®

®

Contributor Session on Smart Mobility Performance Measures

2

®

®

Session Objectives

Clarify the Performance Measures and their applications

Evaluate effectiveness through case studies

Provide feedback on appropriateness, clarity and consequences

Smart Mobility Performance Measures (part 1)

®

®

3

Conventional Measure Smart Mobility Measure

SafetyAccident Rates and Severity Modal Accident Rates, Severity

Design Speed Speed Suitability

Mobility

Highway Travel-Time Mobility Modal Travel-Time Mobility

Highway Travel-Time Consistency

Modal Travel-Time Consistency

General Accessibility Activity Connectedness

ADA Accessibility Universal Accessibility (ADA)

Ped & Bike Mode Share Ped & Bike Mode Share

Transit Mode Share Transit Mode Share

Economy

Time Lost to Congestion (VHD) Productivity Lost to Congestion

Capacity, Volume/Capacity Network Optimization

Return on Investment (ROI) ROI Nexus

Smart Mobility Performance Measures (part 2)

®

®

4

Conventional Measure Smart Mobility Measure

Environmental Quality

Vehicle Miles TraveledVMT per capita relative to AB32

Target

Fuel Consumption Energy Consumption

Emissions Emissions, including CO2

Noise Impacts Noise Impacts

Reductions in Ag, Wetlands Land Use Efficiency

Customer Satisfaction

Level of Service Multi-Modal LOS

Speed and Delay Multi-Modal Accessibility

5

®

®

Case Studies

1. RTP with SCS(SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy)

2. Context Sensitive Design

3. Corridor System Management Plan

6

®

®

Case #1: RTP + SCS

6

Coordinate transportation (RTP) and land use planning (SCS) to achieve: acceptable levels of travel accessibility regional economic vitalitycost-effective infrastructure investments minimal environmental impacts, induced travelConformity with AB32 and SB375

7

®

®

Case #1 Comparison of Alternatives

Alt A:

Trend-Line Land Use and Transportation

Alt B:

SCS for Transportation and Land Use

Description Almost all growth occurs in suburban and rural areas as single uses rather than mixed-use sites Attempts to add highway capacity and systems management to keep pace with development trend

Growth plan takes advantage of existing transportation and opportunity sites for infill, TOD and mixed-use.

Tailors transportation plan with multi-modal services, providing accessibility to planned growth areas

8

®

®

Case #1 Comparison of Alternatives

Alt A:

Trend-Line Land Use and Transportation

Alt B:

SCS for Transportation and Land Use

Advantages

Follows developer and local government planning practices of recent decades

Invests in highway capacity to reduce congestion to benefit goods movement and essential personal mobility

Reduces VMT/capita and GHG as required under AB32, SB375

Economic investment in central areas sites with potential benefits to environment, socio-economic equity

Responds to demographic shifts

9

®

®

Case #1 Smart Mobility Performance

Smart Mobility Measure Acceptable Performance?

Option A Option B

Modal Travel-Time Mobility √

Activity Connectedness √

Walk, Bike, Transit Mode Share √

Productivity Lost to Congestion √ √

ROI Nexus √ √

VMT and Emissions relative to AB32 √

Land Use Efficiency √

Percent Checked 28% 100%

10

®

®

Case #2: Context Sensitive Design

10

Arterial creates barrier and economic disincentive through established community

Goal to improve safety and convenience for travelers and affected community and sustain community value

Comparison of Alternatives

®

®

11

Alternative A:Conventional Re-Design

Alternative B:Context Sensitive Design

Description Add lanes at intersections as needed to improve traffic LOS

Time traffic signals to accommodate 45mph speeds with minimal delays

Narrow traffic lanes to allow bike lanes or wider sidewalks and landscaping

Redesign for 30mph through alignment curvatures and traffic signals timing

Advantages Improves travel time mobility

Improves bus on-time performance

Reduces emissions

Traffic speeds compatible with adjoining uses

Improves pedestrian environment, economic vitality

Reduces emissions

Case #2Illustrative Performance Evaluation

®

®

12

Smart Mobility Measure Acceptable Performance?

 

Option A Option B

Speed Suitability √

Multi-Modal Mobility √

Ped and Bike Mode Share √

Network Management √ √

Emissions √ √

Land Use Efficiency √

Multi-Modal Level of Service √

Percent Checked 28% 100%

13

®

®

Case #3: Management of Freeway Corridor

13

50-mile transportation corridor exhibits: traffic congestion lack of parallel roadway capacity transit facilities approaching ridership capacity incomplete HOV network gaps and barriers within the bicycle network

14

®

®

Difference in Performance Measures

Compared with CSMP, Smart Mobility measures emphasize safety and service for all modes of travel

Smart Mobility measures consider growth and travel inducement impacts of highway capacity increases, and

Resulting growth in emissions relative to climate law.

15

®

®

Three Questions

1. Are performance measures understandable and relevant to the evaluation?

2. Are the measures effective in determining which project alternative is most consistent with Smart Mobility principles?

3. Are there any biases in the set of measures to be corrected through revision to individual measures or the entire set?