projects that can increase the flow of people to and from areas in need of economic revitalization Require the potential economic impacts of a project be considered in the project development process Performance Measures Investment dollars in economically struggling areas Use of economic consideration as project prioritization and selection criteria Objective 4C — Ensure that the transportation system equitably serves all members of the community. Example Strategies Use GIS and other analysis tools to determine the relationship of potential projects to traditionally disadvantaged or underserved neighborhoods and businesses Work with community stakeholders to identify the transportation needs of residents and businesses Implement projects that explicitly seek to improve job access and economic development in neighborhoods that have high populations of traditionally disadvantaged or underserved populations Utilize the RPC’s Title VI Plan to ensure that projects are chosen and implemented in a just and equitable manner Ensure that all projects meet the requirements of the mobility impaired Assist local jurisdictions in implementing ADA Transition Plans Performance Measure Projects implemented and dollars invested in traditionally disadvantaged or underserved populations 30---------2040 MTP
Objective 4D — Continue to support a regional transportation system that meets the mobility and accessibility needs of businesses and workers. Example Strategies Proactively identify and plan for the transportation needs of portions of the region with growing employment and/or population Ensure that multiple transportation modes serve major employment centers, and that each is adequately connected to relevant populations Establish outreach programs to educate employers and commuters about the benefits of non‐SOV commuting Performance Measures Changes in congestion in rapidly growing areas Number of transit connections, bike facilities, and pedestrian accommodations in major employment centers Percentage of population that has access to employment centers via different modes Establishment of and participation in regional commuter outreach program Goal 5: Environmental Sustainability – Develop a transportation system that encourages travel behavior, energy consumption, and land use decisions that contribute to environmental sustainability. An ever increasing awareness of the impact transportation has on the environment has led planners to give a greater consideration to environmental sustainability in their decisions and recommendations. The effects of fossil fuel use on air quality are well documented, as are the impacts on water quality by urban runoff caused by non‐
point source polluters such as automobiles. These issues are particularly important in areas like Southeast Louisiana, which is both home to large swaths of sensitive wetlands and is predicted to experience significant negative consequences resulting from global climate change. Travel by Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) has a particularly strong role in these impacts, and is a mode that RPC can have substantial influence over. However, most modes, including freight rail, transit, maritime and air, have some impact on environmental quality. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------31
Transportation decisions also affect environmental sustainability through the relationship between transportation and land use patterns. New or improved transportation infrastructure can encourage new development or more intensive land uses, which have the potential to degrade the environment if not properly managed. In turn land use patterns that are largely dependent on automobile access can increase the demand for SOV travel, further contributing to environmental degradation. Recognition of the potential for transportation decisions to affect development patterns, and consequently environmental quality, requires the RPC to closely consider and plan for the impacts of its implemented projects. In practice this can mean supporting the implementation of projects that encourage infill development, more intensive land uses in already developed areas, and more selective implementation of transportation projects that will induce greenfield development or increase demand for SOV travel. Considerations of environmental sustainability also indicate the need for increased transportation mode choice, giving travelers the ability to choose the mode that best meets their needs while also resulting in the least severe environmental impact. Such strategies are not intended to inhibit economic growth or eschew the land use and travel preferences of regional stakeholders. In fact, through more efficient and strategic land uses and transportation choices, both economic development and quality of life can be enhanced while also contributing to environmental sustainability. Objective 5A — Improve air quality through cleaner transportation choices Example Strategies Implement programs to encourage travelers to take more trips using more environmentally sustainable modes, and educate the public on the importance and availability of such systems Participate in and implement projects that encourage the use of more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles for private transportation, public transit, and freight Performance Measures Demonstrable progress towards attainment of air quality standards as defined in the Clean Air Act Mode share of transit, walking, and biking Use of fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles 32---------2040 MTP
Objective 5B — Encourage land uses that minimize adverse environmental impacts and do not induce unsustainable travel behaviors Example Strategies Work with partner agencies that have control over land use policy to develop policies that encourage sustainable land use patterns Include the short‐ and long‐term land use impacts of transportation investments during the project development process Performance Measures Local Land Use Policies Inclusion of land use impacts in the project development process Increases in VMT in previously undeveloped or rural areas Project Selection Process
Project selection criteria or standards used by the Regional Planning Commission to evaluate a particular solution (or alternative solutions) actually represent a process, not a quantifiable list of parameters. The criterion used is dependent on the problems presented. The original ISTEA helped to establish clear air quality and noise level performance standards, yet most criterion cannot be expressed easily in data points; i.e., improving the quality of life. Alternative solutions may also have different goals in mind. For example, one solution may promote economic development and potential job growth while another may benefit an at‐risk population in the city. In other words, juxtaposed goals can influence the criteria used. For this reason the criterion used is actually a series of questions, which not only relate to problem identification, but also to the capacity of perceived solutions to resolve a problem. The process must also take into consideration the impact on the entire transportation program and its dynamics. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------33
1. A rough outline of the project evaluation prioritization process is listed below. Has the concern expressed over a problem been echoed generally through the community, or does it come from a particular interest group? 2. What persons or groups are in opposition (to proposed solutions) and why? 3. Does the project clearly address the problem being identified? 4. Is the problem a dynamic one? In other words, is it actually more than one problem? Does it need to be addressed by a series of inter‐related solutions? 5. If a problem requires implementation of multiple solutions, should they be implemented simultaneously or in phases? 6. Is implementation feasible? (Politically, fiscally, environmentally) 7. What other projects already underway might currently address the problem, in whole or in part? 8. Have there been similar problems elsewhere with applied solutions that demonstrate project worthiness? 9. What financial resources exist to solve the problem? 10. What are the financial constraints? Can they be resolved by phased implementation? 11. What are the potential impacts (fiscal, social, and environmental) of possible solutions? 12. What are the potential impacts if the problem is not addressed? There are a tremendous number of needed projects while resources are limited and variable from year to year. The project determinations are made, therefore, within a dynamic system, responding to deficiencies in the transportation networks identified through technical study, and to community needs identified through the participatory political processes. 34---------2040 MTP
As events occur over the course of time and the region matures, the planning process will reflect modification of factors shaping the planning criteria. Legislated changes in policy and funding, technological advancements and new relevant information are constantly blended into current considerations. Additionally, input from the Transportation Policy Committee representatives, the technical advisory committee, the RPC staff and the public participation process help bring the best criteria into focus. To aid the project selection and development process, the RPC engages in several programs aimed at clarifying needs and developing project and policy recommendations. Some of these are required by law, while others have been initiated by the RPC in recognition of local needs. In all cases, these programs are intended to identify the transportation needs of specific constituencies or interests that may not otherwise be brought to light during the project selection and development process. Together they ensure a metropolitan transportation planning process that takes a comprehensive view of the complex needs of the region. Several of the major programs that contribute to the project selection and development process are briefly described below. Public Participation Policy – As discussed previously, public input into the planning process is critical in the development of policies and projects that effectively serve the region’s population. To provide an opportunity for general public input on the metropolitan transportation planning process, the RPC has developed a Public Involvement Plan and initiated multiple strategies for soliciting input. Multiple public outreach meetings have been held to garner general opinions on Goal and Objective development for this plan, as well as project and policy recommendations. In addition the RPC will continue to use its Transportation Opinion Survey to monitor public opinion regarding specific projects as well as overarching policies. The initial round of responses to the survey were used in the development of the MTP’s Goals and Objectives, and the RPC has chosen to make the survey continually available to area residents. Results will be periodically tabulated and analyzed to determine shifting trends in public opinion, needs, and project recommendations. Regional Livability Initiative — The RPC is currently developing a program that will attempt to enhance community livability by outlining regional goals for managing growth and development. The program is based on significant stakeholder input, and seeks a balance between the needs of transportation, land use, economic growth, and community livability. RPC staff are working with stakeholders regionwide to develop a consensus on basic principles for growth and development that will enhance livability while at the same time meeting the transportation and land use needs of businesses and individuals. The program represents RPC’s incorporation of the Smart Growth concept Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------35
into the regional planning process, and recognizes Smart Growth as an overarching philosophy and planning approach rather than a simple set of strategies or individual projects. Once the livability principles are agreed upon, a series of indicators will be developed to determine the extent to which development matches the principles. The indicators will in turn be used to develop policies and strategies that can direct the RPC’s activities to encourage future development that enhances community livability. Complete Streets Advisory Committee — The term “Complete Streets” is rapidly gaining acceptance nationwide, and grows from the concept that on many streets planning should focus on the movement of people rather than the movement of vehicles. In practice this means designing streets to accommodate safe, efficient travel for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and automobiles. The Complete Streets Advisory Committee was established in 2010 as a means to incorporate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access considerations into the RPC’s project development process. Committee members will be asked to evaluate the proposed projects for the potential inclusion of Complete Streets design features, and make project and policy recommendations to the RPC. Committee membership consists of citizens and advocacy groups from throughout the region. Technical advisors from various backgrounds also actively participate, providing expertise and recommendations to the Committee as necessary. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy Plan — In the upcoming months the RPC will seek expert and stakeholder input to develop a plan for reducing transportation‐related greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Community policymakers, leaders, and experts will be invited to attend a workshop to educate stakeholders about the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change and to solicit their input on strategies and policies for reducing emissions in the region. The primary goals of the workshop will be to achieve a consensus on greenhouse gas emission priorities and mitigation strategies to be included in a formal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy Plan. The plan itself will be produced by the RPC with further stakeholder input during the development process. It will contain policy and strategy recommendations that will ultimately help the RPC select and implement projects that will reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Intermodal Freight Planning Initiative — The RPC has recently initiated an intermodal freight planning program with the intent of more fully incorporating the needs of freight operations into the metropolitan transportation planning process. The New Orleans region is one of the nation’s busiest freight destinations, and the maritime, rail, air, and truck cargo operators have needs unique from individual travelers. They furthermore have a substantial 36---------2040 MTP
impact on non‐freight related transportation, particularly contributing to traffic congestion. The RPC is currently surveying and interviewing individual rail, maritime, and freight cargo terminal operators to determine their needs at both the policy and project‐specific levels. Trucking interests are also being included via consultation with industry groups and individual carriers. The freight planning effort will result in an inventory of freight facilities and operations in the region, accompanied by project and policy recommendations. Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan — The purpose of the Coordinated Plan is to identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and those with low incomes or financial resources, or those who are otherwise transportation disadvantaged. Special needs transportation is defined as any type of transportation that is suited to meet the travel needs of the transportation disadvantaged population. Such transportation options are as diverse as the populations they serve and the needs those populations have. This includes standard public transit fixed‐route service to specialized demand response paratransit, ridesharing, taxi vouchers, and reimbursed volunteer drivers. The travel need itself can vary from access to work, medical care, childcare, education, and entertainment. The Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services plan describes the challenges of efficiently and effectively providing public transport to the special needs, transportation disadvantaged populations within the New Orleans region, and provides potential strategies for confronting and overcoming these challenges. The Coordinated Plan therefore allows the RPC to consider the needs of the transportation disadvantaged within the larger planning process, and to implement needed programs when appropriate. Congestion Management Process — Federal legislation requires the RPC to maintain a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that attempts to identify and mitigate regional traffic congestion. The CMP has recently been updated, and focuses on 4 main tasks: (1) Defining and Identifying Congestion, (2) Selecting Congestion Reduction Strategies, (3) Implementing Strategies, and (4) Monitoring and Evaluating Performance. The CMP is an ongoing attempt to identify projects and policies that will reduce traffic congestion regionwide, with a special focus on those routes identified as most significant to regional mobility and accessibility. Relying heavily on stakeholder input and an ever‐
expanding data collection program, the Process is an ongoing effort by the RPC to formally document its effort to maintain and improve the efficiency with which people and goods move throughout the region. The CMP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is charged with developing specific project and policy recommendations for consideration by the RPC for inclusion in the MTP and TIP. Representatives from the state, parishes, and transit operators are invited Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------37
to participate in the TAC, which is also responsible for identifying the locations of severe congestion and evaluating the success of implemented congestion mitigation strategies. ADA Compliance and Transition Plans — The Americans with Disabilities Act and related regulations lay out a number of policies that direct transportation projects to be accessible for all users regardless of physical disabilities. During the project development process the RPC ensures that all of its projects will meet ADA requirements. It is also assisting member parishes and municipalities in the development of their Section 504 ADA Transition Plans. Local governments are required to develop plans that identify ADA deficiencies and outline a schedule and budget for addressing them. While MPO’s are not required to develop Transition Plans, they are responsible for monitoring local governments’ progress towards developing Transition Plans, setting priorities, and identifying funding commitments. Title VI — Title VI of the civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, including federal‐aid highway funds, federal transit funds, and other transportation‐related funds. The RPC’s Title VI Plan designates a Title VI Coordinator, and lays out procedures for ensuring RPC’s activities do not have disproportionate negative impacts on minorities, the poor, or other traditionally disadvantaged populations. The Coordinator is responsible for reviewing RPC’s activities to ensure compliance with the law, and for managing Title VI complaints received by the Commission. Title VI considerations can have an impact on project selection and development by directing projects to have more equitable outcomes and minimize negative effects on disadvantaged populations. NEPA — All RPC projects using federal funds are developed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which lays out requirements for identifying and mitigating project impacts on the natural and built environments. Projects are evaluated for their potential impact during the development process per state and federal guidelines. When negative impacts are identified, the project is modified to mitigate or eliminate the potential impact to the extent possible. Project Ranking Scorecard — In order to bring a greater level of objectivity to its project selection process, the RPC has developed a formal Project Ranking Scorecard. The Scorecard describes a project by quantitatively rating its potential impacts on a variety of factors, such as safety or congestion. Projects are ranked by a committee of RPC staff members on a variety of topics, resulting in a single composite score. The actual factors considered by the Scorecard 38---------2040 MTP
are derived from the variety of federal, state, and regional policies that help define the RPC’s overarching planning priorities. It is intended to help simplify decision‐making by providing a single, standardized tool for comparing projects. Moreover, through using it planners can be assured that they have considered a comprehensive set of criteria in the project selection process. While the Scorecard brings a greater level of objectivity to the project selection process, it is acknowledged that there are multiple factors that may affect a project’s eligibility for inclusion in the TIP that cannot be measured quantitatively. Despite the added level of sophistication that the Scorecard brings to the project selection process, highly rated projects may be made ineligible for TIP inclusion due to other considerations. Conversely, low rated projects may become desirable for implementation in light of information not included on the Scorecard. The Scorecard and a more detailed description are included in Appendix B. Funding / Financing Federal and state moneys are the primary source of funds for proposed transportation projects in the New Orleans urbanized area. Federal transportation funds are created by nationwide fuel tax of 18.5 cents per gallon. Louisiana’s federal apportionment fluctuates annually but is approximately $230 million for roadway transportation infrastructure. Federal dollars flowing to Louisiana are called federal‐aid funds. They are designated for certain categories of roadway and types of repairs. These include repair and maintenance of the National Highway System, the State Highway System and the Interstate system. They also fund the Overlay Program, Federal Bridge Replacement program, and Surface Transportation Program. Transportation Management Areas (populations over 200,000) receive a formula apportionment of Surface Transportation Funds (STP) which are divided into STP flex funds and greater than 200K funds, sometimes called “attributable funds.” Greater than 200K funds are programmed directly by the MPO for their urban area and the match is provided by the local government. STP Flex funds are distributed statewide. They are coordinated by LaDOTD with the concurrence of MPOs when they are spent in MPO urban areas and the local match is provided by the state DOTD. The state of Louisiana is required to commit its own funds, usually 10 to 20 percent of the federal contribution, for certain programs. This contribution is called the “local match” and ranges from $40 to $45 million per year. In Louisiana, the local match is one of many costs paid by the Louisiana Transportation Trust Fund, the principal state Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------39
transportation funding source created through a constitutional amendment in 1989 and funded by a permanent 16‐
cent tax on gasoline and special fuels statewide. The Louisiana Transportation Trust Fund is augmented with revenue from tolls, permits, vehicle registration fees, and bond sales. As a state constitutional amendment, the Trust Fund is protected from being used for other state needs, dedicating the revenue to transportation‐related programs and projects only. Approximately $44 billion is available in the state’s Transportation Trust fund annually. It is the foundation of many state transportation programs and includes funding for infrastructure improvements by contributing to the highway priority program; the ports priority program; the parish transportation fund; the mass transit fund; and the state flood control and aviation programs. It also funds traffic control functions of the State Police and operating expenses for the DOTD. The State Intermodal Transportation Plan was published in 2001 with guidelines developed through the state planning process. The SITP prioritizes multi‐modal projects and outlines four primary categories in the regular program that are still in use today: Preservation includes bridges and related work on the state system; Operations includes motorist assistance, intelligent transportation systems, rest area maintenance and operations, traffic control devices and weigh stations; Safety refers to highway and rail crossing safety; Capacity refers to any project which adds lanes to the system rather than management of the existing system. Other categories include the TIMED program, demo or high priority program, enhancements, and urban system greater than 200K program (including congestion management air quality for urban areas that are in the non‐attainment category). The capital outlay program is a state fund supported through the sale of general obligation bonds which raise up to a statutory cap of $200 million each year. It is designed as a discretionary fund for all categories of capital infrastructure improvement. There is an application process on a project by project basis. Often the capital outlay program supplements large, costly projects which otherwise have a funding shortfall. The state legislature has historically included transportation projects among the other requests, but a move has been suggested to eliminate transportation projects from capital outlay eligibility. The state general fund also contributes to the overall cost of the transportation system. It makes a non‐federal match requirement for the Louisiana Airport System Plan and helps to fund the state highway program directed by DOTD. 40---------2040 MTP
State general fund revenues are also used to supplement federal funds in the overlay and other maintenance programs. Municipalities use local tax dollars and general revenue bonds to finance, maintain, and build local streets. They are also the recipients of some state and federal moneys through the parish transportation fund. Because smaller local roads are not eligible for federal funds, the Metropolitan Planning Organization may only program funds for local streets if they are categorized as an urban collector or above and therefore eligible for STP attributable funds. Non‐Standard Federal Funds Recently the region has been the recipient of funds from several non‐recurring federal sources that have contributed to a significant number of projects. In some cases the RPC has been the direct recipient of funds, while in others the RPC has acted as a partner in qualifying for and implementing new programs. The South Louisiana Submerged Roads Program is funded by the federal Emergency Relief program, and is intended to repair major local roads damaged by flooding and reconstruction work following Hurricane Katrina. The Program provided over $100 million for overlaying of 54 routes in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes. Routes were selected through a collaboration between the RPC, LaDOTD, and local agencies based on damaged received and the potential for encouraging recovery. Construction on several routes is already completed, and the entire program is expected to end construction by the end of 2010. A second phase of the Program has been proposed, and is currently under consideration for approval by FHWA. Additional overlays on several state routes are being funded by the Emergency Relief program, with those efforts directed by LaDOTD headquarters and District 02. In response to the major recession that began in 2008, the federal government made substantial transportation construction funds available via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The intent of ARRA was to stimulate employment by funding “shovel‐ready” projects that could be implemented quickly, and to provide funding for transportation projects that could contribute to long‐term economic stability. General ARRA funds were used for six roadway improvement projects in the New Orleans urbanized area at a total of approximately $107 million: St. Bernard Highway Drainage and Safety Improvements ($700,000); I‐10 & Causeway Interchange modification ($75.6 million); Lapalco Blvd. Overlay between Manhattan Blvd. and Bayou Fatma ($1.2 Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------41
million); Earhart Blvd. Reconstruction between Hamilton St. and Fern St. ($14.6 million); Fleur de Lis Blvd. reconstruction between Veterans Blvd. and 30th St. ($13.3 million); and the widening of Woodland Highway to three lanes ($1.3 million). These projects were selected by the RPC in consultation with local agencies and LaDOTD, and selection was based on project readiness and need. The RPC also helped local partner agencies apply for and receive competitive grant funding offered through ARRA. Plaquemines Parish was awarded $1.9 million in Ferry Attributable funds for the replacement of ferry boat engines with new, energy‐efficient and alternative fuels engines. Via the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, The Regional Transit Authority was awarded $45 million for construction of a new downtown streetcar line that will act as a circulator for central New Orleans. In both cases the RPC served as a major partner, assisting with grant application development, data procurement, and general planning. Finally, ARRA provided the New Orleans urbanized area with nearly $12 million in Transportation Enhancement funds, which are designated for non‐motorized transportation facilities, beautification, landscaping, and other transportation‐related projects not eligible for funding through standard attributable funds. Approximately $1 million will be used to improve landscaping and fencing along I‐10 in New Orleans East. The remainder of the funds will be used in combination with the Submerged Roads Program. Using the ARRA Enhancement funds, several of the routes being repaired through the Submerged Roads Program will additionally receive pedestrian and bicycle treatments, including bike lanes and sidewalk improvements. State and Local Funding Efforts (Non‐Federal) Also contributing to capital infrastructure in the region are four short term funding initiatives not associated with federal aid. They each include regionally significant transportation projects in the New Orleans area and therefore must be reflected in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The associated planning process for these groups of projects are independent of the Regional Planning Commission but coordination with the RPC is still needed to monitor federal Air Quality Conformance standards which are affected by any new capacity projects. Two initiatives are state level programs. These include the Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development of 1989 (TIMED) and the Crescent City Connection (CCC) Mississippi River Bridge tolls. The state TIMED program established a Constitutional Amendment in 1989 to build 16 projects statewide with a statewide four cent 42---------2040 MTP
fuel tax over 15 years, ending in 2004. TIMED projects were selected on the basis of advancing economic development statewide. Most TIMED projects were large scale endeavors, not otherwise affordable through existing means. The program gained passage by roughly distributing the dollar amounts of projects equally over all legislative districts of the state. Included in the list of projects were major improvements to seven state or national highways and four New Orleans roadways not on the state system. Also included was the reconstruction of three bridges (two in New Orleans), capital investments at the Port of New Orleans ($100 million), and the New Orleans International Airport ($75 million). Nearly $1.4 billion worth of projects were originally estimated but that estimate proved to be grossly insufficient. After considerable debate, a new bill was introduced and passed in 1998 to indefinitely extend the four‐cent fuel tax in order to complete only the original sixteen projects. The tax generates approximately $52 million per year. The revenue was eligible to be bonded after 2005. As many TIMED projects were comparatively small and not on the state system, the local parishes became the lead agencies. These projects were easier to implement than the high cost, large‐scale highway or bridge projects in the program. New Orleans has enjoyed successful implementation of all or part of multiple projects, with the most productive implementation schedule across the state. The Port and Airport TIMED projects were accomplished as a part of their well organized five‐year capital building programs. Listed as a separate highway project, the Clarence Henry Truckway, a dedicated truck route inside the Port of New Orleans, provides direct truck access to port facilities separate from general traffic. It is a National Highway System intermodal connector. Several segments of Earhart Boulevard were completed using TIMED funds, with the final section being constructed with ARRA funds as discussed previously. In Jefferson Parish, an extension of the West Bank Expressway from Ames Boulevard to Avenue D is complete and all but one segment along West Napoleon Avenue is finished. The largest inaccuracies when estimating project costs in the New Orleans region were bridge related. Widening of the Huey P. Long Bridge from four to six lanes was originally estimated at $60 million and is now estimated at $660 million. Construction of the Florida Avenue Bridge was originally estimated at $32 million and is now estimated at $300 million. LaDOTD has committed to building these projects with the Huey P. Long Bridge widening beginning in Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------43
2006 and scheduled for completion in 2013. Due to recent budget shortfalls, however, remaining TIMED projects will be postponed pending funding resolution. Construction of the Crescent City Connection, a parallel span of the Mississippi River Bridge, was authorized in 1976 along with the establishment of the Mississippi Bridge Authority in Act 402 of the state Legislature. Since that time, numerous amendments have expanded the allowed amounts for general obligation and revenue bonds to pay for the increased cost of the bridge and in 1988, the scope widened to include the extension of the West Bank Expressway, considered an approach to the bridge. In addition, Amendment 36 in 1994 considerably broadened the scope of projects allowed for funding through CCC tolls. Projects paid for out of toll receipts are mainly directed at bridge maintenance or to improve west bank deficiencies directly and indirectly connected with the bridge. The state legislature approved a bill to extend tolls on the CCC from June 30, 1999 through 2012. Debate over the burden on toll users and setting project priorities was resolved when constituents were allowed to form an oversight committee to monitor and give input in the selection process. High Priority Funding High priority or demo funds for particular projects were authorized for Louisiana and other states in the SAFETEA‐LU bill. These projects may or may not have wide‐spread local consensus and community support. The amount authorized often provides a small percentage of the overall project cost. In general High Priority projects support innovative or unique projects that may meet many planning factors but still may be outside mainstream projects. For example, $1 million was dedicated to initial planning for the Louisiana High Speed Rail Corridor in TEA‐21. This has opened the door for further funding to upgrade railroad crossings in Louisiana. Local Funding In 2010 the City of New Orleans approved $44 million in general obligation bonds for public works projects, the majority of which will fund improvements to the transportation system. Jefferson Parish does not currently operate any major transportation funding programs beyond the maintenance and capital funds generated from local taxes, which total approximately $5 million annually. However, Jefferson Parish has recently reached an agreement with FEMA to fund the repair of approximately 800 miles of roadways damaged by 44---------2040 MTP
Hurricane Katrina that were not eligible to receive Emergency Relief funds. The program provides $100 million for repairs, and construction will begin in late 2010 or early 2011. In making funding projections for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the RPC assumed that there would be very few, if any, new funding sources available. The program identified, therefore, is limited to what could reasonably be funded given historic funding levels from federal, state, and local sources. A full effort was made to identify funding sources (federal, state or local) and/or categories for funding (STP Flex, STP 200K, STP enhancement, Federal bridge replacement, etc.) with each project in the MTP in order to provide as much information as possible. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------45
Part II — Highway and Transit Project Descriptions by Functional Category
The following pages provide a description, by category, of the projects contained in this plan. In addition to a general description of each category, further information is provided on project purpose and need, limits and scope, community issues, and sources of funding. MTP goals addressed by each category are listed, and are outlined below for reference. Specific projects within the category are identified where appropriate. More routine projects are identified in a summary table listing project location, proposed implementation date, funding amount and category. Selected major projects are described in detail following the descriptions of project categories. Abbreviations are used throughout the tables to describe funding categories. A list defining the abbreviations can be found in Appendix C. A chronological listing of projects including detailed phasing and funding can be found in Chapter III. MTP 2040 Goals
Safety — Continually improve the safety of the regional transportation system for all users Livable Communities — Coordinate transportation investments with other community needs to strategically foster more livable neighborhoods and an overall higher quality of life for the region State of Good Repair — Protect and maximize previous investments through comprehensive and timely infrastructure maintenance and modernization Economic Competitiveness — Utilize the strong link between infrastructure and the economy to encourage economic development, growth, and resiliency Environmental Sustainability — Develop a transportation system that encourages travel behavior, energy consumption, and land use decisions that contribute to environmental sustainability 46---------2040 MTP
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND PRESERVATION
Roadway Preservation
Overlay Projects on Major Roadways Description Overlay is the process of putting down a thin protective surface (usually asphalt) over a roadway that has begun to deteriorate from traffic and weather exposure, thus preserving the surface, roadway base, and improving drivability. Limits and Scope Overlay projects are an ongoing item in the Long Range Transportation Plan and are included in the plan on an annual basis. Locations are chosen based on data from the LaDOTD highway needs assessment and from parish Pavement Management programs. Because overlay projects are preventative in nature, identification of projects is a short‐term process. In Chapter III, which lists projects in each Tier of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, specific sites are identified for Tier I (the TIP) covering years 2010‐2013 where that information was available. Other identified but backlogged needs are listed in Tier II. Tier III program listings reflect only proposed funding allocations. Specific sites are to be determined through the TIP development process on a bi‐annual basis. Purpose and Need Overlay Projects are a critically important tool in the effort to maintain our existing roadways in a condition of peak operating efficiency. These projects are quick and relatively inexpensive, taking only a few weeks or months to complete. More importantly, if maintenance is delayed until the roadbed is seriously deteriorated and reconstruction is required, then the direct construction costs will be six times the cost of a timely overlay even without adding in the cost in user delay during the lengthier reconstruction process. Overlays are one of the most cost‐effective of transportation infrastructure maintenance projects. Community Issues Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------47
Most of the overlay projects in the region are conducted on state routes using federal funds. These funds cannot be used for projects on local streets where the need for pothole repair and overlay is critical. Further, few of the local jurisdictions have any continuing funding for these local projects. In order to remedy this situation, RPC initiated a Pilot Program in 2003 to address overlay needs on major arterial streets that are non‐state highways in Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. This program is part of the region’s commitment to address system preservation needs in a timelier manner. Many of these streets have been completed, while others were in the project development stage and were postponed due to Hurricane Katrina. The overlay program was temporarily suspended and efforts were directed towards roads that experienced substantial damage. RPC received FHWA Emergency Relief (E‐R) funding for fifty‐four key roadway sections in the region to help address repairing federal aid eligible roads. The E‐R funded Submerged Roads Program provided over $100 million for overlaying of routes in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard Parishes. A second phase of the Program has been proposed, and is currently under consideration for approval by FHWA. Additional overlays on several state routes are being funded by the Emergency Relief program, with those efforts directed by LaDOTD headquarters and District 02. The overlay program served as a valuable prioritization tool in selecting the most critical roadways for E‐R repairs, and it will continue to be a major part of RPC’s efforts to preserve the transportation system. Financing It is anticipated that all of the overlay projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan will be funded using federal formula funds with match coming from LaDOTD on state routes and from the respective parishes on major roadways that are not state routes. Additionally, roadways that are eligible for inclusion in the E‐R program receive 100% federal funding. Annual future year allocations from the formula funds are expected to average about $12 million per year. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness 48---------2040 MTP
Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Projects Description Reconstruction involves the demolition of the existing road surface that is beyond repair, re‐stabilizing or replacing the roadbed and foundation, and rebuilding the road surface with appropriate materials (e.g., concrete). Reconstruction is usually undertaken when overlay is inadequate to address the problem, and further deferral of maintenance would result in the road reaching the limits of drivability. Limits and Scope Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Projects Earhart (Hamilton – Fern), Phase 1 Reconstruction Fleur de Lis (Veterans Blvd. – 30th St.) Reconstruction Ames Blvd. (Oregon Dr. to Blanche) Magazine St. (Broadway – Calhoun) Magazine St. (Calhoun – Nashville) Canal Blvd. (R.E. Lee – Amethyst) Fleur de Lis, Phase 3 Packenham / Jackson (LA 46‐LA 39) Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Projects can often be lengthy, rivaling the time necessary for actual construction of the road. Most of the listed projects are anticipated to have relatively short completion times. Those with longer time frames such as Fleur de Lis Blvd. are programmed in phases as described in Chapter III. Purpose and Need Because of unstable soil conditions throughout the region, heavily trafficked roadways, particularly those roads that carry a high volume of heavy truck traffic, suffer severe damage under normal wear and tear. The roadways Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------49
identified in this section have deteriorated beyond the point where simple overlay or light rehabilitation would be useful. Projects are identified from the LADOTD Highway Needs Assessment and local parish maintenance evaluations. Community Issues Repair and reconstruction of roads has been identified as a high priority in RPC’s recent public outreach process. 74% of respondents identified road conditions as a very important issue in the region. Previous experience has identified the following issues as important in considering reconstruction projects: The length of time it takes to get a project through the program to construction The construction impacts and phasing of projects The project prioritization and selection process These issues are being addressed in our ongoing liaison with LADOTD and the Parish traffic and public works staffs, and the public at large. For example, the reconstruction of Earhart Blvd. currently underway was heavily influenced by neighborhood input. Several changes to the final design were made in response to community participation in the planning process. Financing Reconstruction projects are funded from multiple sources as individual construction projects. Most funds come from federal formula funds with state or local match depending upon whether or not the road is on the state maintenance system. Recently federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds have been used for the reconstruction of portions of Earhart Boulevard and Fleur de Lis Boulevard, but those funds were a one‐time disbursement in response to the severe economic downturn. There is currently no recurring funding dedicated to the reconstruction category. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness 50---------2040 MTP
Bridge Replacement / Inspection Description Bridge replacement is a specific SAFETEA‐LU funding category that is administered by LaDOTD. The projects are identified primarily through the DOTD preventive maintenance program. Many of the items identified are funding categories that will be applied to multiple bridges for either inspections or a particular repair. Purpose and Need Nationally, bridge maintenance and safety has been identified as one of the most significant infrastructure challenges facing transportation planners. The ages and particularly high number of bridges in the New Orleans area make the problem even greater. Limits and Scope Bridge Replacement / Inspection Projects Bayou Barataria Bridge ‐ Lafitte Park Island Bridge LA 1 (Caminada Bay Bridges) LA 632 Main Canal Bridge 26th St. at Canal 17 US 90 Drain Canal Bridge LA 45 Goose Bayou Bridge Martin Road Bridge Wisner Ave. Overpass @ I‐610 LA 300 (Reggio Canal Bridge) Almonaster Bridge and Approaches Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------51
Community Issues When bridges are being repaired they significantly disrupt traffic flow on major arteries. Efforts must be made in the construction plan to mitigate delays. Because of the dense development around bridges in this area, land use and environmental impacts are often of critical concern. In addition, the relatively long periods of time between reconstruction (40 to 60 years) of bridges, and the high cost of reconstruction means community input is critically important to prioritize newly identified non‐motorized needs. Often bridges are chokepoints for non‐motorized traffic so widening, retrofits and ensuring ADA compliance at the time of reconstruction should be evaluated for inclusion. Financing Most of the funding for this category comes from federal bridge replacement funds and off‐system bridge maintenance funds provided under SAFETEA‐LU with some supplement from other state and federal sources. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Transportation System Preservation Description Transportation System Preservation Projects are miscellaneous interventions to perform preventive or corrective maintenance on the existing transportation system. They generally do not involve capacity increases or changes to the character of the roadway. 52---------2040 MTP
Limits and Scope Transportation System Preservation Projects I‐310 Mississippi River Bridge – Replace Cable Stays I‐55 – Pavement Markings Replacement I‐10 at Airport Access Rd. Entrance Ramp – Level Approach Slab Belle Chasse Tunnel – Electrical and Mechanical Repair I‐10 at Tulane & St. Bernard – Slide Plate Joint Replacement LA 23 Judge Perez Bridge – Wire Rope Replacement Install New Counterweight Wire Rope Bayou La Loutre Bridge – Cleaning and Painting I‐10 @ Bonne Carre Spillway – Deck Repairs Purpose and Need Preventive and corrective maintenance on existing roadways is important because if maintenance is deferred, the increase in cost for full reconstruction can be geometrically larger than the cost of early intervention. National statistics have shown that a delay of one year in performing needed maintenance can increase the cost of the repair six‐fold. Community Issues Although preventive maintenance has been identified as a high priority, it has been noted on numerous occasions by policy makers and the general public that maintenance needs far exceed the available budget. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------53
In an effort to help address this deficiency, the RPC initiated the Urban Arterial Overlay Program prior to Hurricane Katrina to establish credibility with the public by addressing deteriorating street conditions in a timelier manner. Hurricane Katrina As mentioned earlier, the inundation resulting from the failed hurricane protection system did enormous damage to the infrastructure of the area. Arterial streets, particularly in Orleans and St. Bernard parishes were under several feed of brackish water for as long as 89 days. The Submerged Road Program utilized FHWA Emergency Relief funds to repair damage on fifty‐four of the damaged arterials. The RPC’s Arterial Overlay Program served as an important prioritization tool in selecting the routes included in the Submerged Roads Program. Financing Funding for these maintenance projects comes primarily from federal sources associated with the classification of the roadway in question. Most interstate projects are funded with interstate maintenance funds. Roadways on the National Highway System are funded from the NHS category, and the remainder of roadways are funded from the federal formula funds for areas over 200,000 in population. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Transit Preservation
Transit Bus Replacement Program Description Public Transit Operators throughout the urbanized area have made a concerted effort to upgrade their fleets by replacing a large percentage of their aging buses. Although progress has been made, this is an ongoing process. A permanent fixture of this transportation plan is a systematic replacement program intended to maintain and improve fleet operations. 54---------2040 MTP
Limits and Scope Buses will be replaced system‐wide on all transit systems in the urbanized area. Retirement of old buses and assignment of new buses will be carried out in accordance with Federal Transit Administration guidelines on bus life cycles and allowable spare bus ratios. Purpose and Need The New Orleans climate and operating conditions have proven to be very demanding on the public transit fleet. As vehicles age, an increasing number of breakdowns occur resulting in loss of service, higher maintenance costs and deteriorating quality of service. Bus Replacement has been cited by the Technical Advisory Committee as one of the most important transportation priorities in the region if we are to continue to serve our transit‐dependent population and attract the numbers of discretionary riders necessary to support the various transit systems. Hurricane Katrina As a result of Hurricane Katrina the Regional Transit Authority lost 205 of their 364 bus fleet due to flooding. St. Bernard Urban Rapid Transit (SBURT) lost nine of their ten revenue vehicle fleet. These two parishes (Orleans and St. Bernard) suffered major damage from Hurricane Katrina. Both agencies have worked to replace lost assets via funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) Program, and through other funding sources. Community Issues Since Hurricane Katrina, ridership on RTA, JeT and SBURT dropped significantly. At this writing, each have made significant progress towards replacing their fleets, and will continue to work with the RPC to regain lost ridership and improve upon pre‐Katrina services. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------55
Financing Transit capital funding traditionally comes from the Federal Transit Administration – Section 5307 formula funds and Section 5309 discretionary funds. Typically, a combination of these funds has been necessary to do major bus replacement. In recent years formula funds have remained relatively stable, but availability of discretionary funds has diminished. Under SAFETEA‐LU, traditional highway funds can be flexed to transit purposes, and the New Orleans area was among the first to take advantage of these provisions. Flexing of STP funds from highway to transit for the purposes of bus replacement is anticipated throughout the life of the plan. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Transit Preventive Maintenance Description Formerly covered by federal operating assistance, preventive maintenance is a program to maintain transit vehicles in revenue service by performing routine maintenance, parts replacement or refurbishment prior to major equipment failure. Limits and Scope Each of the transit providers in the region programs a portion of their Section 5307 formula funds for preventive maintenance. The scale of this expenditure is determined by the individual transit properties. 56---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need The climate, street conditions, congestion and localized heavy transit passenger loads in the metro New Orleans area are very hard on transit vehicles. In order to avoid major equipment failure, it is necessary to provide routine, but often extensive maintenance to vehicles, vehicle parts, tires, etc. in order to keep the transit fleets operating effectively. Community Issues Reliability of the bus fleet is an often‐cited issue in discussions with transit patrons, and is a determinate factor in the decision to use the transit mode. This is particularly true of low and moderate‐income commuters using the transit system for job access. Financing Formerly covered by transit operating subsidies from federal sources, preventive maintenance efforts are now considered a capital expense. The local transit operators routinely program a portion of the FTA Section 5307 formula funds, available to the New Orleans Urbanized Area each year, for preventive maintenance of their revenue fleet. As described earlier, the New Orleans area has been able to convert Section 5307 dollars from solely capital tasks, into dollars to help subsidize the operation. This was done under the auspices of Section 7025 of P.L. 109‐234. The RTA did not request extension of the provision beyond July 2010, but it has been extended for all other transit operators until July, 2011. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------57
Transit Capital Facility Investment Description The various transit providers throughout the New Orleans UZA have developed Capital Facility Management and System Maintenance Plans. The projects identified in this section are maintenance and other facilities that support the operation of the various transit systems in the region. Limits and Scope The region has recently completed a series of investments in major capital facilities. Recent projects in this category relate mostly to construction of maintenance facilities in conjunction with the Canal Streetcar Project. Purpose and Need Modern, state of the art maintenance facilities are vital in the transit providers’ efforts to maintain a modern transit fleet and maintain peak efficiency. Community Issues Transit maintenance facility site selection is critical with regard to neighborhoods and surrounding land uses. Care must be taken to locate and design the facility in such a way as to minimize the negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. However, attention must also be paid to positive impacts as well. These maintenance facilities are job sites and can provide employment both directly on site, or in spin‐off businesses such as grocery stores and lunchrooms. Following Hurricane Katrina, Operation and Maintenance Facilities for RTA and SBURT were all but destroyed. They suffered severe damage to:  RTA Administrative Headquarters at Plaza Drive in eastern New Orleans, six feet of flood water and total roof damage, flooding the third floor of the facility. 58---------2040 MTP
 Seven feet of water at the expansive RTA Eastern New Orleans Facility (ENO), rendering all maintenance bays unusable and flooding of ¼ of the bus fleet.  RTA Randolph Facility on Canal Street, five feet of water, flooding the entire Canal and Riverfront Streetcar fleets, service vehicles, and ½ of the bus fleet.  SUBRT operations and Maintenance Facility on Paris Road in Chalmette, Louisiana suffered 12 feet of rushing water, plus the toxic residue caused by a nearby oil refinery storage tank failure, resulting in the spillage of semi‐processed oil over several square miles, including the SBURT facility. Financing RTA facilities identified for new construction prior to Katrina are funded through Section 5309 formula and discretionary funds. The Jefferson projects are additional improvements to existing facilities and are funded through Section 5307 formula funds. Since Hurricane Katrina, RTA and SBURT are both in the process of claims review with FEMA pursuant to the Public Assistance program. At this writing some, but not all, transit maintenance facilities have been repaired. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 3 — State of Good Repair Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------59
CAPACITY
New Roadway Construction / Capacity Increases
Although the primary emphasis of the SAFETEA‐LU or its successor legislation is a focus on maintaining and improving the operation of the existing transportation system, there are situations in which construction of a new roadway or expansion of an existing one is the most logical solution to a transportation problem. New capacity is warranted when it completes a logical component without which the transportation system cannot operate properly; when it eliminates bottlenecks or safety hazards; and finally, when all reasonable Transportation Systems and Transportation Demand Management efforts have not proven effective in dealing with the problem. Additional Capacity has been proposed very sparingly. Given that this is a thirty year transportation plan, the identified capacity increases are a modest menu of road widening and new roads that address specific needs. Of the projects listed on the following pages the new roadways complete segments of projects already partially completed under previous plans, such as Lapalco and Dickory. Most of the other projects eliminated bottlenecks or addressed specific operational or safety problems not addressable through other means. In most cases the widening is in already developed areas currently experiencing heavy traffic delays and will not encourage additional development. The primary community issues related to these projects are impacts on adjacent land uses and the potential for increased traffic through adjacent neighborhoods. The RPC works closely with neighborhood groups to address these issues, including exploring alternative solutions. 60---------2040 MTP
Limits and Scope New Roadway / Capacity Increases I‐10 at Causeway Interchange Modification, Phase 2 Woodland Hwy. (LA 406), Phase 2 Widening Lake Forest Blvd. (I‐510‐Eastover) Minor Widening LA 1261 ‐ Peter’s Road Extension, Phase 1 Howard Ave. Extension LA 45 – Barataria Widening LA 18 – 4th St. Extension to Burmaster in Gretna with Hall Connector Port of South Louisiana Roadway (LA 44 – Airline Hwy.) Harvey Blvd. (Peters – Manhattan) Extension Harvey Blvd. (Wall‐Manhattan) Widening LA 23 (Lapalco – LA 3017) Widening LA 3154 – Hickory (Mounes – LA 48) Relocation and Widening Veterans Blvd. (Loyola Dr. to Canal No. 17) Widening MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------61
Non‐Motorized Capacity Description The RPC has developed and is promoting a comprehensive New Orleans Metropolitan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that emphasizes path locations that would encourage commuting by non‐motorized means. High priority has been given to serving the university community, and other populations that traditionally have a high level of non‐
recreational bicycle use. Limits and Scope Non‐Motorized Capacity Projects Westbank Multi‐Use Path Project St. Bernard Mississippi River Bike Path, Phase 2 St. Charles Westbank Multi‐Use Path, Phase 3 St. John Eastbank Multi‐Use Path, Phase 2 Orpheum to Huron Bike Path Washington Ave. Bike / Pedestrian Crossing at Xavier University Projects undertaken are derived from this effort. Bike and pedestrian corridors were identified that utilize both street networks and mode‐separated paths. RPC has recently conducted a comprehensive bike and pedestrian plan for the region. Recently completed sections include the Wisner bike trail and bike lanes on Gentilly Boulevard and St. Claude Avenue. Bicycle corridors within the existing street network continue to be identified through extensive public outreach efforts. The predominant design is a retrofit of street striping to allow for a four to five foot bike line, or to widen the outside travel lane and mark it as a shared vehicular and bicycle lane. 62---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need Motorized travel is subject to congestion that hinders economic vitality, contributes to air pollution, and consumes non‐renewable fossil fuels. By encouraging the use of non‐motorized travel for commuter and other trip purposes, some of these impacts can be mitigated. At the same time, facilities also have a secondary purpose as recreation facilities that improve the quality of life. Community Issues Response to proposals for bike paths in the region has been generally positive. The Metro Bicycle Coalition, universities, health organizations, and neighborhood associations have networked with the City of New Orleans and RPC in developing a regional Bicycle Master Plan. In the case of some projects, particularly along the river levees, residents have expressed concerns about the impacts to their neighborhoods due to increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic moving through the area. The concerns raised were considered in deciding whether to proceed with the projects, and these issues will be addressed in the development of operation and maintenance plans for the specific facilities. Neighborhood associations and other community organizations are increasingly interfacing with the RPC on the development of on‐street bicycle facilities. Financing Bikeway projects are sometimes funded with urbanized attributable funds, but more typically they are funded with transportation enhancement funds administered by DOTD. These funds are competitive in nature and limited in availability, but by working with community groups the RPC hopes to continue to be successful in pursuing a reasonable program of bike related projects. One‐time ARRA funding of nearly $12 million supplemented the Submerged Roads Program, providing bicycle paths and sidewalk repairs on many of the Submerged Roads projects. State recreational trail grants have been approved for the region’s first bicycle boulevard and an urban on‐street trail in Jefferson Parish. RPC has been working with local DPW’s to add pavement striping and other delineation methods to scheduled roadway overlay and rehabilitation projects in the area. Incorporating these items during design saves significant time and expense, while providing residents with significant benefits to their quality of life. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------63
MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability 64---------2040 MTP
SAFETY
Highway Safety / Hazard Elimination Description Safety and Hazard Elimination Projects address several aspects of safety, including accident prevention, crime prevention, accident response, and investigation. The projects in the current plan are mostly lo‐cost efforts to improve visibility at critical locations; provide advisory and warning signs to aid motorists in negotiating difficult or confusing roadway segments; and mechanisms for reducing the delays, congestion, and secondary accident potential after an accident has occurred. High traffic volume corridors, e.g., I‐10 West and I‐10 East, are benefiting from Motorist Assistance Patrol (MAP) programs that are designed to reduce traveler delays through improved response time to breakdowns or incidents. MAP services include on site traffic safety management, motorist assistance, removal of stalled vehicles, and re‐institution of normal traffic flow conditions. In addition to Incident Management, traffic safety and operations are becoming an increasingly important part of RPC’s overall transportation program. RPC is presently working with LaDOTD and the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission on collecting and analyzing traffic data and safety concerns for abnormal intersections, including locations involving vehicular and pedestrian or bicycle accidents. The RPC is a member of the Regional Strategic Highway Safety Coalition, which works together to reduce incidents and fatalities. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------65
Limits and Scope Highway Safety / Hazard Elimination Projects LA 46 / St. Bernard Hwy. Drainage / Safety Improvements LA 23 Drainage Improvements LA 18 Drainage Improvements I‐55 Drainage Improvements US 61 Guardrail Improvements LA 407 (Gen. De Gaulle) Drainage Improvements I‐10 at LA 3188 / Belle Terre Interchange Lighting Metairie Rd. @ Norfolk Southern RR, Installation of Quadgates Clearview at Earhart Drainage Purpose and Need In addition to the obvious financial and human costs of accidents to individuals, the cost to the state and the region from accident claims is excessive. Reducing accident potential is necessary from a risk management standpoint. From a systems standpoint, delays and economic impacts associated with accidents have been identified nationally as one of the most serious impediments to goods movement and other commerce. The economic health of the region is also affected by high insurance rates due to an extraordinary claim rate on auto accidents. Community Issues The business community has identified incident management, including accident prevention, as one of the most important transportation priorities in the region. 66---------2040 MTP
Hurricane evacuation is a major consideration in the New Orleans area. RPC is a member of the Southeast Louisiana Emergency Management Task Force that has responsibility for evacuation planning for hurricanes, homeland security, or other emergency management situations. RPC is working with this Task Force, the LaDOTD, and local parishes to plan and implement signage, surveillance, communications, and geometric improvements that will better inform motorists as to conditions and add capacity to the system in evacuation scenarios. Financing Most of the financing for this category of projects comes from either federal interstate maintenance funds, or from state and local sources. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1: Safety Non‐motorized Safety Description Improving the safety of bicycling and walking is essential to encouraging greater use of those modes of transportation, which is an important component of improved environmental sustainability and community livability. As discussed previously the RPC continues to expand capacity and accessibility for non‐motorized transportation, which can directly improve safety. The RPC also engages in several education and outreach programs intended to increase awareness of non‐motorized issues among citizens, planners, and law enforcement. Limits and Scope The RPC assisted the City of New Orleans in qualifying for Louisiana Local Road Safety Program grants for the future installation of pedestrian countdown signals on Canal Street and Poydras Street. It has also worked with Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------67
the Safe Routes to School Program towards the installation of sidewalks, crosswalks, and signage in the vicinity of several local schools. To date the RPC has helped coordinate Media Campaigns, Law Enforcement Training, Fleet Drivers’ Training, Designing Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists Courses, and a Create a Commuter Course for educating new cyclists. These programs are ongoing, and have become a model for other regions throughout Louisiana. RPC has also partnered with the University of New Orleans to build institutional knowledge among the region’s pedestrian and bicycle communities, as well as to conduct research on non‐motorized transportation usage. Non‐motorized Safety Projects Drew Elementary Safe Routes to School – Sidewalks, Signs, etc. International School of Louisiana Safe Routes to School – Sidewalks, Signs, etc. Esperanza Charter Safe Routes to School – Sidewalks, Signs, etc. Norco Elementary and Sacred Heart of Jesus Elementary Safe Routes to School Sidewalks, Signs, etc. Purpose and Need Encouraging the use of non‐motorized transportation has taken on an increasingly important role in the effort to create a more balanced transportation system. Increased cycling and walking mode‐share can have positive impacts on environmental sustainability, community livability, and public health. Infrastructure projects such as bike paths must be complemented with education and outreach programs that help create a culture in which pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers respect one another and the law. Community Issues In recent public outreach efforts, the RPC received substantial feedback regarding the safety of walking and cycling in the region. While recent efforts to improve non‐motorized facilities were praised, many citizens expressed the need for greater non‐motorized safety. Of particular concern was driver behavior towards 68---------2040 MTP
pedestrians and cyclists, as well as non‐motorized travelers’ knowledge of traffic laws regarding their own actions. Financing The non‐motorized safety programs described in this section are funded through a variety of federal and state sources. The funding mechanisms are often unique and unrelated to other RPC funding sources, including those provided by SAFETEA‐LU. For this reason many of the programs are not included in the TIP, a document required by SAFETEA‐LU. Nonetheless they are an important part of the RPC’s efforts to encourage non‐motorized transportation in the region, and so have been included in this plan. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------69
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Computerized Traffic Signal Upgrade and Replacement Description The Metropolitan Transportation Plan contains several projects related to the replacement, upgrading, and computer coordination of traffic signals throughout the region. These projects will allow for the proper timing of lights to improve intersection operation throughout the day, the progression of signals along a corridor to promote traffic flow during periods of heavy demand, and the ability to selectively control signals or groups of signals to meet the unusual demand due to special situations such as weather emergencies, accidents, or construction blockages elsewhere in the system. Limits and Scope Computerized Traffic Signal Upgrade and Replacement Projects US 61 (LA 49‐St. Charles Parish Line) Replace and Upgrade Traffic Signals US 61 @ Terre Haute Rd. Traffic Signal Installation Engineering for Fiber Optic Network Connections on 4 New Orleans Corridors and 3 Chef Hwy. Intersections East Jefferson Intersection and Signal Improvements Veterans @ Lake, Carrollton, Papworth, Martin Behrman, and Oaklawn Intersection / Signal Improvements Lakefront & Holy Cross Signal Improvements Algiers Signal Improvements Jefferson Traffic Signals Avondale ‐ Barataria Lake Forest @ Bullard – New Signal 70---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need One of the largest impediments to smooth traffic flow in the region is ill timed and poorly coordinated traffic signals. Traffic congestion and significant delays are being experienced on facilities that theoretically have the capacity to handle the demand. Because of aging equipment and budget constraints, keeping traffic signals operating properly at a minimum acceptable level has taken priority over optimizing traffic flow. The result is severe congestion on arterial and collector streets during peak travel periods along with the resultant economic and environmental impacts. In the CBD it has often been necessary to employ police officers to manually direct traffic at critical intersections. The suburban parishes and DOTD, because they are dealing with far fewer signals and a less dense street network, have had better success at keeping pace with the need. Nonetheless, signal upgrades are required throughout the region to accommodate growing traffic volumes. Community Issues It has been noted in the general literature that improving signal coordination increases capacity and promotes increased driving. Locally, however, the signal situation is so bad that no one has supported the relevance of that argument. The incremental speed increases in the highly congested CBD would certainly not be enough to encourage latent demand, but would, nonetheless, be beneficial to air quality and mobility. One issue that has been raised by the community is the issue of compatibility of signal hardware with the aesthetics of historic neighborhoods. Careful consideration has been given to these issues. The RPC has been working with historic groups and neighborhoods to select a signal pole and pedestal base that is unique to New Orleans and appropriate for these areas. A consensus demonstration project has been implemented at the Camp and O’Keefe streets off‐ramps on the edge of the historic Warehouse District, and is the prototype for other traffic signals in historic areas in the city. Hurricane Katrina As mentioned earlier in this document, the failure of the hurricane protection system in the City of New Orleans and in St. Bernard Parish led to widespread flooding in these areas. Traffic signals and controllers throughout these two parishes were destroyed. At this writing the FHWA E‐R program has paid for the ongoing reconstruction Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------71
of nearly all traffic signals in New Orleans, and many in St. Bernard Parish. Since these are essentially new signals the scope of the original signal replacement program has changed somewhat. Financing Financing for these signal improvements comes primarily from federal formula funds received by the urbanized area with match coming from the owner of the signals, which, in most cases, is the local parish in which they are located. Some projects are eligible for 100% federal funding, provided that only signal hardware and software are upgraded, and no geometric improvements are undertaken in conjunction with the upgrade. Signals replaced by the E‐R program were undertaken at the 100% federal funding level. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1: Safety Goal 2: Livable Communities Goal 3: State of Good Repair Intelligent Transportation / Incident Management System Deployment Description The Regional Planning Commission in conjunction with the LaDOTD has developed an Intelligent Transportation System Early Deployment Strategic Plan that proposes the use of high‐tech communications, surveillance and computing equipment to improve the operational capacity and efficiency of the existing freeway system. A substantial portion of the plan has been implemented and the ITS system is currently in use. Continual expansion and refinement of the system will remain a part of this plan. Limits and Scope The ITS Early Deployment Strategic Plan focuses primarily on the freeway system including I‐10, I‐12, Pontchartrain and Westbank Expressways in Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Tammany Parishes. The primary goal of the plan is to improve operational traffic flow in the region and support efforts to improve incident identification, 72---------2040 MTP
response and management on the freeway system. Implemented elements include variable message signs, video surveillance cameras, and the Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC). The RTMC is a state of the art facility that allows for real time monitoring of the interstate highway system throughout the region, as well as coordination with local law enforcement agencies and governments. It is expected that the RTMC will soon have a multi‐modal component when the ability to monitor transit operations is added to the center. Purpose and Need In various public meetings, particularly with business leaders, the problem of congestion on the freeway system particularly during accidents and other incidents was cited as among the highest transportation priorities in the region. The problem was further identified through technical fieldwork in conjunction with the Congestion Management Process data collection, which showed severe congestion bottlenecks on the freeway system. In addition the region has experienced several serious weather related incidents, particularly fog, which resulted in fatal multi‐car collisions. ITS technology has the potential to aid in all of these areas. The need is particularly critical in the I‐10 construction areas, in fog prone areas around and across Lake Pontchartrain, and when traffic incidents cause non‐recurring congestion. Financing Funding for the ITS deployment is provided through both STP flex funds controlled by the state as well as >200K urban formula funds. Non‐federal match would come from both state and local sources. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 2 — Livable Communities Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------73
Advanced Public Transportation Systems Description Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) are specific Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies applied to public transit operations. They include strategies that make the system easier to use, easier to manage, and operate more efficiently. A variety of technologies are proposed for deployment in the New Orleans region. Limits and Scope APTS Projects General DeGaulle Dr. Transit Signal Prioritization Broad Street Transit Signal Prioritization Automatic Vehicle Locators Citywide Advanced Traveler Information Systems The Broad Street and General DeGaulle Drive transit signal prioritization projects involve the installation of transponders on buses and receivers on traffic signals that will prompt the traffic signal to extend green times when a transit vehicle is approaching. The systems are expected to substantially improve bus travel time and reliability without imposing significant impacts to other vehicular traffic. Advance Vehicle Locators have been installed on all RTA and JeT vehicles, and will be installed on all vehicles added to the fleets. They allow for real‐time GPS tracking of vehicles, which in turn can be used for vehicle dispatching, scheduling, and improved on‐time performance. The AVL systems will be used in conjunction with new Advance Traveler Information Systems. These systems will provide transit riders with information about vehicle arrival times through a variety of media, including the internet, mobile devices, and message boards at major stops and transfer points. 74---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need Reliability and on‐time performance are among the most important measures of transit quality. As local transit operators continue to recover from Hurricane Katrina, providing high‐quality service takes on an even more important role in regaining lost ridership. APTS technologies offer innovative and often low‐cost methods for improving transit service without costly and time‐consuming major capital projects. Financing APTS projects are generally funded through each transit agency’s federal formula allocation (Section 5307), and occasionally through Section 5309 grant awards. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2: Livable Communities Goal 5: Environmental Sustainability Transportation Systems Management Projects Description Transportation Systems Management Projects are low cost, non‐construction or minimal construction road projects designed to correct problems and improve operations at specific locations, particularly intersections. Because of their low cost and targeted scope, TSM projects can usually be implemented quickly to provide a short‐
range solution to a problem, while longer‐term solutions to underlying causes can be worked out. Typical TSM projects are geometric improvements at individual intersections, turning‐lane additions, lane re‐striping etc. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------75
Limits and Scope Transportation Systems Management Projects Carrollton at Washington Ave. Intersection Improvements US 90B Service Roads at Farrington Dr. Intersection Improvements I‐10 at Metairie Rd. Interchange Turnaround Improvements US 90 at Homeplace Dr. Turn Lane General DeGaulle Traffic Improvements LA 628 Turn Lane LA 48 Turn Lane Improvement near Shexnaydre Lane W. Esplanade at Clearview Pkwy. Intersection Improvements Loyola Dr. at I‐10 Interchange Improvements US 90 – MacArthur Drive Interchange Completion Earhart Expressway Access Improvements Earhart at Dakin Ramp Connector Judge Perez (LA 39) at Paris Rd. (LA 47 Intersection Improvements Clearview (Mounes – West Metairie) Traffic Management Ames Blvd. (Barataria Blvd. to Oregon Dr.) Continuous Turn Lane and Drainage LA 39 @ LA 47 Intersection Improvements I‐610 Interstate Signing Peters Rd. Extension Phase II, Interchange modifications to Peters Rd. and Engineers Rd. 76---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need The street system in the New Orleans Urbanized Area is constrained by a large number of water bodies. These include the Mississippi River whose winding path tends to twist the city’s streets out of a standard grid pattern, as well as many drainage and navigation canals that restrict the number of through streets. The result of this topography is that traffic in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area is characterized by localized, peak hour congestion at specific hot spots where a limited number of streets cross water features. Additional capacity is not feasible in most cases. Therefore, operational solutions are necessary to reduce conflicts and optimize traffic flow. Community Issues In many cases where congestion is localized, drivers divert to neighborhood streets, creating a safety and quality of life problem. TSM projects must be designed in such a way that they encourage drivers to travel predominantly on the major arterials designed to carry the majority of the traffic. Financing TSM projects are generally funded through federal formula funds attributed to urbanized areas over 200,000 in population with the match coming from the owner of the facility in question. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 2 — Livable Communities Transit Connectivity Description The Metropolitan Transportation Plan promotes the development of a comprehensive transportation system. One of the highest priorities of the RPC over the life of the 2040 transportation plan is to promote improved transit connectivity across jurisdictional lines, and to make transfer activity as safe and efficient as possible. The long‐
2040 MTP---------77
range goal is to foster the development of a truly regional system that provides transit patrons a seamless ride whatever their destination. Limits and Scope Current activities to promote inter‐parish transit coordination and connectivity include a regional Coordinated Operations Analysis to better define ridership patterns and user needs. Of particular interest is travel across the Mississippi River and across the east bank boundary between Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. Future activities will focus on regional traveler information services, and improved coordination of system schedules, hours and fare structures. The focus is not so much on a single regional operator as it is on institutional cooperation and consistency across operators. The goal is to provide a seamless regional system that has an overall identity regardless of ownership or operator. From a “bricks and mortar” perspective, transfer facilities are being planned for heavily utilized routes to make the process of transferring between buses safe and convenient for the user. Purpose and Need The area of greatest need for transit connectivity is in the area of job access and reverse commute. Many low and moderate income, transit‐dependent, citizens remain unemployed because the live in areas where jobs are scarce. These individuals desperately need reliable, inexpensive, and appropriately scheduled transit service to suburban job centers. Community Issues Issues raised by transit patrons trying to move across parish lines include: 1. Poor system connectivity at jurisdictional boundaries 2. The inordinate travel time and circuitous routes created when transit operators plan in isolation instead of regionally 3. The lack of late nigh suburban service. Suburban bus lines are useful if you want to shop in a store that closes at 9:30 PM, but not if you have to close up, clean up and leave nearer 11:00 PM. 4. Some areas of the region have no transit service at all, especially post‐Katrina 78---------2040 MTP
5. Residents near existing transfer locations complain of poor upkeep and maintenance of transfer areas. Financing At the current time RPC in conjunction with the transit operators and local parishes has been programming formula regional and local planning funds to examine these issues with the local governments providing match. In the case of implementation the cost of the improvement is very small or even provides an improvement in cost effectiveness that cancels out the new costs. In cases where significant funds are necessary to implement a strategy, such as funds to purchase revenue vehicles, the RPC works with the transit providers through the transit technical advisory committee to program formula, competitive, or discretionary funds. In addition the RPC administers two competitive FTA grant programs in the region. The Job Access Reverse Commute program solicits applications for transit providers to develop reverse commute services, and the New Freedom program offers funds for services directed towards elderly, disabled, or otherwise transportation disadvantaged populations. Facilities in planning stages include: 1. A major transit terminal is being planned for the east bank of Jefferson Parish. The proposed location for the facility is at the intersection of Jefferson Highway (US 90) and Causeway Boulevard. The terminal will serve as a transfer point for passengers on four of the six east bank bus lines. It will also serve as a park and ride facility and will offer transit riders services such as childcare, social services and a police substation. Proposed retail facilities include a newsstand, dry cleaner, bank branch or ATM, drug store, and fast food outlets. Funding for the project is through Sections 5307 and 5309 funds. 2. A transit terminal at Carrollton and Claiborne avenues in the Uptown neighborhood of New Orleans that will consolidate transfer opportunities for JeT’s Kenner Local, RTA’s St. Charles Streetcar, Tulane, S. Claiborne, and Leonidas bus lines. 3. Utilizing the Union Passenger Terminal as a consolidated transfer terminal for RTA, JeT, SBURT, and passenger rail. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------79
4. A transfer facility at Canal Blvd. just north of City Park Avenue, that includes an extension of the Canal Streetcar line. The facility will consolidate numerous existing stops across several directions of traffic into a single location. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 4 — Economic Competitiveness Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Intermodal Facilities Description Like its predecessor legislation, SAFETEA‐LU calls for increased attention on the interaction between modes of transportation in regard to both passengers and freight The City of New Orleans has developed a master plan for enhancing the Union Passenger Terminal in its role as an intermodal passenger terminal, and the RPC is currently working with freight terminals to identify intermodal transportation needs. Limits and Scope The RPC is currently developing a conditions inventory of designated NHS intermodal connectors. The inventory will include an assessment of physical conditions such as pavement quality and congestion, as well as economic indicators and needs such as workforce access. It is expected that the inventory will result in the identification of focus areas and specific projects related to the improvement of intermodal movements within and through the region. 80---------2040 MTP
Purpose and Need Many of the most pressing and costly problems associated with the transportation system have to do with locations where modes meet and transfers of goods or people must take place. Proper provision of facilities at these critical locations can significantly improve mobility and economic competitiveness. 

Financing There are no SAFETEA‐LU funding categories specifically for Intermodal projects. Funding is often obtained through earmarked demonstration project funds, and, when possible, through federal formula or state discretionary funds. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2: Livable Communities Goal 4: Economic Competitiveness Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------81
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT
Transportation Enhancements Description SAFETEA‐LU sets aside a percentage of the formula funds allocated to each state for use on projects that improve the functionality of non‐motorized modes such as bicycles and pedestrians as well as improve the aesthetic appearance of roadways and other transportation facilities. These projects are developed primarily by citizens’ groups and proposed for funding by DOTD from the available enhancement funds on a competitive basis. The RPC assists with project identification and development. Limits and Scope Transportation Enhancements Projects I‐10 (High Rise – I‐510) Fencing, Safety, Beautification Fat City Streetscape Enhancements I‐10 Beautification (Jefferson Parish) St. Roch Ave. and St. Claude Ave. Intersection Revitalization Laplace Gateway Sign Installation Metairie Rd. Landscaping & Beautification Purpose and Need One of the major criticisms of transportation system growth is that the transportation infrastructure is highly detrimental to the quality of life in the neighborhoods and sub‐communities impacted by a facility, but the benefits of that facility often flow to other stakeholders. 82---------2040 MTP
The Transportation Enhancement Program is a program to demonstrate that it is in the community’s best interest, both socially and economically, to include in its overall strategy projects that mitigate the detrimental impacts of transportation infrastructure, or even more aggressively, projects that enhance economic potential and quality of life, not just for the users and beneficiaries, but for the sites through which they travel. A prime example of such a project is the Tammany Trace, which is not only considered a community aesthetic asset, but has prompted economic development along its route. Community Issues The enhancement program is a major tool for promoting non‐motorized travel that reduces VMT, improves air quality and promotes quality of life. The enhancement program has strong advocates among the transit community, bicycling and disabled community, and neighborhood and business organizations. The Enhancement Program is not popular with highway traditionalists who feel it takes away from road projects needed for economic productivity of the highway system. This is currently a minority problem, however, and the enhancement program is a popular component of SAFETEA‐LU. Financing The projects listed in this category are funded on a 95% federal, 5% local basis with the match coming from the sponsor (e.g. the local parish) or from the community organization proposing the work. Some projects that are not successful in the competition for enhancement funds, especially strong projects that were eliminated strictly on the basis of funding availability, may still be eligible for funding with regular STP formula funds. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 1 — Safety Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------83
Livable Communities Street Improvements Description The RPC is participating in several projects that attempt to improve community livability through streetscape design and aesthetics. These projects serve to not only enhance multi‐modal transportation but also to create a greater sense of place through the use of sidewalk widening and enhancements, landscaping, lighting, bicycle facilities, and other design features. Limits and Scope Landscaping and beautification of South Claiborne Avenue between MLK Boulevard and Napoleon Avenue is currently underway. The RPC has also initiated planning for streetscape improvements to Andrew Higgins Street in the Warehouse District, near the National World War II Museum. Purpose and Need The physical design of streets represents a major opportunity to include features that encourage multi‐modal transportation while also improving community livability. Such projects incorporate Complete Streets principals by acknowledging the close relationship between a street’s design and the ways in which it is perceived and used by the community. Community Issues These projects are generally well supported by the community. The Andrew Higgins project, in particular, is modeled after the highly successful improvements to Magazine Street in the vicinity of the National World War II Museum. That project incorporated new lighting, widened sidewalks, a bike lane, and decorative brick on the street and sidewalks. Many regard it as a significant improvement over the previous street design, and the RPC looks to build on that success with the Andrew Higgins project. The Claiborne Avenue project will enhance a major urban corridor in the Central City and Broadmoor neighborhoods. Both of these areas were substantially impacted by Hurricane Katrina but have seen positive recovery and reinvestment activities, including the construction of a major new mixed‐income housing development. The beautification of Claiborne Avenue is expected to contribute to neighborhood livability and quality of life for area residents. 84---------2040 MTP
Financing Streetscape projects are funded through a variety of sources, including STP>200K and Transportation Enhancements. Local government and private contributions may also be used. Environmental Studies Description Environmental Studies are planning efforts carried out under guidance from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In the context of transportation policy and planning, the NEPA process is designed to help a community create a climate for open public dialogue using objective technical data in order to reach a consensus on the most environmentally sound and cost effective means of accomplishing community goals in a transportation corridor. Environmental Assessments are conducted when a project’s environmental impacts are unknown and need to be identified. In the event significant impacts are identified, either through an Environmental Assessment (EA) or during project development, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is conducted. Environmental Impact Studies consider multiple alternative travel modes at varying expenditure levels and attempts to build a community consensus on a preferred alternative. The action of completion in an EIS is called a Record of Decision. Limits and Scope Environmental Studies Causeway Blvd. (Airline Dr. – W. Napoleon) Widen to 6 Lanes EA LA 23 (Happy Jack – Port Sulphur) Widening EA LA 406 (LA 23 – LA 407) Widening EA Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Capacity Improvement Study Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------85
Purpose and Need Environmental studies are undertaken both as a matter of legislative requirement and community responsibility. To the extent possible, they identify a project’s potential environmental impacts and recommend mitigation strategies. As such they assist the RPC in avoiding major negative impacts to the built and natural environments. Community Issues Environmental Studies are planning efforts designed to identify and take into consideration community issues through an open public involvement process. The most significant community issue will be to properly identify and inform the various stakeholders who may have an interest in the study or its outcome to insure that the study outcome properly represents community interests. Financing Environmental studies are funded from a variety of sources, including Congressional Earmarks, traditional federal formula funds, and highway priority discretionary funds. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2 — Livable Communities Goal 5 — Environmental Sustainability Travel Demand Management Description Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a collection of strategies to mitigate traffic congestion by reducing the number of Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips and/or Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). Strategies can generally be grouped into three categories: increasing the number of passengers per vehicle, changing mode usage, and 86---------2040 MTP
changing travel behavior to reduce the number of trips taken. In practice these strategies can include ridesharing and carpooling; use of transit and non‐motorized transportation; and encouraging land use development that allows a single trip to accomplish several tasks (e.g., shopping on the way home from work). Limits and Scope The RPC is in the process of starting a TDM program, and the first strategy to be implemented will attempt to facilitate and encourage ridesharing. A website is currently being developed that will give commuters the capability to set up carpools or other ridesharing arrangements with other travelers that have similar travel patterns and preferences. Outreach to major employers, job centers, and travel destinations will be a substantial part of the program in order to attract greater numbers of users. Community Issues Traffic congestion during peak hours is a major concern for the region’s travelers, particularly those with long commutes on the freeway system. As suburban parishes continue to experience population growth the problem can only be expected to worsen. TDM strategies offer relatively low‐cost, easy‐to‐implement methods for addressing congestion both system‐wide and for individual travelers. As local transit agencies continue to recover from fleet damage and ridership loss caused by Hurricane Katrina, ridesharing is one of the best choices for travelers looking for an alternative commute mode. Financing LaDOTD has made Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds available to each MPO in the state to establish TDM programs. The funding will be available on a recurring, annual basis in the short term, with possible extensions depending on program success and funding availability. MTP Goals Addressed Goal 2: Livable Communities Goal 5: Environmental Sustainability Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------87
MAJOR PROJECTS
The following major projects were selected for more detailed description to provide a clearer picture of the RPC’s upcoming activities. Almonaster Bridge Replacement Description Prior to Hurricane Katrina, conceptual design plans were created to replace the existing Almonaster Bridge. The project would have widened the bridge to accommodate four vehicle lanes, provide a bicycle path and pedestrian walkway, as well as accommodating existing freight rail (two tracks). A new vertical lift span bridge with a 126’ height and 200’ width would replace the current bascule design extending over the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal. Current shoulder widths on the bridge and approach roads are inadequate. Due to increased costs of the original concept, the current project scope calls for a replacement‐in‐kind of the bridge, with two vehicle lanes, two rail tracks, and a vertical lift span. The primary benefit of its replacement is in economic development from improved multi‐modal freight activities and improved access to jobs at the nearby New Orleans Region Business and Industrial District. Limits and Scope Almonaster Boulevard is a four lane divided highway narrowing to two lanes at the bridge. The bridge services maritime and rail needs as well as vehicular traffic. Navigational vessel clearances for height and width were important considerations in the design. The proximity of the bridge to Interstate 10 and to Jourdan Road down ramps prevents the new design from being a high‐rise fixed span or mid‐rise bridge. Purpose and Need The existing Almonaster Bridge is a critical choke point in vehicle, rail and maritime movements. It is a vital component of the New Orleans Rail Gateway, providing access for almost all east‐west railroad freight movements in the southern United States with the exception of the cars diverted on the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad. The New Orleans Regional Business and Industrial District (NORBID), east of the bridge and the site of over 100 businesses, is hindered by the vehicle capacity of the single‐lane bridge. The CSX railroad intermodal 88---------2040 MTP
facility is also east of the bridge, and vehicles must cross two CSX mainline rail tracks and two rail spur alignments. The route is frequently blocked by train building activities between the CSX facility and the bridge. The span is the narrowest point on the IHNC at 96 feet, creating a bottleneck for maritime movements along the IHNC. Numerous bridge openings, an average of twenty‐one per day, further impede vehicle and rail traffic. Approximately 90 years old, the facility is long past its design life, and mechanical and electrical systems are in need of repair and maintenance. Community Issues The project has broad support by the residential and freight communities because it greatly improves both auto and truck movements. The design completely separates main line track movements from vehicle traffic along Almonaster Avenue. Economic development should be enhanced due to better auto and truck access to NORBID and Port related facilities on France and Jourdan Roads servicing the IHNC. Replacement of the bridge will improve train transit time. This will shorten the time vehicles wait at rail crossings, especially for north‐south vehicle movements at Louisa Street. While widening the bridge to four lanes would be expected to relieve congestion on the corridor, estimated project costs have risen significantly since Hurricane Katrina, now at $89 million for a four lane facility. Much of the additional cost entails work mandated by the US Coast Guard to the Industrial Canal itself. RPC, DOTD and the Port of New Orleans are currently re‐evaluating the scope of the project, as costs continue to escalate. In order to remain financial constraint, the currently proposed project would be a replacement of the existing bridge without capacity increases. However, due to the facility’s age and condition, replacement of the bridge is still considered a major priority. Due to the bridge’s significance to intercity passenger and freight rail, the track can only be out of service for 24 to 48 hours during construction; a substantial portion of the construction work will therefore need to take place off‐
site. Financing Because of the intermodal nature of the project the state has listed it as a Tier I high priority project in the State Intermodal Transportation Plan. Almonaster Blvd. is on the National Highway System but is not a state route. Therefore it is ineligible for state funds. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------89
The state has currently committed $20 million in Federal Bridge Replacement Funds and an additional $5 million has been programmed from STP >200K Funds. The remaining funds will come from local sources such as the City of New Orleans and the Port of New Orleans. Efforts are underway to increase the level of Federal participation through formula grant programs and congressional reauthorization of the transportation bill. Canal Street Transit Terminal Description The Canal Transit Terminal project proposes a new, consolidated transit terminal near the intersection of Canal Boulevard and City Park Avenue. The project would include a short extension of the Canal Streetcar line across City Park Avenue, new bus parking for RTA and JeT vehicles, and shelters for passengers. The new terminal will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the intersection itself will also be brought up to current ADA standards. Limits and Scope Relocating the terminus of the streetcar operation would allow more flexibility to better integrate other transit into one consolidated area improving safety and efficiency of this intersection. Purpose and Need The intersection of Canal Street, Canal Boulevard, and City Park Avenue is a major transfer point for several RTA and JeT transit routes, and is especially important for travel between Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. However the intersection is complex and presents several operation and safety problems for passengers, transit vehicles, and automobile traffic. Transferring passengers must frequently cross the intersection on foot, with only limited crosswalks and no pedestrian signals available. Bus movements are complicated by tight turning radii and the complex geometry of the intersection. Moreover, the roads are major commute routes, resulting in high traffic volumes at peak travel times. There are multiple potential conflict points between automobiles, passengers, pedestrians, and transit vehicles, contributing to congestion and creating potential safety problems. 90---------2040 MTP
Consolidating the transit termini at one location would substantially reduce the number of pedestrians crossing the intersection, and redesigned stops could improve transit vehicle movements. Moreover, improving the intersection’s geometry and signalization can be expected to alleviate some vehicle congestion at the intersection. Community Issues At this time, logistical issues of crossing City Park Avenue (a heavily congested arterial roadway) may cause concern with some area residents. Initial traffic simulations of the area suggest that it is possible to relocate the terminus with a minimum of traffic disruption. Area residents have also expressed concerns about the aesthetics of the terminal, particularly in relation to the project’s impact on the Canal Boulevard neutral ground. RTA continues to engage the community through public meetings to determine the most satisfactory solution to the concerns that have been raised. Financing The project will be financed using federal earmark, Section 5309, and New Starts funds remaining from the construction of the Canal Street line. Riverfront Streetcar Extension Description This project proposes the extension of the Riverfront Streetcar Line to approximately Jackson Avenue in the Lower Garden District in the upriver direction and to Poland Avenue in the downriver direction. Limits and Scope The upriver project entails extending the line approximately one mile to a terminus at or near Jackson Avenue using existing rail rights‐of‐way, or a new right‐of‐way, to be determined from planning study. A modification of the trackwork/switch at Canal Street at the river should also be included in this effort, providing direct upriver‐
bound access to Canal Street vehicles, similar to that enjoyed in the French Quarter. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------91
The downriver portion would extend approximately two miles, using existing or new rights of way, again to be determined from a planning study. Purpose and Need Either extension will allow the Riverfront Streetcar to better serve the convention center, port facilities, cruise terminals, and several mixed use developments of combined commercial, residential and hotel uses that are being undertaken and developed in the area. Issues and Expected Outcomes The primary issues involve competing development plans related to the Convention Center, and port consolidation, and riverfront land use changes promulgated by the City of New Orleans pursuant to their master planning efforts. Coordinated planning will be necessary to keep this a viable project. Financing Financing is expected to come from a combination of federal rail modernization formula funds, other transit formula funds and from private sources through public private partnerships. Downtown Circulator Streetcar Lines Description The RPC, RTA and the City of New Orleans are pursuing the expansion of the city’s streetcar network to improve circulation in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. The Loyola Avenue spur will link the Union Passenger Terminal with Canal Street, as well as service numerous redevelopment initiatives planned for the corridor since Hurricane Katrina. A Rampart St. / St. Claude Avenue line would connect the Marigny, Bywater, French Quarter, and other nearby neighborhoods with Canal Street. Finally, a Warehouse District loop and extension of the Riverfront line would provide better access to the Convention Center, nearby businesses and residences. Limits and Scope Three new streetcar alignments are associated with the Downtown Circulator project: 92---------2040 MTP
1. Loyola Avenue / Elk Place from the Union Passenger Terminal to Canal Street 2. Rampart Street / St. Claude Avenue from Canal Street to Press Street 3. A loop through the American Sector from Canal Street to the existing terminus of the Riverfront line at the Convention Center Purpose and Need The new streetcar lines are expected to greatly improve travel within central New Orleans, and will serve both residents and visitors. Each of the areas served by the new lines have been the subject of intense reinvestment and revitalization activities in recent years. The streetcar expansion will further contribute to improved economic development, community livability, and environmental sustainability in these neighborhoods. The Loyola line will provide direct access to the Union Passenger Terminal, improving connectivity for intercity bus and train passengers. It will also improve access to important facilities such as City Hall, as well as the Superdome and the redevelopment projects with which it is associated. The Convention Center line would connect the Riverfront line with a new loop through the American Sector, which includes parts of the lower CBD and Warehouse District. The line would better serve the Convention Center. Along with the Loyola line, it would also provide improved transit options for the growing residential population of the Warehouse District and CBD. The Rampart / St. Claude alignment will partially replace one of the RTA’s busiest bus routes, the St. Claude line. It will serve the historic French Quarter, Marigny, and Bywater neighborhoods, and has the potential to attract high ridership from both residents and visitors. Community Issues There is generally widespread support for expansion of the streetcar system among residents, businesses, and visitors. Some concerns may arise in connection with particular alignments and their impact on communities. Additionally, the lines should not be operated in a manner that detracts from the operation of other transit routes or otherwise negatively impacts transit riders. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------93
Financing The Loyola portion of the Downtown Circulator project has received funding via a $45 million federal TIGER grant. Substantial local contributions are expected to aid in financing the remaining portions of the project. In addition to Section 5309 federal transit funds, the RPC, RTA, and City of New Orleans are pursuing other Federal funding sources to complete the financing package. East‐West Corridor Transit Description The project proposes a fixed guideway transit improvement between Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and the Central Business District of New Orleans. Limits and Scope Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the RPC and DOTD initiated an Environmental Impact Statement to investigate the potential for new, fixed guideway transit service between the New Orleans CBD and Louis Armstrong International Airport. Several technologies were reviewed, including commuter rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit. All options entail the use of a fixed guideway over part, if not all, of a proposed alignment. The Draft EIS was completed in 2007 and demonstrated the potential for substantial positive impacts for the region, with no major adverse impacts identified. However, the study’s assumptions were based on pre‐Katrina data and its findings have yet to be updated. Transit ridership, vehicle travel, demographics, and many other variables are still fluctuating due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina. For this reason the East‐West Transit project has been put on hold until conditions have further stabilized and the project’s impacts can be reassessed. Such stabilization can be reasonably expected to occur within the 30‐year timeframe of this plan, and the potentially substantial positive impacts of the project warrant its continued inclusion in the MTP. Purpose and Need The corridor between eastern St. Charles Parish and the New Orleans CBD is arguably the most congested in the state of Louisiana, even post‐Hurricane Katrina. Although the I‐10 widening project will relieve a great deal of existing and future congestion, it will not in itself be enough to accommodate the projected growth of VMT in the 94---------2040 MTP
corridor, particularly in specific market segments, such as tourism. The East‐West Corridor project presents an excellent opportunity not only to alleviate congestion in the corridor, but also to leverage the investment to affect positive change in land use, density and curtailing sprawl. Community Issues The primary issues involve the competitive nature of funding, potential environmental justice issues, and potential right‐of‐way issues for some alignment alternatives. Mitigation strategies were identified in the original EIS, and will be reassessed for effectiveness when project development continues. In multiple public meetings the project was generally supported by residents as being necessary for alleviating congestion and providing additional travel options. Financing Financing is expected to come from a combination of federal new starts, congressional earmarks, state of Louisiana capital outlay funds, highway formula funds (flex), other transit formula funds and from private sources through public private partnership efforts. Florida Avenue Bridge and Boulevard at the IHNC Description The Florida Avenue Bridge and Boulevard project originally called for the construction of a major four lane, fixed span bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC / Industrial Canal) in the Florida Avenue right‐of‐
way. Access to the bridge on the east side of the canal will be at Caffin and Tupelo streets, and on the west side at Alvar / Louisa Street. The project is currently being re‐evaluated by LaDOTD to adjust the scope in light of current needs and resources. Limits and Scope The original proposal for the project involves a four lane, fixed span bridge over the IHNC, between Alvar and Caffin avenues. The four lane section would continue to Tupelo Street. At Tupelo Street the roadway will taper to Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------95
two lanes and continue to Paris Road (LA 47) in St. Bernard Parish. The project extent and design may change pending the recommendation of LaDOTD’s reassessment. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, a future extension of this project was envisioned by St. Bernard Parish that included extending the roadway south and east from LA 47 to Colonial Boulevard, near the Violet Canal. This roadway is currently being reassessed by parish officials. Purpose and Need The primary traffic corridor connecting St. Bernard Parish to New Orleans by way of the 9th Ward is heavily congested, in large part due to the limited number of bridge crossings at the IHNC. The current Florida Avenue Bridge is a substandard, at grade crossing that must open repeatedly for all marine traffic, no matter how small the vessel. This project would provide a third arterial connection across a new, higher bridge to deal with recurring peak‐hour congestion and provide additional capacity in the event of a hurricane evacuation. Community Issues Many citizens in the communities of St. Bernard Parish and in the lower 9th Ward in Orleans, geographically east of the IHNC, have voiced support for a high‐rise bridge. Such an asset will not be affected by marine traffic, and would provide a secure route for hurricane evacuation despite the heavy marine movements that take place when a hurricane threatens. Residents of the neighborhoods that would be impacted by the bridge structure are mixed in their response to the project. While some support increased access to their neighborhood, others are wary of increased traffic and other negative impacts of the bridge. Financing Currently identified funding for the Florida Avenue Bridge comes from the TIMED program. The cost estimate for the project as described is approximately $150 million, but the cost estimate is expected to change with an adjustment in project scope. The extended roadway to Colonial Boulevard would be paid for with Parish funds, with some funding potentially provided through the STP>200K program. 96---------2040 MTP
Interstate 10 Bottleneck Elimination & Interchange Reconstruction Description The I‐10 widening is a bottleneck elimination project on the primary western access route to the New Orleans Urbanized Area. The project effectively adds an additional through travel lane in each direction from the Metairie Road interchange in Orleans Parish to the Williams Interchange in Jefferson, as well as redesign and reconstruction of the Bonnabel, Causeway, and Williams Boulevard interchanges. Limits and Scope Project Phases I‐10 / I‐610 at 17th St. Canal – completed I‐10 / Williams Interchange – completed Widening 17th St. Canal to Metairie Rd. – completed I‐10 Causeway to 17th St. Canal ‐ completed I‐10 / Causeway interchange – under construction Widening Causeway to Clearview – completed Widening Clearview to Veterans Widening Veterans to Williams Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to alleviate severe congestion and improve access to the urban area from the west. At the project location, Interstate 10 is still the most heavily traveled roadway in the state of Louisiana, even after Hurricane Katrina. Typical weekday traffic totals over 170,000 for a 24‐hour period, and recurring delays in the A.M. and P.M. peaks are significant. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------97
Furthermore, levels of traffic remain high in the off‐peak direction during peak hours, as well as during the midday and evening off‐peak times. Projected increases in commuter demand as well as the growth of commercial activity in East Jefferson point to worsening conditions and increased congestion unless efforts are undertaken to eliminate the bottleneck. Community Issues Virtually all community input concerning this project acknowledges the fact that this project is extremely important and that efforts to relieve congestion in the corridor should be given a high priority. However, various neighborhood groups living near the project area have expressed concerns about construction impacts, and post‐
project impacts to neighborhoods adjacent to the redesigned interchanges, particularly at Bonnabel Boulevard. As part of mitigation of this capacity improvement, sound walls have been constructed along some parts of the interstate to shield sensitive receptors from adverse impacts related to noise that can rationally be attributed to the improvement. Community input, by way of a Technical Advisory Committee, was solicited by the Regional Planning Commission to help guide design criteria of the sound walls. Financing Financing for the remainder of this project is expected to come from NHS funds controlled by the LaDOTD. I‐10 East Widening, Elysian Fields to Bullard Description The widening of the I‐10 between Elysian Fields and Bullard Road, including the High Rise Bridge over the IHNC is a project that will alleviate a severe traffic bottleneck that has hampered mobility in the eastern corridor for many years. The project entails widening the High Rise Bridge to an eight lane section. 98---------2040 MTP
Limits and Scope Limits for this project entail widening the Interstate mainline from six to eight lanes between Elysian Fields Avenue and Bullard Road, a distance of approximately 8 miles. A related improvement includes eliminating the bottleneck at the I‐10 twin span bridge by widening from four to six lanes. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to alleviate severe congestion and improve access to the urban area to and from the east. Typical weekday traffic totals over 150,000 for a 24‐hour period, and recurring delays in the A.M. and P.M. peaks are significant with cars backed up for miles. Due to the grade of the bridge, a substandard 6% for an interstate highway, and the severe grade of the Downman and Louisa on‐ramps (over 7%) traffic is severely hindered. Levels of Service of the roadway diminish very quickly with increased traffic volumes, and especially when an incident such as a stalled vehicle or crash hinders vehicle movements. Moreover, both on‐ramps serve the industrial land uses associated with the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. A high number of heavy trucks entering the highway at very steep grades causing safety problems as trucks merge into traffic, in addition to the upstream affect of vehicles on the mainline slowing down precipitously to allow heavy vehicle onto the roadway. Furthermore, levels of traffic remain high in the off‐peak direction during peak hours, as well as during the midday and evening off‐peak times. Community Issues Virtually all community input concerning this project thus far acknowledges the fact that this project is extremely important and that efforts to relieve congestion in the corridor should be given a high priority. However, a number of issues would need to be addressed, such as noise and air quality impacts to nearby residents. Financing The Regional Planning Commission is in the process of determining funding sources for this project. RPC believes that a number of financial resources can be utilized for the project, including the possibility of toll collection. It is Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------99
for this reason that this project is considered financially constrained. This project is included in LaDOTD’s Transportation Master Plan as a “Priority A” mega‐project. I‐10 Claiborne Expressway Removal Study Description In recent years residents of the City of New Orleans have expressed an interest in removing the elevated portion of I‐10 over Claiborne Avenue. Study of the removal is noted as an important priority in the City’s Master Plan, and should the City of New Orleans decide to proceed with the project the RPC will be a major partner in the study and any subsequent decision‐making. The RPC has not received an official request to conduct or participate in a study of the expressway’s removal; however, it has been included in this plan in anticipation of such a request due to increasing public attention to the project and its inclusion in the City’s Master Plan. The expressway was built over Claiborne Avenue in the late 1960s as part of the original construction of I‐10 through New Orleans. Though originally conceived as an urban renewal project, the expressway has since been widely criticized as contributing to disinvestment in and deterioration of a large portion of central New Orleans, most notably the Treme and 7th Ward neighborhoods. Claiborne Avenue had previously been a major boulevard and commercial corridor that was especially important to New Orleans’ African‐American and Creole communities. Building the expressway over Claiborne Avenue is credited by many as having severe negative effects on the neighborhood, greatly diminishing community livability and, in turn, eroding the area’s culture and viability as a thriving urban neighborhood. Many believe that removing the expressway and restoring Claiborne Avenue would have profound positive impacts on the neighborhoods through which it travels and the city as a whole. Removal of the expressway is highly controversial, however, because of the importance of the corridor to regional transportation. Approximately 120,000 vehicles per day travel on the elevated expressway, and an additional 20,000 vehicles per day travel on Claiborne Avenue. Limits and Scope Removal of the Claiborne Expressway would have significant impacts on the neighborhoods through which it travels, the City of New Orleans, and the entire region. Studies considering the project will necessarily need to 100---------2040 MTP
consider the multiple potential impacts, both positive and negative. Potential improvements to community livability and revitalization would need to be assessed, as would the negative effects of increased vehicle traffic on local roads. The impact to regional transportation would also need to be studied, including the use of I‐610 as an alternative east‐west route and the use of other modes to offset the loss of roadway capacity. Purpose and Need If successful, removal of the Claiborne expressway could have profound impacts on community livability and quality of life in the neighborhoods affected. The revitalization of these historically and culturally important urban neighborhoods would contribute to economic development and environmental sustainability. Given their central location near the CBD, French Quarter and other areas, reinvestment in Treme and the 7th Ward could also have positive impacts on the entire City of New Orleans and surrounding region. The potentially severe negative impacts of the removal, however, necessitate in‐depth study and analysis. It may be revealed that the impacts to transportation and the regional economy would be so severe as to negate any potential gains. Community Issues The impetus for the study comes from the community itself. The expressway has been controversial within the adjacent neighborhoods since its construction, and in recent years its removal has become increasingly important to a large number of residents both within those neighborhoods and beyond. During the recent New Orleans Master Planning effort, the project received considerable attention and its study has been noted in the Plan as a high priority. Opponents have also been vocal, however, especially among those who rely on the corridor for transportation. Commuters from outlying communities are concerned about potential travel delays, and impacts to commercial and freight travel would concern businesses. Due to the widespread and diverse community impacts of the project, public involvement would be a vital component of any study. Financing Financing for the study would likely come from a combination of local sources and federal formula funds. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------101
LA 3145 – Relocated Hickory (Gardner to Mounes / Mounes to LA 48) Description LA 3145 is the perpendicular western terminus of Earhart Blvd. and services Elmwood Industrial and Business District. When Earhart Boulevard was built (a limited access elevated expressway connecting Orleans and Jefferson Parishes), a portion of LA 3154 or Hickory Lane, was moved slightly east and widened to a four lane divided roadway. The initial widening stretched from Airline Highway to Gardner Road. The segment from Gardner to Mounes has been constructed and is open to traffic at this time. Mounes was extended approximately 200 feet to intersect with Dickory. This project is now addressing the final segments of widening and extending LA 3154 south, one segment traversing two lane Hickory and one segment in a new alignment from approximately Mounes to Jefferson Highway. Limits and Scope The full reconstruction and extension of LA 3154 will offer a new four lane divided roadway between Jefferson Highway and Airline Highway, providing a new north‐south alternative route for truck and commuter traffic. The majority of the land has been acquired by DOTD and plans are being updated. The proposed route would provide separation from existing local streets that currently connect to the existing route. Purpose and Need Elmwood employs over 28,500 persons and 1,200 businesses. It is a vital hub for commercial and industrial development, providing a large tax base for the State of Louisiana and Jefferson Parish. Demands on this route have grown in proportion to the build out in Elmwood. The current roadway is inadequate for increasing travel demands and may actually encourage out migration of business to St. Charles Parish or St. James Business Park. Importantly, the capacity increase will substantially reduce congestion on Clearview Parkway, operating at Level of Service F during A.M. and P.M. peak periods. Clearview is currently the primary route into and out of Elmwood and the only arterial for north‐south movements across the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish. 102---------2040 MTP
Community Issues The four laning of these segments will especially benefit Elmwood Industrial Park with an improved route but could also increase the volume of commercial vehicle trips near the neighboring community of Harahan to the west of LA 3154. The Clearview corridor carries 18% commercial vehicle traffic, reflecting the commercial‐
industrial nature of Elmwood. Relocated Hickory will divert a great deal of the commercial vehicle traffic from Clearview parkway. Plans are also being developed in partnership with the community to rehabilitate Old Hickory with minor lane widening, drainage and lighting to enhance its new function as a minor arterial serving local land use. Financing State capital outlay bonds and state cash from the highway trust fund gasoline tax receipts are targeted to redesign and reconstruct LA 3154. Lapalco Widening Description Lapalco is a principal arterial providing east‐west access between Algiers, on the West Bank of Orleans Parish, and the western portion of Jefferson parish at US 90. Lapalco Boulevard is an at‐grade roadway with 34 signalized intersections over the 14.18 miles between its intersection with DeGaulle at Behrman, and Lapalco at US 90. It serves as a parallel east‐west arterial to the Westbank Expressway (US 90B), servicing the lower portions of West Jefferson and Algiers. It is heavily developed with commercial and retail activities. Ultimately this is a phased effort to widen all the four lane sections of Lapalco to six lanes, and two lane sections to four lanes. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------103
Limits and Scope Lapalco Widening – Project Phases Destrehan to Barataria – completed Barataria to Westwood – completed Westwood to Tanglewood Widening of the Lapalco Bridge across Bayou Segnette Segnette to US 90 The phases identified for reconstruction in the current plan are the western portion of Lapalco. The intent of the project is to upgrade these four lane sections to six lanes. The bridge widening will probably occur last and very late in the plan because of costs. Purpose and Need Current congestion on Lapalco is growing due to increased Westbank development and the nature of the roadway as a major east‐west arterial, only one of three crossing the Harvey Canal. This upgrade and widened segments will provide improved access for points west of the region experiencing heavy growth from oil and gas offshore exploration and continued residential expansion. Community Issues Minor impacts are expected during the construction phase but the Regional Planning Commission and Jefferson parish will continue to address any community concerns as the project proceeds. Financing The project will be funded with STP greater than 200K funds targeted for the urbanized area. Lapalco has also been included in the RPC high priority funding package for congressionally earmarked discretionary funds. 104---------2040 MTP
Peters Road Corridor Description Peters Road is a north‐south minor arterial along the Harvey Canal serving an industrial area that produces heavy truck volumes. There is also some residential access and a riverboat casino that generates substantial trips. Ultimately the corridor will be widened and extended to LA 23, and a new interchange at US 90B will be constructed. Limits and Scope 1. Peters Road Widening to three lanes between US 90B and the Bayou Barataria Bridge (complete). 2. Peters Road / Westbank Expressway Interchange 3. Peters Road Extension to LA 23 with Bridge Purpose and Need Improvements to Peters Road are essential for commercial and safety reasons. Traffic volumes that exceed capacity and the highly variable mix of vehicle types affect access to adjacent land uses. In addition the proximity of other modes such as railroads introduces safety issues, and the effect of vehicular traffic on these other modes can have an impact on economic development. The Peters Road extension would also serve as a potential bypass of Belle Chasse for lower Plaquemines Parish, allowing access to US 90 and other roadways leading out of the area in a much more direct way. This additional access would be particularly important during an evacuation event. The interchange at the elevated US 90 and Peters Road will also help this movement by providing direct access to the controlled access freeway. Issues and Expected Outcomes This series of projects is designed to increase capacity, reduce turning movement conflicts and improve access to the industrial corridor, especially for large trucks. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------105
The proposed bridge and extension into Plaquemines will allow for a better land use distribution of business, commercial and residential uses, thus reducing conflicts. The new bridge and extension will provide new and more secure access to Alvin Calendar Naval Air Station. It will also become part of the New Orleans regional hurricane evacuation route system. Financing These projects will be funded with a combination of federal formula, congressional high priority, state and local funds including, in some cases, tolls from the CCC bridge. The US Economic Development Administration, with Jefferson Parish, is also funding some ancillary sewer improvements required by the roadway widening. Bridge and roadway work for the extension project is estimated to be approximately $65 million. Earhart Corridor Description The Earhart Expressway is a controlled access, non‐interstate freeway serving East Jefferson parish. The program described here consists of a new interchange at Causeway Boulevard and a ramp connector to Dakin Street. Limits and Scope The new interchange at Causeway Boulevard will connect both North and Southbound Causeway with East and Westbound Earhart. The new ramp connection at Dakin Street will connect Eastbound Earhart with Southbound Dakin. Each of these project concepts were examined in the East‐West Corridor EIS to determine their environmental impacts and cost effectiveness. Project design and implementation will be consistent with the findings of the EIS. Purpose and Need The Earhart Expressway has excellent potential to serve as a congestion relief valve in the heavily congested East Jefferson Corridor. It is also valuable to truck movements in the region because of its proximity to Elmwood 106---------2040 MTP
Business Park and various intermodal facilities. The facility is underutilized, however, because of poor access. The proposed projects work together to optimize various aspects of the corridor. The Causeway Interchange will provide connectivity for regional commuter trips now captive to I‐10. The project has just completed the environmental assessment phase. The connector ramp at Dakin Street will facilitate access to Uptown New Orleans from East Jefferson. Issues and Expected Outcomes This series of projects has strong support from both the business community and the local governments, particularly in Jefferson parish. It is generally recognized that Earhart is an underutilized asset in our toolbox for improving freight movement and commerce in the region. There are competing interests that must be considered and addressed, however. The negative impacts of the project relate primarily to construction impacts and to increased traffic on approach arterials. The Causeway Interchange will increase traffic on Causeway Boulevard which traverses a mixed commercial / residential community that is resistant to proposed road widening along Causeway. The western flyover… Finally, as these projects make Earhart a more desirable route for commuter and truck traffic, the resulting increase in traffic volumes in New Orleans could adversely affect the edge neighborhoods along Earhart Boulevard such as Hollygrove and Gert Town. Avoidance or mitigation of these impacts was given priority consideration during the EIS. One concept that is being given consideration during the EIS is fixed guideway transit service along the corridor in conjunction with a modified set of Earhart improvements. Financing Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------107
Proposed financing for the proposed projects will come from a variety of federal and state sources. Causeway Boulevard Widening Description The current plan calls for lane additions and geometric improvements to several sections of Causeway Boulevard to improve traffic flow and level of service particularly during peak hour. Limits and Scope The project limits of the widening project run from US 61 to West Napoleon Boulevard. This project is being proposed by Jefferson Parish to alleviate existing congestion in the corridor. Purpose and Need Causeway Boulevard is a major north‐south arterial running from Lake Pontchartrain to the Mississippi River in East Jefferson Parish. From the lake to Airline Drive, the roadway operates at a Level of Service F during peak period, and sometimes during off peak travel as well. Issues and Expected Outcomes The primary issues relate to neighborhood impacts of the widening and increased traffic on adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. Additionally, the proposed Earhart/Causeway Interchange will further increase traffic on Causeway Boulevard, which traverses a mixed commercial and residential community that may be resistant to the proposed widening along Causeway. However, the projects have been endorsed by the Jefferson Chamber and Business Council. Financing A portion of Causeway from Veterans to West Napoleon will be included in the I‐10 Causeway interchange reconstruction. The section from West Napoleon to US 61 will be funded with local parish funds, GNOEC funding, and possibly STP > 200K. 108---------2040 MTP
Harvey / Lapalco – Harvey Canal Crossing Description The scope of the Harvey / Lapalco Corridor project is to improve east‐west capacity over the Harvey Canal on the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. The need for this project has been brought up in community meetings and economic development roundtables on the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. Limits and Scope The initiative calls for improving capacity at either the existing Lapalco Bridge (to a six lane section) or a new four lane alignment over the Harvey Canal at Harvey Boulevard. An environmental review found that the project would have no significant environmental impacts. Purpose and Need The existing Lapalco corridor is extremely congested. While the parish and RPC have worked to add capacity along this thoroughfare, a bottleneck exists at the bridge. The corridor improvement would alleviate congestion along Lapalco by making a new corridor available to motorists while at the same time alleviating network connectivity problems posed by the Harvey Canal. Community Issues The primary issues related to this project concern traffic flow in the corridor. Other issues will include the overall growth of traffic along Harvey Boulevard, and the impact of that growth to adjacent neighborhoods east of the Harvey Canal should that alignment be chosen. Financing Neither Lapalco nor Harvey Boulevard is a state route. Therefore, funding for this project is expected to come primarily from Jefferson Parish. However, some federal aid (urbanized attributable) funds are expected to be utilized, as well as Congressional High Priority funds. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------109
I‐49S / I‐310 Elevated Section Description I‐49 is section of Interstate highway the Louisiana portion of which is proposed to run from just north of Shreveport to New Orleans. Limits and Scope The portion of I‐49 from Shreveport to Lafayette has been completed. The portion through Lafayette is currently being designed. The phase of the project in the New Orleans metropolitan area generally follows the US 90 alignment. The project will attempt, where possible, to take advantage of existing rights of way in the area west of New Orleans, some of which have already been constructed to interstate standards. The project identified in this plan is a section from the terminus of the existing elevated Westbank Expressway (US 90B) westward to the vicinity of I‐310. An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared and approved by FHWA. Due to the high cost of completing the entire project, DOTD is currently considering the implementation of lower‐cost, incremental improvements to the corridor. Purpose and Need The upgrade of this portion of US 90B is designed to provide improved mobility and access to the major corridors on the west bank. The project has been touted as an excellent economic development engine as well as a much needed additional hurricane evacuation route. Community Issues There are mixed reactions to the proposed roadway as an economic development project. Additional community concerns focus on the impact of the proposed interstate facility on existing businesses and town centers in the Westwego and Boutte areas. As a result of the community participation process, alternative alignments were identified and included in the EIS for consideration. The Transportation Policy Board has provided only conditional support as long as the project will not affect funding for the remainder of the federal aid urban area. 110---------2040 MTP
Financing Currently funding is proposed to come from federal formula funds controlled by DOTD and from Congressional earmarks. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------111
Tulane Avenue Complete Streets Project Description This project seeks to apply Complete Streets principals to a portion of the Tulane Avenue (US 61) corridor just north of the CBD, through the new Medical District. It will convert the corridor from a mostly auto‐centric orientation into one that encourages and enhances the use of all modes, including transit, walking, and bicycling. Additional design features will enhance the aesthetic quality of the corridor, contributing to community livability and encouraging economic development. Purpose and Need Prior to the construction of I‐10, US 61 was the primary western access route to central New Orleans. Accordingly it was constructed to accommodate a high volume of vehicle traffic with minimal considerations for other modes. While US 61 remains an important intercity route, Tulane Avenue’s primary role today is as a major urban arterial providing access to the city’s growing Medical District. The construction of two major new hospitals on the corridor will further enhance its status as an important destination. However, years of neighborhood decline and disinvestment, exacerbated by flooding after Hurricane Katrina, have left the corridor in need of revitalization. Improved facilities for transit and non‐motorized modes will encourage multi‐modal travel on the corridor, both for travelers whose destination is the Medical District and for those accessing the CBD. Investments in new design features and improved aesthetics will greatly contribute to community livability and aid in revitalizing a major urban corridor. Community Issues Reinvestment in the Tulane Avenue corridor is generally supported by the community. While the new hospital projects have been somewhat controversial, it is generally recognized that an incorporating Complete Streets principals on Tulane Avenue is a worthwhile project regardless of the Medical District expansion. Major concerns about the project center on the removal of vehicle capacity and on‐street parking. Both of these issues will 112---------2040 MTP
continue to be addressed during the project development process, which has included considerable opportunities for stakeholder input. Financing Financing for the project will likely come from a combination of federal attributable and demo funds, and possibly some state capital outlay funds. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------113
Part III: Project Funding and Phasing in Federal-Aid Format
114---------2040 MTP
Appendix A – The Eight Planning Factors 23 CFR 450.306 calls for the consideration of the following eight factors in the metropolitan transportation planning process. 1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; 2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized users; 3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non‐motorized users; 4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight; 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; 6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; 7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------193
Appendix B RPC Project Ranking Scorecard The RPC’s metropolitan planning process is firmly based in nationally recognized planning best practices, and consistently complies with both the letter and the spirit of federal transportation planning legislation. Projects are selected for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or the Metropolitan Transportation Plan following an extensive vetting period that involves consultation with the public, elected officials, community leaders, relevant agencies, and RPC’s own planning staff. The RPC Project Ranking Scorecard attempts to add another level of sophistication to that selection process by providing a systematic and quantitative process for selecting, ranking, and prioritizing projects. In addition, it serves as a tool for identifying projects that may disproportionately affect disadvantaged populations, and should therefore comply with the RPC’s Title VI Plan. The Scorecard describes a project by quantitatively rating its potential impacts on a variety of factors, such as safety or congestion. The actual factors considered by the Scorecard are derived from the variety of federal, state, and regional policies that help define the RPC’s overarching planning priorities. It is intended to help simplify decision‐making by providing a single, standardized tool for comparing projects. Through using it planners can be assured that they have considered a comprehensive set of criteria in the project selection process. Projects will be rated based on their conformity with the following criteria: 
The eight planning factors as defined by 23 CMP 450.306 
The RPC’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) 
The State of Louisiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 
Smart Growth Practices 
The region’s Complete Streets initiatives 
Potential environmental and cultural impacts, positive or negative 
Potential economic development impacts 194---------2040 MTP

Perceived acceptability among the public and elected officials For each, projects will be ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a very negative impact and 5 being a very positive impact. Projects with no identifiable impact on a particular issue will be noted as “Not Applicable.” The mean of the individual project rankings will be used as a general priority ranking for each project. The score will indicate its compatibility with RPC’s overarching planning goals, as well as its potential for successful implementation. Projects with a rating of 3.5 or higher should be recommended for inclusion in the TIP. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------195
Regional Planning Commission Project Ranking Scorecard The project will be ranked based on its conformity to each of the topics below. For each section, assign a score of 1‐5 based on its conformity. A score of 1 indicates a very negative potential impact, and a score of 5 indicates a very positive potential impact. Project Title:__________________________________________________________ Score Summary: Criteria Planning Factors Congestion Management Safety (SHSP) Smart Growth Complete Streets Environmental & Cultural Economic Development Public Support Score
Total
Average
Recommended for Advancement (Y/N)? _______ 196---------2040 MTP
Title VI Considerations (Y/N)? _______ Project Ranking Committee The Ranking Committee will consist of the RPC Director of Planning and two RPC Transportation Planners __________________________________ ‐ RPC Director of Planning __________________________________‐ Transportation Planner __________________________________‐ Title VI Coordinator Ranking Date ___________
2040 MTP---------197
Ranking Criteria: 1. The Eight Planning Factors 23 CMP 45.306 outlines eight planning factors that an MPO should consider in its transportation planning process. In the table below, indicate the planning factors to which this project is related. Preservation of System
Management & Operations
Intermodal/Multimodal
Environment/Energy/Quality
of Life/Planned Growth/Economic Development Patterns
Accessibility & Mobility
Security
Safety
Economic Vitality
Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Factors Rank (1‐5): ________ 198---------2040 MTP
2. The Congestion Management Process Rank the project according to its conformity with the priorities and strategies set forth in the RPC’s Congestion Management Process Plan (CMP). Questions to Consider: Does the project affect a Congestion Management route? If so, is the corridor identified by the CMP as a High Priority route? Does the project include any strategies that have been identified as preferred strategies by the CMP, such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Incident Management, Access Management, or Operations improvement strategies? Can the project be expected to help reduce congestion on the applicable corridors and/or region‐wide? Does the project aim to reduce congestion without increasing Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) capacity? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------199
Congestion Management Rank (1‐5):_________ 3. The Louisiana Strategic Highway Safety Plan Rank the project according to its conformity with the policies set forth in the State of Louisiana’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Questions to Consider: Will the project help to achieve any of the objectives outlined in the SHSP? Does the project address any of the SHSP’s Emphasis Areas? Does the project include any of the strategies recommended by the SHSP? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHSP Rank (1‐5):_________ 200---------2040 MTP
4. Smart Growth Rank the project according to its conformity with the RPC’s established Smart Growth Policies. Questions to consider: How does the project link transportation and land use? Will the project maintain or reduce the region’s carbon footprint? Does the project attempt to more efficiently use or maintain existing transportation infrastructure? Will the project enhance community livability? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Smart Growth Rank (1‐5):_________ Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------201
5. Complete Streets Rank the project based on its consideration of the needs of all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Questions to consider: Is the project consistent with local, regional, or state bicycle Master Plans? Does the project add or upgrade bike or pedestrian facilities? Does the project take adequate precautions to protect the safety of cyclists and pedestrians? Does the project include provisions to maintain or improve access to transit facilities? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Complete Streets Rank (1‐5):_________ 202---------2040 MTP
6. Environmental Sustainability & Cultural Impact Rank the project on its potential impact to environmental sustainability and culture, positive or negative. Questions to consider: Will the project have an impact on vehicle emissions affecting air quality? Will the project have an impact on fuel consumption? Can the project be expected to improve transportation mode choice options? Will the project improve mobility or accessibility without increasing VMT or ADT? Will the project impact waterways or wetlands? Are any culturally or historically significant sites impacted by the project? Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------203
Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Sustainability Rank (1‐5):_________ 7. Economic Development Rank the project on its potential impact, positive or negative, on local economic development. Does the project help advance the economic development goals of the project area, region, state, or nation? Will the project aid in business retention or job creation? Can the project be expected to encourage investment in the project area or region? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 204---------2040 MTP
Economic Development Rank (1‐5):_________ 8. Public Support Rank the project according to its perceived support/popularity among the public and elected officials. Question for consideration: Has the project been identified or supported by the RPC’s Public Participation process? Has the project been identified or supported by civic, community, neighborhood, or business groups? Has the project been identified or supported by representatives or officials elected by the public? Notes:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Public Support Rank (1‐5):_________ Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------205
Title VI Considerations The Regional Planning Commission complies with all federal Title VI regulations. Before a project can be approved the following Title VI responsibilities must be considered. Does the project impact or affect a minority community? Does the project impact or affect a disadvantaged population (i.e. low income, elderly, and /or disabled)? Does the project impact a LEP (Limited English Proficiency) population? If the answer is “yes” to any of these questions then the RPC will take appropriate actions as stated in our Title VI Plan. Notes & Required Actions: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___ 206---------2040 MTP
Final Recommendation Based on the project’s score on this Scorecard the following recommendation is made regarding its inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): ____ Present project to Transportation Policy Committee for consideration ____ Do not advance project Statement of Certification: As the Regional Planning Commission’s Director of Planning, I certify that the above recommendation indicates whether the project described on this Scorecard meets the quantitative criteria for inclusion in the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). I also certify that efforts were made in good faith to objectively score the project, and acknowledge that considerations beyond the scope of this Scorecard may affect the project’s eligibility for inclusion in the TIP. ________________________________ Jeffrey W. Roesel, Director of Planning ________________________________ Date Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------207
208---------2040 MTP
Appendix C – Funding Category Abbreviations ARRA --- American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
CCC Bonds - Crescent City Connection Bonding Authority, Toll Supported Revenue
Bonds
DEMO - Congressionally Earmarked Demonstration Project Direct Federal
Appropriation
E-R 100 --- FHWA Emergency Relief Funds
FBR - Federal Bridge Replacement, SAFETEA-LU
FBR ON --- Federal Bridge Replacement, Route on state highway system, SAFETEA-LU
IM - Interstate Maintenance, SAFETEA-LU
NFI --- No Funds Identified; Project is still in development phase
NHS - National Highway System, SAFETEA-LU
OLY - Overlay, SAFETEA-LU
State Bonds - Capital Outlay Bonding Program, La. Bond Debt
St. Gen. --- State General Fund
STP --- Surface Transportation Program Funds
2040 MTP---------209
STP>200K - Urban Area with population over 200,000 Formula Funds, SAFETEA-LU
STP ENH - Enhancements, SAFETEA-LU
STP FLEX --- Federal funds programmed statewide through DOTD needs assessment process
STP HAZ --- Federal funds for hazard elimination and safety improvements
TIMED --- Transportation Infrastructure Model for Economic Development (state gas tax funds)
210---------2040 MTP
Appendix D – Public Survey Comments Received Comments received through RPC’s recent public meetings and online surveys are listed below, by neighborhood. Lower 9th Ward 



Repair Galvez St. from Jordan Ave to Delery St. Street is in serious disrepair and causes the inability for the Galvez bus to operate properly. (4 comments) Improve the bus routes from what is being provided today. Extend bus service to parish line. Bike lanes are great ideas. But if you don't clean them periodically debris builds up to the point where the bike lane is more dangerous than the curb/gutter or the traffic lane. Bunny Friends 






There is a need for the Desire bus in the upper 9th ward area. Need Desire buses and Galvez buses. We need our Desire bus back for our neighborhood, residents are walking more than a mile to catch a bus. We are in great need of public transit. Why are some streets put into an “important” group to be reconstructed with concrete while others only get asphalt? No cross buttons in school zones so school children can push a button and cross safely. Sidewalks and streetlights. Holy Cross Neighborhood 
Privatized water taxis. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------211







Florida Ave Bridge, do not like (current design?) Rail from French Quarter to Lower 9th Wd and St. Bernard. Bridges going to St. Bernard and Lower 9 are horrendous and railway delays are dangerous. It is important that the Florida Ave. bridge is functioning. It’s important that we preserve the St. Claude Bridge because it’s historic. We need to utilize the railroad that connects St. Bernard Parish, Lower 9 and downtown (light rail system). We don’t need a bridge to nowhere (Florida Ave. highrise). We would like water taxis connecting to the downtown area. We need a streetcar on St. Claude. Marigny 






If public transit were more reliable I would use it more. Longer yellow lights and of uniform length throughout the city. Left turn at Franklin and St. Claude. I would like a left turn arrow onto St. Claude from Franklin Ave and onto Carrolton from Elysian Fields. Please extend the time of yellow lights at all intersections in the parish to prevent accidents. Bus maps and schedules printed and available all over the city would be a major common‐sense improvement. I never ride buses because I have no idea where and when they go. Franklin Ave. and St. Claude ‐ traffic heading towards river should be allowed to turn left with arrow!!! Traffic heading toward lake on Franklin have a blind spot as they approach St. Claude from Rampart and there have been many accidents at this intersection, allowing river bound traffic to turn left first will allow St. Claude traffic to come to a full stop before lake bound traffic enters blind spot at intersection. Please please please make bicycling safer in New Orleans. I feel like I’m risking my life every day riding to school/work. I won't ride on Friday or Saturday nights because of the drunks. Additionally...riding my bike on these streets can feel like riding a jackhammer at times, and at night, when it's hard to see potholes, I get flats because the potholes are so bad. Bicycling is dangerous! Bike lanes are necessary! It is important to get public transportation system working for these reasons: economy, environmental issues, less cars, and an essential service for our residents. New Orleans was a sustainable city when electric buses and streets cars were common modes of transportation. New Orleans is the perfect city for alternative modes of transportation beside the car ‐ let's do it! 212---------2040 MTP

I walk/bike to most things in my community, and drive a car to/from work in another parish. I would primarily use public transportation if it was expanded within my parish, and was reliable/efficient and took right of way over motor vehicles. Treme 



Expansion of streetcar system is critical. It is the only way to increase ridership of public transportation. However, streetcars are only useful if located on medians or other dedicated right of ways. If not they get stuck in traffic just as a car would. Put in Desire streetcar!!!!!!!!! Remove I10... The I‐10 overpass must go. My community, Treme, would like a feasibility study completed to determine whether the aging elevated I‐10 expressway should be removed to promote better traffic patterns and replaced with six car lanes, on street parking lanes, bike lanes, a neutral ground with beautiful Oak trees, pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian counters, and large sidewalks filled with sidewalk trees like Japanese Magnolias. Oak Street/Carrolton 




I believe that improvements in public transportation and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are crucial to the future of our region. Public education is a good place to start. We should have a DMV office downtown easily accessible by public transportation. Please remind yourself that walking and cycling is also physical activity and so these activities make one healthier, in addition to getting you to work in a very green way. St. Charles streetcar should make a full circuit rather than break between Claiborne & Canal along Carrollton. Streetcars and buses should be more timely with the schedule published by the RTA. 1. Repair the side and main streets‐‐not just occasion patching, which exacerbates the problems long term. 2. Replace missing street signs!! I'm thinking here of Hickory Street at Carrollton, and others. 3. Hire contractors who are respectful and who work, rather than the ones I've experienced, who are rude, spend lots of time yakking, chatting on their cell phones, toss trash on our sidewalks, and stand around chewing the fat. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------213
4. Be sure that a real engineer supervises in‐progress work and approves it when it's done. I'm sick of shoddy street repairs that cause standing water during regular rain, when before the repairs that didn't happen! Lakeview 
We need bicycle lanes that allow people to bike to work through Metairie. The drivers are not mindful of the bicyclists rights. Faubourg St. John 

Completion of new streetcar‐bus transfer station at canal blvd should be a top priority. Buses should operate more frequently. The 91 bus is only every half hour. Should be every 15 minutes. Mid City 



Buses need to run more frequently on major routes like Canal St., Carrollton, St. Charles, etc. They should also be added routes like Jeff Davis to Uptown and the old City Park bus along Orleans. It's better to bike when weather is decent since it is much quicker ‐ riskier but quicker. Years ago the public service commission developed express bus lines along Pontchartrain exp, Elysian Fields, and Franklin (predominantly white neighborhoods at that time). When I moved to New Orleans east in the late 80"s bus transportation was poor, but was eventually express lines were added. Since the hurricane I understand that why there were problems, but people are returning to the east, but our services are not returning quickly enough. My uncle only rode the bus or walked. His bus shelter at Miro and St. Bernard is leaning into the street and fills up with water when it rains. The oak tree limbs fall to the ground. No one can use the shelter as it is. For years I caught the bus there to go to work downtown. Only use electric streetcars, no gasoline buses please. Only use light rail transit electric (green) shuttles, no emissions, no pollution please. Why not mini buses? 214---------2040 MTP




Carrolton Ave traffic patterns are horrendous from Claiborne to Tulane Ave. No U‐turn lanes cause back‐ups in left lanes because of turning vehicles. Also, no left turns at signals at Claiborne and Earheart cause traffic delays as well. No left turns on Tulane Ave! More safety signs along streetcar routes. More available information about construction and street closures. Left hand turns are needed. I am really curious about how much gas is wasted by motorist forced to follow u‐turns during their daily commute. Uptown 





Having the airport bus go down Canal from Loyola and up Poydras in order to connect to most of the bus lines. As well as giving transfers to those lines. There's no excuse for not having (1) bike lanes (2) pothole repair for bikes to avoid injury, (3) repair of the worst and most treacherous sidewalk defects, and (4) streetcars on time with digital signage to alert citizens of the number of minutes until the next car. It’s simple and cheap and exists in many other cities. The "laissez‐faire" attitude of the streetcar drivers is absurd; they think nothing can be done about delays and they act arrogant. There should be some communications for them and a way to know if cars are delayed. We need safer bike lanes especially getting into the French Quarter from Uptown. Why can't we have a path along the river such as they have in almost every other major city? And Please repair the streets ‐ smooth streets would improve every aspect of transportation. Although I do not use the streetcar (I live a block from St. Charles) for my daily commute (My work requires me to drive a company vehicle), I do use it for many errands during the week. Thus, the more prolific the streetcar service, the more I will be willing to use public transportation. Large trucks and large buses should not be allowed at all on small streets like Magazine St. Community parking lots at locations near Magazine St. would help this incubator of small business and restaurants. Parking on the sidewalk on Magazine St., block between State and Eleonore, should not be tolerated. Ugly news stand boxes should not be allowed on intersections of Magazine. St. Removing these eyesores would instantly beautify the neighborhood. No Truck routes should be enforced (Nashville Ave.) Bike lanes should be on minor streets, not major streets where there is fast traffic. Consider restoring streetcar service over time, to some of the older, wider neutral grounds that were the historic routes used by our streetcars. Creating bike lanes is good, but effectively narrows many streets that already experience traffic issues at peak times. In the Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------215

alternative, just as we now have one‐way streets that alternate in opposite directions, consider allocating one street every 6‐10 blocks for 2‐way bicycle/pedestrian "mall‐type" traffic through neighborhoods leading directly from residential neighborhoods to downtown. More streetcar lines going through the quarter to the Marigny and Bywater and a line from uptown to Mid City, perhaps along napoleon and broad; plus more actual streetcars would help tremendously. There is a disconnect in the streetcar loop that makes in pretty difficult to use only the streetcar. Lower Garden District 

I use the streetcars and/or walk and/or bicycle. I drive once or twice a week. I avoid and almost NEVER use buses (only when raining and cannot take streetcar there) and your survey should NOT combine them. There is a big difference between them ! I bike everywhere, so I would not bike more, but I would have an easier time. For transit, it is a matter of having short headways on the corridors we already use. Then yes, I would have an easier time doing my work, weather it is schoolwork or a future job. Holy Cross 
I ride a bike every day. This city is perfect for bikes and many more people would bike if there were more dedicated bike lanes. I just had a friend hit by a car at Canal and Broad...we need more bike lanes! Bridgedale (Jefferson) 
Inter‐parish bike travel. For example Metairie to New Orleans. Irish Channel 
It would be helpful to have advance notice of road repairs that will hinder traffic flow, so people know ahead of time to avoid those routes. 216---------2040 MTP







We need more STOP signs in neighborhoods to slow down traffic ‐ particularly on Laurel and Constance in the Irish Channel and in the Broadmoar neighborhood. Cars trying to avoid traffic on major routes often speed through these communities where children are playing, people are walking and biking. I NEVER see the police monitoring these areas or pulling over any cars for speeding. Also the sidewalks and roads in the Irish Channel are absolutely HORRIBLE ‐ it is extremely difficult to walk or push a stroller anywhere other than Magazine street. I can't imagine how disabled individuals get around. We also need MANY more bus lines to allow high school students to use public transportation to get to school. The cost of each school transporting children all over the City is a huge waste of money. The RTA could greatly increase ridership by adding lines that cater to school schedules and providing discounted fares for students ‐ like most other major urban areas. Roads are a structural MESS! Repairs and improvements are absolutely crucial. Pedestrian signals (right of way, etc.) are also desperately needed ‐ drivers often ignore pedestrian right‐of‐ways! And cyclists should be educated better or ticketed ‐ many travel on sidewalks or go the wrong way down one‐way streets! Please improve the intersection of S. Claiborne and Martin Luther King by creating a left turn light so that traffic will flow. Jefferson Parish has left turn light‐intersections on most major streets. Why doesn’t Orleans parish? I know it's tough to make the streetcars run more regularly. But this evening, my wife and I walked from Lafayette Square to St. Charles and Polymnia (20 minutes) with no streetcar running in the same direction. It's this inconsistency that makes us reluctant to ride it more ‐‐ as wonderful as it is. We should have a good public option for trips going to and from the airport! I have recently started taking the Magazine Street bus to work downtown. The only problem I have had is that sometimes I have to stand for the ride. This would not bother me except that that the bus drivers are starting and stopping too quickly and I am afraid that I may fall down. They should slow down especially since they only travel two blocks before coming to each bus stop. Need bike lanes and more reliable public transportation. French Quarter 
There needs to be a better way to get from the AP to the City of New Orleans. The Airport bus from JP doesn't go far enough into the city and is difficult to take with luggage. There should be light rail. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------217


The streetcars would be what I primarily use. They really need to run more often. Riverfront, Canal and St. Charles lines. When the service industry folks get off work after midnight, they wait an hour or more for transportation. I walk to the CBD because the Riverfront line takes 45 mins between cars and it takes 35 to walk. We NEED a comprehensive map with routes for both bus and streetcar lines. Warehouse District 
I grew up in the Northeast and always had access to light rail. New Orleans could really benefit from an additional light rail/street car system. Another huge issue are stops/schedules/routes. I'd be more willing take public transit if when I came across a route I knew when the next time a bus/streetcar was going to arrive and also had a map there to know exactly where it would take me. Currently I feel like I have to plan to take public transit because the routes aren't intuitive and I have to go online before hand to know where I'm going to go if I want to take anything other than the St. Charles Ave street car. Finally, the current system is very weather dependent. There is no shelter for people waiting at stops. This is very necessary to have. For an example of a much used but horrendous looking bus stop that I see often when I drive, go to the bus stop on Tchoupitoulas Street by the Walmart. Those poor people are standing on a street curb. Bywater 

I would take public transit to Jefferson Parish if it was faster. I think sidewalk improvements need to be a major focus on this plan. If public transportation in (?) were more efficient and on time, had express buses during peak times, user friendly with web access for trip planning, courteous & knowledgeable drivers, printed schedules at bus stops, I'd definitely use it daily. I live in Seattle in summer without a car and use public transportation every day. Gentilly 218---------2040 MTP


For Other, I was going to enter "Sweeping the streets of debris." Gravel in the streets is hazardous to cyclists, and costs us money in repairs. Non‐automotive river crossing is limited in New Orleans by a lack of bike/pedestrian lane/walkway on the Crescent City Connection Mississippi River Bridge. Other major metropolitan areas have bike/ped river crossings, i.e. Golden Gate, Brooklyn. Milneburg 


The Elysian Fields bus is ridiculous, it does not run often enough or on time. Too few buses per route, particularly on weekends. Can’t ride a bike like I would want. Carpool options for Gentilly. Lower Gentilly 



I know other individuals that use public transportation often that need shelter at the bus stops, transportation on time, up to date schedules and cross walk signals with timer to let you know how long you have. Neighborhood needs traffic lights between 6‐10 and I‐10. A Lil Easy stop is needed nearer the 3300 block of Marigny St. The city should consider pedestrian cross‐walks for Elysian Fields. It’s just a matter of time before somebody gets hurt. Gentilly Terrace 


Bike Path on Gentilly Blvd. is dangerous and not well marked. Bike lane on Gentilly Blvd. is an accident waiting to happen. RTA buses use the bike lane as a bus lane. Hwy 90, Gentilly Blvd needs three lanes, not two. Please give this neighborhood two stop signs and Demontluzin and Lombard. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------219



Gentilly Blvd. just lost a lane of traffic due to the adding of a bike lane. My concern is the amount of traffic coming off of Broad to Gentilly Blvd. was different with three lanes, now with two lanes many accidents will occur. In Gentilly we realize a streetcar is a distant possibility and requires more near the lake to generate ridership. We expect economic development along that corridor as a necessity to build wealth and local amenities. Bus timing is off schedule and is a problem for people who completely rely on them for transportation. Pontchartrain Park 
I would have appreciated a notice about the addition of a bike lane along Gentilly Blvd. The streets in Pontchartrain Park are in strong need of repair. We have broken pavement on the sidewalks and large potholes that collect and hold rainwater on several streets including Pauline Dr. Lake Willow 

Sound wall on eastern I‐10, do not tear down I‐10 over Claiborne Ave ‐ it is the only express corridor in the city and not citizens agreed to put this in the Master Plan, and improve bus service in the East. Improve condition of New Orleans East public transportation. Implement Easy Ride Bus. Repair Morrison Blvd. Why no bike lanes? Why no sound walls? Baton Rouge has no expansion yet there are soundwalls. Kenilworth 




Bus stops are too far apart. Need walking trail. Streets in Elysian Fields, Franklin Ave, Kenilworth Neighborhoods are caving in and need repair. Reduce pollution. Commuter trains. 220---------2040 MTP
North Kenilworth 





We need more hurricane evacuation routes. We need you to make sure all street lights and highway lights are functioning. Need beautification of the area that welcomes people into the East and Orleans Parish. Get rid of the cement fixture and landscape this area. More lighting in this area. Lights are on during the day and then burn out along Leon C. Simon. We need more greenspace and walking parks. We don’t have any. New Orleans East needs hospitals, shopping, parks and recreation, running/walking tracks, water recreation, theatre, drivers license offices (DMVs), utilities office, telephone offices, vehicle registration office, grocers, physicians, ophthalmology eye, restaurants. (3 comments) Algiers 
The street cars are unreliable. 1) If there is a schedule, no one seems to know what it is. 2) They are always full, so one cannot depend on being able to board the street car. West Riverside 
I think you need to institute GPS/tracking on the buses and streetcars so people can see in real time where they are and how close they are to a particular stop. Woodmere (Westbank Jefferson) 


There needs to be an agreement again between the RTA and JeT, one card for both. Sidewalks should be required once the number of people using the street reach a limit. No sidewalks or bus shelters. People are forced to wait in the street for buses. Regional Planning Commission
2040 MTP---------221
Central City 
We need express buses, less stops for buses and streetcars, and more reliable routes. The streetcars tend to come in clusters along the line rather than evenly spaced. Both routes take too long due to too many stops. Lakeview 
I want to support a safe design for the Canal Blvd./City Park Ave. transfer site to promote safe intra‐parish transit access for riders and pedestrians. Metairie 
I would like to bike to work. I bike to a lot of places, but work is across town (Metairie to Chalmette). The lack of bike lanes, room for bikes on roadways and the amount of glass/dirt on the road make the ride intimidating and less safe then other communities that I have lived in. I would like to ride more often, but NOLA needs more bike infrastructure. Thank You. St. Bernard 
Attractive and safe drainage canals, well landscaped and attractive pedestrian areas, safety, better connection to MSA and other parishes. Better pedestrian access to Mississippi River. 222---------2040 MTP
Public Comments
Page 1 of 6
From: Tara Clement [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:57 PM
To: jroesel; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chuck Boudreaux; [email protected]; Jerome Chauvin; Mike & Debbie Chepolis; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Don Keller; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fran Sullivan; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mary Keller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Peggy LeBlanc; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bob & Dawn Smith; [email protected]; Sal Sunseri; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Connie Uddo; [email protected]; jenny hammer; Mark Uddo MSN Uddo; [email protected]; [email protected]; krystal hukmani
Subject: RE: Feasibility Study on adding additional ramps and flyovers at I‐10 Exit 231B Florida Blvd
Thank you for your prompt response. I did take the opportunity to complete the survey and look forward to
being informed of transportation issues relative to our region. Also, in addition to the NEPA requirements
that would obviously be triggered by federal spending on the project, please note that the South Lakeview
Historic District, a National Register Historic District, is immediately adjacent to the 6-10 in this area, such that
the 106 process of the NHPA would also likely need to be completed in conjunction with the NEPA review.
Thanks again,
Tara Clement Hankel
Subject: RE: Feasibility Study on adding additional ramps and flyovers at I-10 Exit 231B Florida Blvd
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:45:34 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
file://U:\!RPC Work\MTP_NO\2040\Public Comments\RE Feasibility Study on adding ad...
9/20/2010
Page 2 of 6
[email protected]; [email protected]
Ms. Clement‐
To address your comments:
The study was apparently commissioned by the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU). NORPC did not commission this effort. The razing of a portion, any portion of an Interstate Highway will almost certainly have local, state, or even national ramifications. Any responsible and professional analysis that is undertaken will necessarily have to investigate more than just the immediate area of the proposed action. RPC has not had a chance to review the CNU report in its entirety nor recommendations made by them (we found out about it in the newspaper, like everyone else), so we cannot make specific comments on the report. The issues you raise are valid concerns that will need to be addressed in any serious transportation planning effort involving the use of federal dollars on a federal transportation asset. RPC will work the numerous stakeholders and elected officials, as described in your email, to insure the concerns raised are properly addressed consistent with federal regulations pertaining to the transportation planning process and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Thank you for taking the time to ask questions of us and to share your thoughts on this matter. I would invite you and others to take a moment to answer an on‐line survey to help us assess problem areas related to transportation in the region and get your ideas on what can be done to solve them. Please follow the link:
http://www.edesignengineering.com/sites/RPC/
Jeffrey W. Roesel AICP
Director of Planning
10 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
New Orleans, LA 70124
Office 504-483-8528
Fax 504-483-8526
From: Tara Clement [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:30 AM
9/20/2010
Page 3 of 6
To: [email protected]; jroesel
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Chuck Boudreaux; [email protected]; Jerome Chauvin; Mike & Debbie Chepolis; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Don Keller; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fran Sullivan;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mary Keller;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Peggy
LeBlanc; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bob &
Dawn Smith; [email protected]; Sal Sunseri; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Connie Uddo; [email protected]; jenny hammer; Mark Uddo
MSN Uddo; [email protected]; [email protected]; krystal hukmani
Subject: RE: Feasibility Study on adding additional ramps and flyovers at I-10 Exit 231B Florida Blvd
Mr. Roesel,
Initially, please advise if this study was commissioned by NORPC or some other group?
Secondly, in additional to the meeting requested by Ms. Sedita, I request that an additional
meeting be scheduled with you and/or your staff; the councilperson for District A, any other
councilpersons or city officials; the LCIA; and any other government or non-government entities
which have a role in the proposed project. Certainly, there is grave concern about the reliability of
a study that recommends removing expressways in one neighborhood to promote its revitalization
and also encourages the constructing new similar expressway additions in another neighborhood.
For all the same reasons cited in the study in support of the removal of the Claiborne expressway,
no new expressways should be constructed in any other exclusively residential neighborhood.
Finally, our area survived the construction of the 6-10 corridor in the 1960’s which divided the
original Lakeview neighborhood in half, as well as, the devastating flooding after Hurricane
Katrina. However, I fear that additional expressway interchanges, possible expropriation of
additional homes, and higher volumes of freight traffic will cause our recovering, and still
somewhat fragile, neighborhood to decline rapidly. Undoubtedly, the revitalization of the Treme
area can be achieved without subjecting our neighborhood to the very instrumentality which is
claimed to have caused Treme’s decline in the first place.
I look forward to you response.
Tara Clement Hankel
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
9/20/2010
Page 4 of 6
[email protected]
> Subject: Feasibility Study on I-10 Exit 231B Florida Blvd
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:35:41 -0500
>
> Dear Mr Roesel,
>
> It seems the project to close and tear part of the I-10 is a reality.
>
> Please let me know when the feasibility study on I-10 Exit 231B Florida Blvd
> will occur.
>
> I would also like to make an appointment with you to discuss the Claiborne
> project in relation to the closure or rerouting of I-10 Exit 231B Florida
> Blvd.
>
> Thank you,
> Rose Sedita
> 5637 Catina St
> New Orleans, LA 70124
> 504-376-3207
>
>
> -----Original Message----> From: jroesel [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:06 PM
> To: Rose Sedita; kparsons; ldupont; wbrooks
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Stack; Robert
> Mendoza
> Subject: RE: feasibility study
>
>
> Ms. Sedita>
> First off, I'd like to thank you for your e-mail expressing interest in
> the transportation planning process and contacting us to express your
> concerns.
>
> To address your concerns directly,
>
> 1) No decision has been made to undertake a closure study of I-10
> anywhere in Orleans Parish, including existing on/off ramps along the
> system. Such a study would necessarily include close collaboration with
> LaDOTD and FHWA, the two agencies directly responsible for operating and
> maintaining the facility, as well as the City of New Orleans Department
> of Public Works, responsible for public streets in the City.
>
> 2) Your point about assessing the impacts of an I-10 closure to other
> roadways and interchanges in the network is a good one. Any study
9/20/2010
Page 5 of 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
undertaken on this matter would need to include a review of operational
impacts along I-610, including the Florida Blvd. exit and the western
I-10/I-610 interchange. Also, the feasibility study would necessarily
include the feasibility of mitigating the corresponding or anticipated
impacts to the rest of the roadway network.
3) If a study is undertaken by RPC, we will keep the public appraised
that it is happening and how citizens can input the process, consistent
with our public participation policy.
If you have further questions or comments, please don't hesitate to
contact me at the address and phone number below.
Jeffrey W. Roesel AICP
Director of Planning
1340 Poydras Street, Ste. 2100
V: 504-568-6611
F: 504-568-6643
-----Original Message----From: Rose Sedita [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:50 PM
To: pgagliano; nsilvey; jroesel; kparsons; ldupont; jsappington; xu; Tom
Haysley; Stephanie Pedro; Chris Aghayan; mpardue; c cain; Rebecca Otte;
k mrenne; Lauren Manning; Dan Jatres; c shelling; pdenton; jducote;
vcappel
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: feasibility study
To the members of the Regional Planning Commission:
I am requesting a feasibility study on I-10 exit 231B Florida Blvd - the
only connection from I-10 West to 610 East.
You are already in the process of doing a feasibility study on the
request
by District 1 to remove the Claiborne overpass, turn the existing
Pontchartrain Expressway into the "I-710" spur, and make the existing
I-610
into the "new" I-10.
This project will have a direct impact on Exit 231B Florida Ave as it
will
then be the only connection from "I-710" (Pontchartrain Expressway) to
the
"new" I-10 East.
Before you can make any decisions on the above project, you have to look
at
all the major connections involved and impacted in this and I-10 Exit
231B
9/20/2010
Page 6 of 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Florida Blvd is a major connection.
This exit could not be built under today's standards and the neighbors
would
like to see this exit closed or rerouted to the existing 610 exit 1
Canal
Blvd.
Please let me know if the feasibility study on exit 231B Florida Blvd
will
be forthcoming.
Respectfully,
Rose Sedita
5637 Catina St
504-376-3207
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy.
9/20/2010
Page 1 of 1
From: wbrooks Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:02 AM To: jroesel; pgagliano Subject: RE: Emailed comments to Plan I agree. Let’s add as Appendix to MTP report. Also, please include the following verbal comment from James Gilbeau of the Sierra Club. Sierra Club In accordance with national and regional objectives to strength economic competitiveness, reduce emissions, and increase traffic safety, the MTP needs to address points of congestion along intermodal connectors serving port and rail terminals in the area. Specific study recommendations included the following: Truck back‐ups on the Tchoupitoulas/Annunication Street off‐ramp; truck queing along Felicity waiting to enter the Port’s Terminal Area. It was also recommended that RPC do a review of access points into the region’s rail intermodal facilities, including CSX, NSRR yard on Press Street, and ICG facilities near Elmwood. Response: The comments were on target and consistent with RPC’s current 2010‐2011 freight planning task to review the region’s intermodal connectors for deficiencies and upgrade. The congestion points along Felicity and at the Tchoupitoulas Street off‐ramp will become the subject of an RPC directed Feasibility Study when financial resources become available in 2011. From: jroesel
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 4:16 PM
To: pgagliano; wbrooks
Subject: Emailed comments to Plan I was going to include these as comments to the New Orleans MTP. Please review and advise . . . Jeffrey W. Roesel AICP Director of Planning Regional Planning Commission 10 Veterans Memorial Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70124 Office 504‐483‐8528 Fax 504‐483‐8526 Communications to and from this e‐mail address are subject to provisions of the state of Louisiana Public Records Act. file://U:\!RPC Work\MTP_NO\2040\Public Comments\RE Emailed comments to Plan.htm
9/20/2010

September 14, 2010 Fiscal Years 2011 - 2040

Transcription

Similar documents

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Fastfrate Roadfrate SS.indd

GRUE TOUT-TERRAIN DE 1500 TONNES PRÈS DE LA CHUTE

june 4 : fado irish pub

house of blues new orleans - Live Nation Special Events

Pharr District Regional Characteristics and Inventory

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

ARCHBISHOP HANNAN HIGH SCHOOL

OEQC Publication Form - Environmental Notice

view in pdf format - Hazelnut New Orleans