Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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