Measuring Success: Performance Metrics and Project Selection

Transcription

1 Measuring Success: Performance Metrics and Project Selection Fayetteville Mobility Plan Presented by: Jeffrey Tumlin March 19, 2018

2 How do we use transportation performance metrics? Improving efficiency of system operations Managing a given street or intersection Prioritizing funding Measuring impact of new development Imposing development fees Reporting to state agencies Reporting to the public

3 What is transportation for? Transportation is not an end in itself It is merely a means by which we support individual and collective goals and objectives Transportation s biggest roles: o Access to opportunity o Land value o Public health

4 Health Nashville, TN 1. Identified communities with the greatest need 2. Identified where active transportation projects would most likely be used by residents. 3. Awarded projects more points in those areas Predicted intensity of non-motorized trips in 2040 Source: Transport4America

5 Health Nashville, TN 1. Identified communities with the greatest need 2. Identified where active transportation projects would most likely be used by residents. 3. Awarded projects more points in those areas Demographics characteristics correlated with poor health in Nashville: 1. Being impoverished 2. Being unemployed 3. Being over age Not owning a car Source: Transport4America

6 Health Nashville, TN Source: Transport4America

7 Stormwater and project selection MnDOT: Corridor Investment Management Strategy program $30 million in competitive funds in 2013 Scored applicant projects based on monetized impacts Lesson: Stormwater mitigation can drive project costs and strongly influence overall project scores Source: Transport4America

8 Health Madison, WI Active Living Index: Intersection density Population density Destination density Premium bicycle facilities Bicycle level of service Transit service area Transit access to jobs Source: Transport4America

9 Air quality Measuring transportation s impact Regional ambient levels of air polution Percent of population within unhealthy concentrations of pollution Transportation-Related GHG Emissions Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a proxy Source: Transport4America

10 Air quality - VMT California is using VMT to evaluate environmental impacts of transportation and development projects Californians drive 332 billion vehicle miles/year (36% of GHG emissions) Environmental studies for transportation projects previously focused on traffic delay New approach: VMT Photo: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, via flickr Source: Transport4America

11 Resilience - Hillsborough County, FL Transportation asset screening process Source: Transport4America

12 Resilience - Hillsborough County, FL Transportation asset screening process (cont.) First Tier Most vulnerable Facilitate statewide evacuation Carry most traffic State managed Second Tier Very vulnerable Facilitate regional/subregional evacuations On transit route No network redundancy Third Tier Less vulnerable Facilitate local evacuation No network redundancy Locally managed Source: Hillsborough County MPO: Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Pilot Project Source: Transport4America

13 Resilience Miami-Dade Mitigation project prioritization framework Photo: flickr user maxstrz Source: Transport4America

14 Accessibility - Virginia Source: Transport4America

15 Accessibility - Virginia Source: Transport4America

16 Equity lens for Accessibility - Virginia Source: Transport4America

17 Access to jobs by transit: Madison, WI Jobs accessible < 15 min 250 < 30 min 24,000 < 45 min 33,000 < 60 min 122,000 Final score 18, Source: Transport4America

18 Access to jobs by transit & poverty Source: Transport4America

19 What makes a good measure? Data are available to support the measure Something transportation can meaningfully impact Transportation impact can be isolated Directly relevant to policy goals Can be applied to influence decision-making

20 Safety Performance Measures Number of fatalities Number of serious injuries Rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT Number of nonmotorized fatalities and nonmotorized serious injuries

21 Pavement Condition Performance Measures % of Interstate pavements in Good condition % of Interstate pavements in Poor condition % of non-interstate NHS pavements in Good condition % of non-interstate NHS pavements in Poor condition

22 CMAQ Measures Traffic congestion o Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) measure: annual hours of PHED per capita o Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Travel (SOV) measure: % of non-sov travel On-road mobile source emissions o Total emission reductions Source: Transport4America

23 Washington State DOT Performance Goals Source: Transport4America

24 Scenarios and targets: Plan Bay Area 2040

25 Project Selection: VDOT Smart Scale Source: Transport4America

26 MassDOT Source: Transport4America

27 Safety and Security Source: Transport4America

28 Safety and Security

29 Infrastructure Condition

30 Mobility

31 Mobility (cont)

32 Freight/Economy

33 Livability/Environment

34 Project Delivery

35 Boulder 2016 Update Measurable Objective Reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the Boulder Valley by 20 percent by 2035 Reduce single occupant vehicle travel to 20 percent of all trips for residents and to 60 percent of work trips for nonresidents Achieve a 16 percent reduction in GhG emissions and continued reduction in mobile source emissions of other air pollutants No more than 20 percent of roadways congested at Level of Service (LOS) F Baseline 1994 level of 2.44 million daily VMT for the Boulder Valley; target now 1.9 million daily VMT percent SOV mode share for residents percent nonresident SOV commute mode share 310, 749 million metric tons of GHG in 2013 Progress Est million daily VMT for the Boulder Valley in 2014 Reduced to 36.5 percent in 2015 for residents Remains at 80 percent in 2014 for nonresident employees New objective Trend Static, needs 20 percent further reduction in daily VMT Positive but needs to accelerate Static, needs significant change TBD in 2017/18 report 23 percent in percent in 2015 Positive but needs to accelerate Expand fiscally-viable transportation options for all Boulder residents and employees, including older adults and people with disabilities $160,000 city support to Via $290,546 city support to Via 6.3% annual increase ,822 est. residents eligible for Neighborhood EcoPass ,922 est. residents eligible for Neighborhood EcoPass 16.3% annual increase

36 Boulder, cont d 2002 Estimated Boulder Employees - 84, Local Transit Service Hours - 215,074 Estimated Boulder Employees - 98,510 Local Transit Service Hours - 196,205 NA Increase transportation alternatives commensurate with the rate of employee growth 2002 Avg. Local Weekday Ridership - 18, Regional Transit Service Hours - 100,956 Avg. Local Weekday Ridership - 20,347 Regional Transit Service Hours - 131, Avg. Regional Weekday Ridership - 7,446 Avg. Regional Weekday Ridership - 11,713 Toward Vision Zero fatal and serious injury crashes: continuous improvement in safety for all modes of travel Increase the share of residents living in complete neighborhoods to 80 percent 2002 Centerline miles of bike system Safe Streets report in progress 26 percent of residents lived in a walkable neighborhood in 2014 Centerline miles of bike system New objective New objective TBD TBD Reduce daily resident VMT to 7.3 miles per capita and non-resident one-way commute VMT to 11.4 miles per capita 11.2 mile per day for Boulder residents in nonresident one-way commute in 2014 New resident data in 2016 New nonresident data will be collected in 2017 TBD TBD

37 Grand Rapids Goals Measures 3-year running average crashes involving pedestrians Traffic-Related Serious Injuries + Fatalities 3-year running average crashes involving bicyclists 3-year running average traffic-related serious injuries and fatalities Condition rating for Vital Street sidewalk projects Operations and Maintenance PASER rating for Vital Street projects (heavy rehabilitation or reconstruction) PASER rating for all streets (percent good and poor streets) Percent of gaps in connectivity filled for pedestrians Network Connectivity Percent of dwelling units within 1/2 mile of a dedicated bicycle facility Centerline miles of connected and accessible designated routes or facilities for pedestrians Grand Rapids city mode distribution from American Community Survey (compared year on year). Mode Share Total daily trips made within the City of Grand Rapids Person Throughput Select corridors/cordons peak hour counts Person Delay Percent reduction in person delay at improved intersections Former to Improved Volume infiltrated per year (gallons) Reduction in Stormwater Runoff Acreage from which the first inch of rain is treated for water quality Public Satisfaction Annual Vital Streets web-based voluntary survey

38 Align the mechanics of governance with our Values

39 Values Goals Objectives Strategies Performance Measures Budget Reporting

40 If your values aren t tied to your BUDGET budget, Your values don t matter

41 Best practice Focus on outcomes. Use available or easily collectable data. Use the shortest list of metrics that reflect all values. Some metrics cover many values. Understand metrics used for prediction or reporting. Apply extra effort on key differentiators. Focus on tensions: o Safety versus speed o Bikes versus transit o Throughput versus economic development Game through unintended consequences. Don t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 41

42 Case Study: Portland Metro

43 Evaluating Opportunities

44

45 Round I Screening Current and future ridership potential Connectivity & system benefit Cost & corridor availability Environment constraints Equity Congestion Alignment with 2040 Growth Concept Transit origins and destinations

46 Planning for a sustainable region

47 Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) Adopted from United Kingdom New Approach To Transport Appraisal (NATA) Multiple benefit accounts considered Criteria selected based on local conditions/values

48 Applying the MAE Organized into three accounts that correspond to the outcomes-based RTP evaluation approach:

49 25 Evaluation Criteria Community Environment Economy Deliverability C1: Supportiveness of Existing Land Uses C2: Local Aspirations C3: Placemaking and Urban Form C4: Ridership Generators C5: Support of regional 2040 Growth Concept C6: Integration with Regional Transit System (Addressed in White Paper) C7: Integration with Other Road Uses C8: Congestion Avoidance Benefit C9: Equity Benefit C10: Health (Promotion of Physical Activity) C11: Safety and Security (Addressed in White Paper) C12: Housing + Transportation Affordability Benefit C13: Transportation Efficiency (User Travel Time Savings) EN1: Reduction in Emissions and Disturbance EN2: Risk of Natural Resource Disturbance EN3: Risk of 4(f) Resource Disturbance (Addressed in White Paper) EC1: Transportation Efficiency (Operator cost per rider) EC2: Transportation Efficiency (System annualized capital & operating cost per rider) EC3: Economic Competitiveness (Change in employment served) EC4: Rebuilding/ Redevelopment Opportunity (vacant and redevelopable land) D1: Total Project Capital Cost (Exclusive & Non- Exclusive ROW Options) D2: Capital Cost Per Mile (Exclusive & Non-Exclusive ROW Options) D3: Operating & Maintenance Cost D4: Total Corridor Ridership D5: Funding Potential

50

51

52

53

54

55

56 Bike Gaps

57 Collisions

58 School Accessibility

59 THANK YOU! Jeffrey Tumlin

60 Getting real about Equity in Oakland

61 OakDOT Equity Tools Links Main Landing Page: Equity Dashboard: html# Capital Improvement Program Equity Analysis: ProjectAnalysis.html Pedestrian Priority for Traffic Control: TemporaryTrafficControl.html DOT Dashboard:

62 Start with Outcome Disparities Health: Life expectancy Asthma Diabetes Obesity Accessibility Jobs within 30 minutes Access to food and services Safety Children s Issues Seniors Issues

63

64 MTC Communities of Concern

65 Disaggregate Community of Concern Factors

66 Examine Factors that Align with Outcomes

67 Examine Factors that Align with Outcomes

68 Convert Flat Map to Heatmap

69 Weight Different Factors

70 Analysis Resilience Analysis Mobility Analysis

71 Analysis Safety Accessibility Capital Plan

72 Project Analysis

73

74 Values Goals Objectives Strategies Performance Measures Budget Reporting

75 Special thanks: Brian Kimball: IT John McCabe and David Lok: Public Works Wlad Wlassowsky, Bruce Williams, Sarah Fine, Menaka Mohan and many others: DOT Christine Daniel: City Administrator s Office Darlene Flynn: Dept of Race and Equity Jeffrey Tumlin 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco CA NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 2017