Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications

Transcription

1 Moving Towards Complete Streets MMLOS Applications Transportation Education Series May 18 th, 2012 It s not just for cars! Presentation Overview The Complete Streets Movement What is Multi-Modal Level of Service MMLOS Applications Local Experience with MMLOS 1

2 The Complete Streets Movement The Complete Streets Movement National effort to return to traditional streets Enhance livability Safely accommodate all modes of travel Provide travel choices Ease congestion Promote healthier communities Support redevelopment and economic prosperity 2

3 What are Complete Streets? Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users : pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete streets provide the ability to safely move along and across the transportation system. Source: Complete Streets Coalition website; Dan Burden - photograph They Differ in Rural, Suburban, & Urban Areas 3

4 They Can Transform a Roadway Environment Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners & Glatting Jackson for Johnson City Tennessee For the Users Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners & Glatting Jackson for Johnson City Tennessee 4

5 The Businesses Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners & Glatting Jackson for Johnson City Tennessee For the Residents Developed by Steve Price in association w/ Dover Kohl & Partners & Glatting Jackson for Johnson City Tennessee 5

6 Enhance a Neighborhood and Community Traditional Street System Development More Efficiency Conventional Approach More Lanes More Roads System Management ITS More Pavement More Cars 12 6

7 Traditional Street System Development More Lanes More Roads System Management ITS More Pavement More Efficiency User View and Comfort Context-Sensitive Design Traffic Calming Personal Security Conventional Approach More Cars Lateral Approach Transit Bicycling Walking HOV/HOT Lanes 13 Conventional Land Use-Transportation Approach Land Use Travel Road Capacity GENERATES DEMANDS Anticipate Forecast (Based on Speed) Accommodate 14 7

8 Integrated Transportation/Land Use Approach Transportation Investments HELP MANAGE Travel INFLUENCES Land Use 15 Multi-Modal Manage Coordinate Multimodal LOS Urban Streets Methodology 8

9 MMLOS Overview History & Background Overview of Methods Lessons Learned & FAQs Manuals 1950 HCM Streetcars and buses impact vehicle capacity at traffic signals Pedestrian impacts on vehicle capacity addressed indirectly 1965 HCM LOS concept introduced Short (11-page) chapter on bus transit 1985 HCM Pedestrian and bicycle chapters introduced 9

10 2000 Manual Expanded pedestrian chapter Service measures: space per pedestrian, average delay, average travel speed Expanded bicycle chapter Service measures: average travel speed, average delay, hindrance Revised transit chapter Four passenger-oriented service measures: frequency, hours of service, passenger load, reliability HCM 2010 Focus Group Findings Many jurisdictions don t require multimodal analyses Jurisdictions don t find the current HCM capacity-based measures useful Most bike and pedestrian facilities don t have capacity issues No need to analyze them using HCM procedures 10

11 HCM 2000 Measures Issues HCM 2000 focuses on capacity and delay Research (and intuition) suggests these aren t the key factors Auto volumes and other factors are important to service quality HCM2000: Ped LOS A HCM2000: Ped LOS D 21 HCM 2010 Approach Multimodal evaluation for urban streets Emphasizes combined evaluation of auto, ped, bike, and transit modes FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002 Interactions Bicycle LOS Automobile LOS Pedestrian LOS Transit LOS 11

12 Quality of Service QOS is the perception of how well a facility operates from the traveler s perspective Research has quantified traveler perception and developed QOS scores Scores incorporate multiple factors (e.g., traffic volumes, lane widths, etc.) Models set LOS thresholds based on survey responses to actual conditions Multimodal LOS (MMLOS) Defined MMLOS measures the degree to which the urban street design and operations meets the needs of each major mode s users Four level of service results for the street: Auto, Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian A combined LOS is not calculated Conceptual MMLOS Results Mode AM Peak PM Peak Auto C E Transit B C Bicycle D C Pedestrian C D 12

13 MMLOS Applications Link Facility Segment Signalized Intersections Link Segment Facility Why Measure Level-of-Service Provides a consistent, systematic evaluation and documentation of conditions Puts results in terms that transportation professionals and the public can understand Provides an objective way to identify needs and prioritize improvements Provides a way to evaluate different improvements and mitigations 13

14 Why Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Vehicle LOS analysis methods Often used as the only measure of effectiveness for roadway operations Doesn t always reflect the full range of operational or safety issues for roadways Image Source: Google Earth Professional Uses of Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Quantify operational tradeoffs among modes for a given streetscape feature or strategy Help prioritize transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements Assist and inform the public involvement process Begin to document compliance with national and state directives (e.g., California Complete Streets Act) 14

15 MMLOS Overview 2010 Highway Capacity Manual Quantifies LOS based on user experience LOS reported individually by mode and by direction No combined LOS is created Measures the degree to which urban streets meet the needs of each type of user Pedestrian LOS: Model Factors Link Sidewalk presence and clear width (+) Vehicle volume and speed in outside travel lane ( ) Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside vehicle lane widths (+) Buffer presence and width (+) On-street parking utilization (+) Intersection Permitted left turn, right-turn-on-red volumes ( ) Cross-street motor vehicle volumes and speeds ( ) Crossing length ( ) Average pedestrian delay ( ) Right-turn channelizing island presence (+) 15

16 Bicyclist LOS: Model Factors Link Vehicle volume and speed in outside travel lane ( ) Heavy vehicle percentage ( ) Pavement condition (+) Bicycle lane presence (+) Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside vehicle lane widths (+) On-street parking utilization ( ) Number of access points on right side ( ) Intersection Cross-street width ( ) Bicyclist LOS: Model Factors Link Vehicle volume and speed in outside travel lane ( ) Heavy vehicle percentage ( ) Pavement condition (+) Bicycle lane presence (+) Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside vehicle lane widths (+) On-street parking utilization ( ) Number of access points on right side ( ) Intersection Cross-street width ( ) 16

17 Transit Passenger LOS: Model Factors Segment Access to transit (pedestrian link LOS) (+) Wait for transit (frequency) (-) Riding transit (perceived travel time rate) Excess wait time due to late bus/train arrival ( ) Actual bus travel speed (+) Bus stop amenities (+) On-board crowding ( ) Motorist LOS: Scoring Vehicle LOS thresholds based on percent of free-flow speed Travel Speed / Base LOS by Critical V/C Free Flow Speed < 1.0 > 1.0 > 85% A F 68% to 85% B F 51% to 67% C F 41% to 50% D F 31% to 40% E F < 30% F F The critical volume to capacity ratio is based on the through movement in the analysis direction at the downstream intersection 17

18 Frequently Asked Questions What Does LOS X Look Like? 18

19 Key Notes Look out for trade-offs across modes On-street parking, signal timing, etc Not all factors can be directly influenced by physical changes to the roadway section Traffic volumes, speeds, and vehicle mix Ped Score - adding facilities, signal changes, mid-block crossing difficulty Bike Score - adding facilities, less factors to change to influence score than Pedestrian LOS, access management has a significant influence Transit Score - service frequency had the most significant impact on score, improving transit speed, adding shelters/benches, pedestrian influence FAQ s I made an improvement, why doesn t the score change? Traffic volumes and speed likely did not change I have a special/unique facility, what should I do? Consider what a surrogate measure could be (e.g. representing a transit lane as an on-street parking lane)? Use caution when preparing analysis and reporting results I m analyzing a road diet and the bicycle LOS improved, but the pedestrian LOS worsened, why? Lane reduction increases volumes in adjacent lane and overrides impact of increased buffer space Need for separate models for 2/3 and 4/5 lane roads 19

20 FAQ s The link LOS is C and the intersection LOS is A, so why is the segment LOS E? Segment = Average (Link, Intersection) Weights and constants What tools are available? HCM Spreadsheet (v. 14) Synchro 8 Still being tested HCS Beta version from McTrans Complete Streets LOS software 15 day free trial Summary Measures how well an urban street meets the needs of each major mode s users (QOS) Allows for evaluation of trade-offs across modes Important to measure segment LOS to consider all factors Score are not always improved by projects Not all facilities are covered just yet (i.e., roundabouts, transit only lanes, cycletracks) Always use engineering and local judgment when interpreting score results 20

21 MMLOS Applications MMLOS Case Studies San Pablo, CA Pasadena, CA 21

22 Case Study General Plan Adopted 2011 Dyett and Bhatia Prime consultant How to incorporate MMLOS Case Study General Plan Complete Street general policies Designation of circulation system Move away from motorist-only perceptions Incorporate more multimodal designations Source: Dyett and Bhatia 22

23 Case Study General Plan General Plan Case Study General Plan Prioritization of different street types by mode 23

24 Case Study General Plan Case Study Specific Plan Adopted 2011 Guide to revitalize in a sustainable manner MMLOS analysis Existing 2030 No Project 2030 Specific Plan 24

25 Case Study Specific Plan MMLOS Analysis AM Peak Hour Case Study Specific Plan MMLOS Analysis PM Peak-Hour 25

26 Case Study General and Specific Plan Benefits of MMLOS Provided baseline LOS for all travel modes Reasonableness of LOS standards Tested MMLOS for Specific Plan scenario Multimodal roadway designations Provides guidelines for improvements Informs mitigation requirements Provides an analysis tool Case Study General and Specific Plan Lessons Learned MMLOS works well analyzing fixed right-of-way How to allocate space Quantifies trade-offs between modes Developing policy standards Establish baseline Conduct sketch what-if scenarios May lead to prioritizing specific modes on streets 26

27 Case Study Road Diet Worked with the City of Pasadena to analyze multimodal impacts of a road diet on Orange Grove Boulevard Case Study Road Diet When implementing a road diet, many concerns arise including: How will the lane reduction affect the auto mode? Will transit operations be affected? How much will the bicycle mode improve as a result of adding bike lanes? Will there be any benefit to pedestrians? Orange Grove Boulevard was analyzed using multimodal LOS to address these concerns 27

28 Case Study Road Diet 11,200 ADT 1.6 Miles Case Study Road Diet 28

29 Case Study Road Diet Issues with Current Cross Section No facilities for bicyclists Light traffic volumes for a large right-of-way (ROW) roadway Higher speeds and wider crossing width which detract from a neighborhood feel Case Study Road Diet 29

30 Case Study Road Diet Case Study Road Diet 30

31 Case Study Road Diet The Result: Analysis showed that the road diet will result in minor changes to the transit and motorist mode The pedestrian and bicycle modes will improve between 9% and 20% if the road diet is implemented on this corridor Case Study Road Diet Transit overall + Motorist speed decreased (-) Pedestrian LOS improved (+) Bicycle overall + Slower motorist speeds (+) More vehicle volume in adjacent lane (-) Exclusive bike lane (+) Pedestrian overall + More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-) Increased space between motorist and pedestrian (+) Slower motorist speeds (+) 31

32 COMPASS Complete Streets Analysis Complete Streets Who is COMPASS? Why does COMPASS do Complete Streets? The COMPASS Experience with MMLOS What is COMPASS going to do about it? 32

33 COMPASS Evaluate transportation alternatives Develop the region s collective vision MPO Allocate transportation funding resources Other Board Priorities Why does COMPASS do Complete Streets? Federal Policy: Metropolitan Plans Transportation Improvement Program Board Policy: Complete Streets Policy Transportation and Sustainability Plan It is the right thing to do! 33

34 Complete Streets Vision Statement We envision a Treasure Valley where roadways are designed to be safe, efficient, and viable and provide an appropriate balance for all users including, motorists, bicyclists, transit, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. (emphasis added) Adopted by COMPASS Board on August 17, 2009 Complete Streets Policy National Complete Streets Coalition Complete Streets Policy Analysis 2010 Evaluates over 200 policies Good News 9th Best MPO Complete Streets Policy (348 MPOs nationally) 34 points Bad News 9 th out of 10 for MPOs 34 points out of points for Implementation 34

35 The COMPASS Experience with MMLOS Positives: Standardizes Bike, Pedestrian, and Transit Modes (HCM 2010) Accurate and sensitive to variations in road layout, traffic conditions, and services What-if Scenarios Reporting Features Easy to use GUI/Import Applications The COMPASS Experience with MMLOS Observations: Data Needs Time Consuming Learning Curve for Users/Audience Doesn t consider all roadway designs Import to GIS Function 35

36 State Street Results Auto Bicycle Pedestrian Transit Next Steps Communities in Motion

37 Next Steps Corridor Analysis Next Steps Transportation Improvement Program 37

38 Conclusion Mandate to do Complete Streets Some success and some issues to work through with using MMLOS software for regional corridors Working with COMPASS committees for implementation COMPASS will be using the MMLOS software for Communities in Motion 2040 and other planning activities Thank You! Questions & Discussion Carl Miller Phone: (208) Paul Morrow Phone: (208) Kamala Parks Phone: (510) extension 107 Sonia Hennum Phone: (208)