Download Beyond Auto-Only Level of Service: MPO and State Case Studies

Beyond Auto-Only Level of Service:
MPO and State Case Studies
2016 AMPO Annual Conference
October 26, 2016
What is Level of Service (LOS)?
• A measure of congestion delay estimating traveler perception
• Among the most widely adopted metrics for reporting
transportation system performance in the country
• Both a very simple (volume/capacity ratio) and very complex
analysis (as defined by Highway Capacity Manual)
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
General Operating Conditions
Free flow, with low volumes and high speeds.
Reasonably free flow, but speeds beginning to be restricted by traffic conditions.
Stable flow, but most drivers are restricted in the freedom to select their own speeds.
Approaching unstable flow; drivers have little freedom to select their own speeds.
Unstable flow; may be short stoppages.
Forced or breakdown flow; unacceptable congestion; stop-and-go.
2
Limitations of LOS
• Can be useful metric for congestion and travel delay, but just
one of many things to measure
• Easy to communicate to public and decision-makers but tends
to oversimplify complex concepts
• Favors dispersed land use development, discourages infill
• Does not address safety, accessibility, reliability for all modes
• Traditionally auto-only focus, though some agencies estimate
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS, called multimodal level of
service (MMLOS)
3
Transportation Performance Management
Rulemaking Context
Performance Area
Safety Performance
Measures
Highway Safety Improvement
Program
Statewide and Metro
Planning; Non-Metro Planning
Pavement and Bridge
Performance Measures
Highway Asset Management
Plan
Performance of the NHS,
Freight, and CMAQ Measures
NPRM
March 11, 2014
March 28, 2014
June 2, 2014
January 5, 2015
February 20, 2015
April 22, 2016
Comments Due
Final Rule
Closed
June 30, 2014
Closed
June 30, 2014
Closed
October 2, 2014
Closed
May 8, 2015
Closed
May 29, 2015
Closed
August 20, 2016
Published
May 15, 2016
Published
May 15, 2016
Published
May 27, 2016
Anticipated
November 2016
Anticipated
October 2016
TBD
4
Transportation Performance Management
Measures
Performance Area
Safety Performance
Measures
Sample of Included Measures
 Rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT
 Number of non-motorized fatalities and
non-motorized serious Injuries
Measures Are
Final
 Percentage of pavements in Good
condition on the Interstate System
Pavement and Bridge
Performance Measures  Percentage of bridges in Good condition
on the NHS
Proposed
 Percent of Interstate System providing for
Performance of the NHS,
Reliable Travel Times
Freight, and CMAQ
 Percent of Interstate System where Peak
Measures
Hour Travel Times meet expectations
Proposed
5
Why Focus on LOS?
• LOS warrants further attention as it is widely used and touches on many areas,
including:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Environment
Operations
Performance management
Planning and land use
Roadway design
Safety
Traffic forecasting
• USDOT transitioning to broader base of performance measures with MAP-21/FAST
Act performance management requirements
– Aim is consistency in metrics, but flexibility in targets, design, operations, process, etc.
6
Federal Flexibility
• Long history of FHWA encouraging context sensitive solutions
• FHWA revision of design controlling criteria in May 2016
– Only two of 10 criteria now apply to freeways and roads with design
speeds < 50 mph
7
Federal LOS Requirements
• FHWA uses AASHTO’s Green Book as design standards for
NHS, though recommended values in Green Book are regarded
by FHWA as guidance only
• Green Book recommends highway agencies strive to provide
highest LOS practical “as may be fitting to the conditions”
• FHWA published clarifying memo on LOS in May 2016:
“FHWA does not have regulations or policies that require specific
minimum LOS values for projects on the NHS”
8
Case Study: Met Council
• Background
– MPO for Twin Cities
– Had traditionally focused on capacity expansion projects in 1990s/early
2000s
• Case for change:
financial constraints
– Financial inability to
build way out of
congestion
– 2007 bridge collapse
underscored
importance of system
preservation
Source: Minnesota DOT via FHWA
9
Case Study: Met Council
• Implementation
– Introduced new metrics in 2009 aimed at system efficiency, including
people-moving capacity and person throughput
• Still use volume/capacity ratios, but more as a screen for further analyses and
interventions
– Shifted to managing congestion with innovative, cost-efficient approaches,
maintaining existing infrastructure, and investing in multimodal travel
options to achieve sustainable growth
– Made strong policy decision to work within existing footprint – updated
regional solicitation criteria to align with guiding principles
• Guiding principles point to very minimal and targeted physical capacity expansion
• Most capacity expansion to come through transit and HOV/HOT or other system
optimization
10
Case Study: Florida DOT
• Background
– Third most populous State, with 90% of population living in urban
areas
– Long history of leading national research on MMLOS
• Case for change: safety
– 2011 Dangerous by Design report ranking country’s top 10 most
dangerous cities for pedestrians placed Florida’s cities in top four
spots
– Released Complete Streets Policy in 2014
– Wanted performance measures to prioritize safety and complete
streets
11
Case Study: Florida DOT
• Implementation
– Held series of interactive workshops in
2015 to identify agency standards,
guidance, manuals, and procedures
that would require revisions in order to
put Complete Streets Policy into
practice
– Determined updates needed for LOS
standards, policies, procedures, and
Quality/LOS Handbook – in process
– Developing complete streets
performance measures
Source: FDOT Complete Streets Implementation Plan, December 2015
12
Case Study: California
• Background
– Most populous state in the country and third largest by area
– Longtime national leader in establishing environmental standards
• Case for change: environment
– 2002 State planning legislation; 2006 SB 32 GHG reduction
legislation; 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
2013 SB 743 Environmental Quality
– SB 743 changes how public agencies evaluate transportation
impacts of projects under the California Environmental Quality Acts
(CEQA)
13
Case Study: California
• SB 743 Implementation
– Transition to use of VMT as a
measure of environmental impact
of development projects
– Focus on amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a
project
– Automobile delay attributable to a
project would not constitute a
significant environmental impact
• Caltrans also exploring
alternatives to LOS for mobility
analysis
Source: Ramon Llorensi, Flickr creative commons
14
Case Study Insights
• Useful to have a measure addressing user experience – preserve some of
the “spirit” of LOS, while opening a larger range of possible solutions
– MMLOS (FDOT)
– Alternate metrics (Caltrans)1
• Sometimes need to use/consider LOS differently; other times need to
measure something else entirely
–
–
–
–
People-moving capacity (Met Council)
High level screening to identify areas requiring more analysis (Met Council)
VMT (California)2
Complete streets performance measures (FDOT)3
• Shift may require new analyses, education for public, stakeholders, and
transportation professionals
1. Under consideration
2. Confirmed but not yet implemented
3. Under development
15
Overarching Insights and Lessons Learned
• Agencies generally don’t start by changing LOS
– Cases each began with a goal (improving safety, environment, financial/asset
preservation)
– Found that they need to rethink or use LOS differently in order to achieve goals
• Challenging to discuss LOS because definitions and uses vary
– Robust version of LOS analysis vs. simple volume/capacity ratio
• Agencies can take advantage of existing Federal flexibility, though they
–
–
–
–
–
May need greater awareness of Federal flexibility
May need to realign State/local policies with Federal flexibility
May not be comfortable designing new types of facilities
Until recently may not be willing/able to go through design exceptions process
May need greater resources/expertise to develop and use new metrics
16
What’s Next?
• USDOT to disseminate report on three case studies
– Met Council
– Florida DOT
– California
• Moving towards broader performance measures
• Continued and increased collaboration with USDOT colleagues
in various headquarters offices, and field offices across the
country
17