Emerging Methods for Evaluating Transportation Systems

MOVING THINKINGFORWARD

Emerging Methods for Evaluating Transportation Systems Multimodal LOS and Highway Safety Manual

November 8, 2012

Lake Merritt Tower in Oakland

Transportation Education Series

1


Presenters

• Mark Bowman, Senior Principal Engineer

• Erin Ferguson, Senior Engineer

• Aaron Elias, Engineering Associate

• Kamala Parks, Senior Planner

2


Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)

• 2010 Highway Capacity Manual

• Quality of service analysis for:

– Pedestrians

– Bicyclists

– Transit passengers

– Motorists

• Integrated methodology

– LOS results reported by user type

– Different scales

• Intersection to corridor

3


Highway Safety Manual (HSM)

• AASHTO publication

• Safety prediction tools

– Developed through research

• Similar to HCM

– Definitive

– Widely accepted

– Science-based

• From qualitative assessments to quantitative prediction

4


Emerging Methods for Evaluation

• The HSM and MMLOS can:

– Quantify trade-offs between roadway users for given design features

– Assist and inform the public process

– Help prioritize projects that benefit all roadway users

– Show compliance with Complete Streets legislation

5


MMLOS and HSM Applications

• Identify system needs

• Evaluate development projects

• Evaluate design alternatives

• Improve policies and standards

6


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Washington County, MD

Colchester, VT

7

APPLICATIONS OF HSM AND MMLOS

LONG RANGE PLANNING

NETWORK SCREENING – FLORIDA DOT DISTRICT 4

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

9


Network Screening - Florida DOT District 4

• Transportation system plans

– Broad network considerations help guide recommendations

• Supported Capital Improvement Plan development

– Prioritize using safety as a filter

• Fundamental safety screening projects

– Prioritize limited budgets to the most needed areas

10


• Objective – Identify intersections along state roadways that would most

likely benefit from safety improvements

• Nearly 1,300 potential intersections

• Tasks Literature review

Network screening - Preliminary Ranking

Crash review

Site visits

Network Screening - Final ranking

Documentation

11



• Performance measures


– 1. Crash frequency • Total crashes • Fatal and incapacitating

injury – 2. Equivalent property

damage only (EPDO) average crash frequency • Frequency/severity

score • D4 comprehensive crash

costs

– 3. Total crash cost

• Signalized/Unsignalized

• FHWA crash costs

– 4. Excess proportion

• Signalized/unsignalized

• Fatal and incapacitating injury

• Ped/bike, left-turn/angle, right-turn, sideswipe, rear-end


• Preliminary site selection

– Identified top 20 sites

• Detailed crash analysis

• Site reviews

• Final site selection

– Top 6 sites



• Summary

– Identify greatest needs

• Funding directed to locations where investments have the most opportunity to decrease crashes

• Near-term locations and issues on which they can focus

• Long-term prioritized list of locations based on crash performance

– Apply for funding

– Respond to community

– Work with potential developers

14



LONG RANGE PLANNING

SAN PABLO GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLAN

MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

16


• Adopted 2011

• Dyett and Bhatia – Prime consultant

• How to incorporate MMLOS

General Plan - San Pablo, CA

17


• Complete Street general policies

• Designation of circulation system

– Move away from motorist-only perceptions

– Incorporate more multimodal designations


Source: Dyett and Bhatia

18




19


• Prioritization of different street types by mode



20


– More robust determination of improvements



21


• MMLOS summary of factors for each mode


22


Specific Plan – San Pablo, CA

• Adopted 2011

• Guide to revitalize in a sustainable manner

• MMLOS analysis

– Existing

– 2030 No Project

– 2030 Specific Plan

23


Specific Plan – San Pablo, CA

• MMLOS Analysis – AM Peak Hour

Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS

North Existing 1.67 A 3.45 C 2.98 C 1.65 A 3.55 D 3.07 C

2030 No Project 2.11 B 3.49 C 3.08 C 1.78 A 3.61 D 3.19 C

2030 Specific Plan 2.07 B 3.18 C 2.84 C 1.76 A 3.29 C 3.04 C

Central Existing 1.08 A 3.50 C 3.06 C 1.10 A 3.49 C 2.96 C

2030 No Project 1.22 A 3.54 D 3.15 C 1.27 A 3.55 D 3.07 C

2030 Specific Plan 1.20 A 3.48 C 3.03 C 1.23 A 2.95 C 2.83 C

South Existing 0.91 A 4.13 D 2.87 C 0.80 A 3.60 D 2.83 C

2030 No Project 1.07 A 4.22 D 2.99 C 1.06 A 3.65 D 2.96 C

2030 Specific Plan 1.04 A 3.69 D 2.81 C 1.05 A 3.57 D 2.85 C

AM Peak-Hour

Corridor

Section Scenario

Northbound Southbound

Transit

Passenger Bicyclist Pedestrian

Transit

Passenger Bicyclist Pedestrian

Worse than existing

Worse than existing but better than 2030 No Project

Better than existing

Legend

Dowling Associates, Inc., Multi-Modal Level of Service analysis using CompleteStreetsLOS version 2.1.8, November 2010

24


General and Specific Plan – San Pablo, CA

• Summary

– MMLOS was used to:

• Establish of a multimodal roadway system

• Provide guidelines for multimodal improvements

• Assist development of the Specific Plan

• Compare the Specific Plan to General Plan

– MMLOS was particularly beneficial for:

• Quantifying trade-offs between modes

• Determining the reasonableness of LOS standards

25


DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IN PASADENA

MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT


Traffic Impact Study - Pasadena, CA

• Worked with the City of Pasadena to analyze multimodal impacts of a redevelopment project

28


• Impact studies generally only consider vehicle

• Pasadena finding it difficult to mitigate certain areas

• How might MMLOS provide another tool

• A recent development project was selected to test multimodal LOS


29


• Project consisted of:

– 156 room hotel

– 38,000 ft2 of dining

– 14,000 ft2 of retail

– 103,000 ft2 of office

– 8,000 ft2 of bank

• Generated 4,900 daily trips

– 289 trips in the AM peak hour

– 488 trips in the PM peak hour


30



31


Link results for Colorado Boulevard


32



33


• Transit Passenger

– Minimal effect, transit speed slightly slower (-)

– Pedestrian LOS slightly worse (-)

• Bicyclist

– More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)

– Slower auto speeds (+)

• Pedestrian

– More vehicles in lane nearest pedestrians (-)

– Slower auto speeds (+)

• All impacts minor, volume has only small effect on LOS for non-auto modes


34


• Summary:

– Multimodal LOS not very sensitive to volume changes

– Better applications for a corridor MMLOS analysis:

• Project changes the number of access points

• Project proposes changes to roadway geometry

• Allows developer to quantify how other modes could be benefited if auto cannot be mitigated

• Changes in on-street parking

• Addition or subtraction of median island with ped refuge


35


DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IN COLCHESTER



Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

37


• Project

– Costco Warehouse and fuel sales expansion

– Opposition expressed concern with safety impacts of expansion

• Basic Question

– Would the project cause operational and safety impacts and what mitigations are necessary?

• Evaluation

– Applied HSM Part C crash prediction models to evaluate safety performance

38

Traffic Impact Study - Colchester, VT


• Reviewed crash history at main site access

39


Rear End


• Applied HSM to predict intersection crash frequency at site access

• Increased volumes lead to higher crash frequency • Costco signal mitigations improve crash rate to below current rate

– Reconfigure one intersection leg – Side-street change to split phasing from permitted left-turns

40


Type of Crash Predicted Crashes per Year

Existing Conditions 11

Non-Mitigated with Costco 12

Mitigated with Costco 11

Change (Proposed vs. Existing) 0


• Summary

– Provided DOT with quantified safety information in their development review process

• Defensible approval position

• Identify potential safety mitigations to address safety impacts

– Address opposition’s concerns

– Eased the review process

41



ROADWAY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

INTERSECTION STUDY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY



Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

43


Intersection Study – Washington County, MD

• Washington St (MD-144) & Western Maryland Pkwy (MD-910) – Existing two-way stop control intersection

• Study motivations – Targeted family-wage employment area—partially developed

– MD 144 programmed for corridor improvements

– Increased numbers of crashes

– Political pressure on DOT

• Potential countermeasures – 4-Way Stop Control

– Traffic Signal

– Roundabout

44

Study Intersection

MOVING THINKINGFORWARD45



• We applied the HSM to:

– Estimate long-term average crash performance for existing conditions

– Estimate changes in crashes for each countermeasure

– Compute the estimated change in crashes between existing conditions and the potential alternatives

– Compare the annual monetary benefit of change in crashes for each alternative

46



• Roundabout alternative estimated to provide highest crashes reduction

47

Estimated Annual Monetary Benefit Based on Severity

Existing Two-Way Stop

Four-Way Stop Traffic Signal Roundabout

Total per Year - $11,200 to $15,600 $10,500 to $13,900 $41,600 to $68,600

• Crash monetary benefits summary

– Roundabout alternative to have the highest monetary benefits

Estimated Change in the Number of Crashes/Year

Existing Two-Way Stop

Four-Way Stop Traffic Signal Roundabout

Injury/Fatal - N/A N/A 0.24 to 0.41

PDO - N/A N/A 0.49 to 0.50

Total - 0.46 to 0.64 0.43 to 0.57 0.73 to 0.91



• Summary

– Relatively easy to incorporate crash analysis and augment traditional evaluations

– Helped mid-level DOT staff communicate more effectively with higher level staff

– Meaningful analysis results allowed decision makers to:

• Construct a temporary roundabout in the interim

• Accelerate funding for permanent roundabout construction

– Safety component highlighted the value of quantitatively assess safety

48


MOVING THINKINGFORWARD49

• “Temporary” Roundabout Example




CORRIDOR STUDY ON POWELL BOULEVARD IN PORTLAND

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL AND MULTIMODAL LOS


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

51


Powell Boulevard (US-26) – Portland, OR

• Corridor considering cross section changes – Access management study

– Pedestrian/bike facilities

– Rural roadway evolving to urbanized features

– Basic corridor capacity improvement

• Traffic operations are not clear differentiators – High volume considerations

– Low volume considerations

• Supplemental performance measures – Highway Safety Manual

– MMLOS

52


• Project

– A heavily used urban arterial in need of improvements

– Traditional traffic operations analysis did not find any clear “winners” among the alternatives

• Basic Question

– Which alternative will best serve future needs of the corridor?

• Evaluation

– Conducted Safety and MMLOS evaluations

– Quantified predicted safety trade-offs between concepts

53




54


• Originally had 22 specific alternatives

• Organized alternatives into 5 primary groups

• Tested alternatives using the HSM and MMLOS

55

Group Description

1 Access Management and Intersection Modifications at 122nd Ave

2 Different locations of left-turn lanes along SE Powell Blvd

3 Three-lane (TWLTL) roadway with different roadway element widths

4 Two-lane with raised median and left-turn pockets with different roadway elements

5 Existing conditions with different pedestrian features




• HSM analysis results isolated two groups of alternatives as more likely to reduce crashes

– Group 3 – 21% reduction; Group 4 – 19% to 27% reduction

56

Alt Group

Description % Crash

Reduction

1 Access management and intersection modifications near 122nd Ave

0%1

2 Varying locations of left-turn lanes along US-26 1-3%2

3 Three-lane (TWLTL) roadway with varying roadway element widths

21%

4 Two-lane with raised median and left-turn pockets with different roadway elements

19-27%3

5 Existing conditions with different pedestrian features 0%1



• MMLOS analysis help identify key trends in treatments

– Bicyclist - Sensitive to changes in roadway widths, given the traffic volumes and density of driveways

– Pedestrians - Sidewalks improve LOS to “D”

– Pedestrians – Buffer strip could improve LOS to “C”

57

Alt

Group

Bicycle Facility LOS Pedestrian Facility LOS

Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound

Existing/No Build E E E E

1 E E D D

2 E E D D

3 E/F E/F D/E D

4 E/F E/F D/E D/E

5 E E D D


• Summary

– Allowed ODOT to consider quantified safety information in their selection process

– Comprehensive assessment of alternatives created a better understanding of tradeoffs

– Allowed ODOT to communicate to the public the benefit of doing more than sidewalks

58




CORRIDOR STUDY ON RUSSELL BOULEVARD IN MISSOULA

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL AND MULTIMODAL LOS


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

60


Russell Street – Missoula, MT

• Project Context

– Update of traffic analysis for widening of 1.5-mile long corridor

– Public opposition to original corridor study

• Advocacy group formed specifically to fight this project

• Bike/pedestrian groups uneasy

• Opinion that safety was not sufficiently quantified in the initial study

61


• Basic Question

– Which alternative best accommodates projected traffic volumes without compromising the safety of roadway users?

• Evaluation

– Conducted safety and MMLOS evaluations

– Quantified predicted safety trade-offs between concepts


62


• College town

• One of five river crossings

– Connects to downtown

• 2/3 lane cross-section

• Important route for bicycle commuters

• Fragmented bicyclist and pedestrian facilities

• AADT of 20,000 to 25,000


63


• Six design schemes – Alt 1 is no build – Alt 2 and 3

• Roundabouts, divided

– Alt 4 • Signals and

widening – Alt 5-R

• Hybrid of Alts 2, 3, 4

– Option 6 • Roundabouts,

min widening


64


• MMLOS of Alternative 4

– Original Preferred Alternative

– 5 vehicle lanes

– Signals

– Sidewalks

– Bicycle lanes


65


• MMLOS analysis of Alternative 4

– Pedestrian LOS

• No Build – LOS E

• Build – LOS C

– Bicyclist LOS

• No Build – LOS F

• Build – LOS E – Better improvement if access management were addressed


66


• Good Performance

– Alternatives 2, 3 and 5R

• Roundabouts

• Divided roadway

• Fair Performance – Alternative 4 and Options

6 & 7

• Signals

• Roadway widening

• Poor Performance – Alternative 1

• No Build Condition


• HSM analysis of roadway designs

67



– Key characteristics of well-performing alternatives

• Raised medians

• Roundabouts

• Left-turn pockets at intersections


68



– Value of Analysis

• Quantified safety – Assisted City and State with alternatives selection process

• Comprehensive assessment of alternatives – Created a better understanding of tradeoffs

• Public outreach – Communicated to the public and elected officials that the

preferred alternative is an improvement over existing conditions

– Key element to achieving public acceptance

69




CORRIDOR STUDY ON BROWARD BOULEVARD IN FT.

LAUDERDALE

MULTIMODAL LOS


Portland, OR

Missoula, MT

San Pablo, CA

Pasadena, CA

Fort Lauderdale, FL


Colchester, VT

71


Broward Boulevard – Fort Lauderdale, FL

• Main thoroughfare

• Mostly commercial uses

• High number of pedestrian mid-block crossings

• Frequent transit

• Bicyclists frequently on sidewalk

72



73


• Existing Conditions – Divided 6-Lane Facility

– Performed a MMLOS Analysis for WB Direction


74


• Existing Conditions


75


Replace 1 through lane

with transit only lane and

bicycle lane

Replace 1 through lane

with parking and bicycle

lane


76


Segment From To Existing Road Diet % Change LOS

1 US-1 NE 3rd 0.34 0.31 -10.3% E >> E

2 NE 3rd Andrews 0.34 0.23 -45.7% E >> F

3 Andrews NW 1st 0.38 0.34 -13.7% E >> E

4 NW 1st NW 5th 0.39 0.12 -227.7% E >> F

5 NW 5th NW 7th 0.36 0.17 -116.4% E >> F

6 NW 7th NW 9th 0.65 0.32 -102.5% C >> E

7 NW 9th NW 11th 0.50 0.13 -299.2% C >> F

8 NW 11th NW 14th 0.73 0.17 -332.5% B >> F

9 NW 14th NW 15th 0.72 0.49 -46.9% B >> F

10 NW 15th NW 18th 0.56 0.05 -1002.0% C >> F

WB Segment Auto LOS

• Motorist LOS


77



1 US-1 NE 3rd 3.69 3.23 -14.2% D >> C

2 NE 3rd Andrews 1.93 1.23 -56.9% A >> A

3 Andrews NW 1st 1.92 1.09 -76.1% A >> A

4 NW 1st NW 5th 1.77 1.15 -53.9% A >> A

5 NW 5th NW 7th 2.30 1.83 -25.7% B >> A

6 NW 7th NW 9th 2.22 2.30 3.5% B >> B

7 NW 9th NW 11th 1.10 1.69 34.9% A >> A

8 NW 11th NW 14th 2.22 2.48 10.5% B >> B

9 NW 14th NW 15th 3.52 3.36 -4.8% D >> C

10 NW 15th NW 18th 1.99 1.95 -2.1% A >> A

WB Segment Transit LOS

• Transit Passenger LOS


78



1 US-1 NE 3rd 3.85 3.63 -6.1% D >> D

2 NE 3rd Andrews 3.71 3.50 -6.0% D >> D

3 Andrews NW 1st 3.67 3.45 -6.4% D >> C

4 NW 1st NW 5th 4.09 3.81 -7.3% D >> D

5 NW 5th NW 7th 4.18 3.88 -7.7% D >> D

6 NW 7th NW 9th 4.25 2.69 -58.0% D >> B

7 NW 9th NW 11th 4.06 2.65 -53.2% D >> B

8 NW 11th NW 14th 4.01 2.70 -48.5% D >> B

9 NW 14th NW 15th 3.82 2.48 -54.0% D >> B

10 NW 15th NW 18th 4.04 2.64 -53.0% D >> B

WB Segment Bike LOS

• Bicyclist LOS


79



1 US-1 NE 3rd 3.61 3.54 -2.0% D >> D

2 NE 3rd Andrews 3.75 3.72 -0.8% D >> D

3 Andrews NW 1st 3.63 3.62 -0.3% D >> D

4 NW 1st NW 5th 3.75 3.71 -1.1% D >> D

5 NW 5th NW 7th 3.99 3.99 0.0% D >> D

6 NW 7th NW 9th 4.00 4.12 2.9% D >> D

7 NW 9th NW 11th 3.92 4.02 2.5% D >> D

8 NW 11th NW 14th 3.77 4.46 15.5% D >> E

9 NW 14th NW 15th 4.00 4.26 6.1% D >> E

10 NW 15th NW 18th 4.07 4.33 6.0% D >> E

WB Segment Pedestrian LOS

• Pedestrian LOS


80


• Summary

– Eastern section showed positive improvements to ped, bike, and transit riders with only small impact on autos

– Methodology much better at quantitatively showing impacts to all four modes resulting from physical attributes such as:

• Cross section changes (Pedestrians/Bikes)

• Trees or other buffers (Pedestrians)

• Pavement condition (Bikes)

81



SUMMARY


• Quantify trade-offs

– Design features and alternatives

– Comparisons among different roadway users

– Prioritize multimodal projects

• Address community values

– Assist and inform the public process

– Quantify quality of travel experience

– Quantify safety

– Implement Complete Streets legislation

83

Summary of MMLOS and HSM Applications


Questions?

Documents

Emerging Methods for Evaluating Transportation Systems