update for vtrans2025 technical committee

1Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems

University of Virginia

Update for VTrans2025 Technical Committee

February 24, 2006

Dr. James H. Lambert

Alexander S. Linthicum



Contents

• Introduction

• Performance Metrics

• Multimodal Corridor Maturity and Potential

• Request for Information

• Appendix A – Performance Metrics

• Appendix B – Suggestions of Metrics for Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship

• Appendix C – Amsterdam-Utrecht Corridor



Introduction

• Last non-VTrans Technical Committee Meeting

– November 28, 2005 at DRPT

– Discussed metrics for rail and transit

– Charged by Kim to focus on “Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship” metrics

• Since November meeting, UVA has focused on

– Quality of life performance metrics

– Use of performance metrics to determine multimodal corridor maturity and potential



Performance Metrics

• Developed performance metrics that include

– Metrics distributed by Kathy Graham at January VTrans meeting

– Metrics for determining multimodal corridor maturity and priority

– Suggestions for “Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship” metrics

• Located in Appendix A


University of VirginiaMultimodal Corridor Maturity and Potential

• Compared to all eleven corridors, specific transportation corridors– Are more multimodal in nature– Are more amenable to multimodal investment– Have greater potential to benefit from multimodal investment

• UVA team is working on a framework to characterize them in terms of their multimodal maturity and potential

– ‘Maturity’ gauges how multimodal in nature a corridor is currently

– ‘Potential’ gauges which corridors are the strongest candidates for multimodal solutions based on current conditions and future potential



• Maturity and potential is based on the VTrans2025 goals– Primary

• Safety• Mobility, accessibility, connectivity• Quality of life, environmental stewardship

– Secondary

• Preservation/Maintenance

• Economic vitality

• Fiscal responsibility



• Maturity and potential study will identify– Characteristics of current network

• Volume of passengers and goods• Segments of significant congestion by mode• Particularly dangerous segments by mode• Mode share

– Spatial characteristics• Densities of population, residence, workplace• Significant productions and attractions• Amount of parking

– Qualitative characteristics• Localities that actively consider transportation in land use planning

process• State, regional, and local transportation demand management policies



• Maturity and potential will be determined primarily from quantitative performance metrics– Mobility, Accessibility, Connectivity

• Land Use– Density (population, housing, jobs, attractions)– Accessibility to attractions by mode within time radius– Percent/amount of mixed use zoning– Availability of free parking

• Transportation– Mode share– Presence/quality of intermodal facilities

– Preservation, Maintenance• Level of Service by mode



• Quantitative performance metrics (continued)– Safety and Security

• Accidents/injuries/fatalities by mode, normalized by person-mile traveled

– Quality of life• Travel time• Travel time variability• Out of pocket cost

– Environmental Impact• Air quality• Greenhouse gases• Noise pollution• Watershed• Natural habitats



• Characterizing corridors with respect to multimodal maturity and potential will allow Virginia to identify corridor segments and localities that

– Are currently positioned for multimodal investment

– Are not currently positioned for multimodal investment

– Will benefit most from multimodal investment

– Will not benefit greatly from multimodal investment



• Approach– Corridors are one element of a system consisting of

• Transportation network– Passenger– Freight

• Regional and local land uses• Transportation and land use policies

– Consider passenger and freight separately, but consider interactions where appropriate• Safety• Operations



• Data Sources

– US Census

– BTS

– UVA GeoStat Lab

– Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP)

• Contains place of residence, place of work, and flows between home and work

– VDOT State Planning System

– National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

– MPOs



Request For Information

• What is the scope of a multimodal corridor?

– Physical boundaries

• Mileage radius

• Geographical boundary (Census Tract, TAZ) (preferable)

– Functional boundaries

• Statewide network is interrelated with local networks

• Relieving congestion on statewide corridors requires investigation and improvement to local transportation and land use




• What is the VTrans2025 position concerning the conflicting objectives of mobility and accessibility?

– Increasing mobility on roads will in many cases erode transit ridership and decentralize productions and attractions, reducing accessibility on other modes

– Travel demand management, increased rail and transit capabilities, and centralizing productions and attractions encourage people to take shorter, non-auto trips, inherently reducing mobility




• Given the funding shortage for transportation initiatives, and given the Kaine administration’s excitement about transportation, would this be a good time to focus on policies?

– Land use alignments with transportation goals?

– Travel demand management?

– Congestion Pricing?



Appendix A – Performance Metrics


University of VirginiaAppendix A - Performance Metrics

• Safety and Security– Accidents – Injuries – Fatalities – Injuries / 100M VMT – Fatalities / 100M VMT – Crashes / Passenger Carried (or per million passenger miles?)– Fatalities / Passenger Carried (or per million passenger miles?)– Injuries w/ Bikes, Pedestrians, Trains, Heavy Trucks, Buses– Fatalities w/ Bikes, Pedestrians, Trains, Heavy Trucks, Buses– # at-grade crossings – crashes / train mile– % airports conducting voluntary security programs – % port compliance with Maritime Transportation Safety Act – OSHA recordables per 200K hours worked – crime rate at Park and Ride facilities



• Performance and Maintenance– % lane miles deficient– % bridges functionally obsolete– % bridges structurally deficient– average clearance time for incidents– pavement condition– maintenance backlog– maintenance % of total budget– % facilities past recommended retirement age– mean time between failure– mean distance between failure– Coordination with Freight for Track Usage– # facilities not double-stack compatible– Coordination with Passenger Rail for Track Usage– Dwell Time for Containers– TEUs Per Acre


University of VirginiaAppendix A - Performance Metrics• Mobility, Accessibility, Connectivity

– lane miles– vehicle mix– VMT– AADT– % lane miles V/C > 1– Ridership– % buses with bike racks– # communities with transit service– % of stations with bicycle facilities– # at-grade crossings– # communities within 10 miles of station– Enplanements– % population within a 30 minute drive of GA airport– % population within a 45 minute drive of commercial airport– air service volumes– Port capacity (TEU)– Size of ships accommodated– # / utilization of park and ride spaces



• Economic Vitality– transportation cost per user– average length of commute– level of service– attractions / jobs within 1/4 mile of transit stops– population within 30 minutes of GA airport– population within 45 minutes of commercial airport– number of planes based at airports– economic impact of GA airport– economic impact of commercial airport– TEU's handled– value of goods– # distribution centers / warehouses in corridor– square footage– investment dollars– # of employees



• Quality of Life, Environmental Stewardship– Average Delay Time– Increase of LOS due to TDM or transit usage– Reduction of VMT due to TDM or transit usage– overall customer satisfaction– Reliability– customer wait time– population within 30 minutes of GA airport– population within 45 minutes of commercial airport– See Appendix B for further suggestions



• Fiscal Responsibility– # PPTAs– Projects completed on time and on budget– # localities participating in First Cities– # localities participating in Local Planning initiatives– Grants completed on time and on budget– Prioritization process– Current cash operating revenues– Current year beginning cash balances



Appendix B – Suggestions of Metrics for Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship

from “Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Appendix B - Performance Measures Library”

(still need to identify which document)


University of VirginiaAppendix B - Quality of Life

• Accessibility, Mobility Related

– % population that perceives its environment has become more 'livable'over the past year with regard to ability to access desired locations

– % of region's unemployed or poor that cite transportation access as aprincipal barrier to seeking employment

– % of region's mobility-impaired who can reach specific activities bypublic transportation or by walking/wheelchair

– Customer perception of satisfaction with commute time

– Customer perception of quality transit service

– Lost time due to congestion

– Average number of hours spent traveling

– Work trips completed per vehicle hour



• Safety Related

– Customer perception of safety while in travel system

– % of population which perceives that response time by police, fire, rescue, or emergency services has become better or worse, and whether that is due to transportation factors



• Air Quality Related

– Tons of air pollution emitted by all modes (including energy used to power METRO and other facilities)

– # of days Pollution Standard Index is in unhealthful range

– Number of urban areas classified as non-attainment status

– Population in areas classified as non-attainment statusCustomer perception of satisfaction with air quality



• Noise Related

– % of population exposed to levels of transportation noise above 60 decibels

– Number of residences exposed to noise in excess of established thresholds

– Number of noise receptor sites above threshold



• Other Environment Related

– Customer perception of satisfaction with transportation decisions which impact the environment

– Customer perception of amount of salt used on trunk highways

– Amount of salt used per VMT or per lane-mile

– # of archeological and historical sites that are not satisfactorily addressed in project development before construction begins



• Project Delivery Related

– Customer perception of satisfaction with involvement in pre-project planning

– Customer perception of satisfaction with completed projects

– Customer perception of promises kept on project completion


University of VirginiaAppendix B - Environmental Stewardship

• Alternative Modes, Fuels– Overall mode split– Mode split by facility or route– % of change in mode splits– Public transportation passenger-miles/total vehicle miles– % of vehicles using alternative fuels– % use of walking and bicycling for commute trips– % use of walking and bicycling for all trips– # of miles of non-motorized facilities



• Air Pollution

– Highway emissions levels within non-attainment areas

– Tons of greenhouse gases generated

– Air quality rating



• Fuel Usage

– Fuel consumption per VMT

– Fuel consumption per PMT

– Fuel consumption per ton-mile traveled

– Average MPG

– Fuel usage splits

– Average fuel consumption per trip for selected trips (or shipments)



• Land Use

– Sprawl: difference between change in urban household density and suburban household density

– % of region which is developed

• Pipelines

– degree to which pipeline spills and accidents are minimized

– Number of pipeline spills



• Government Actions

– Customer perception of satisfaction with transportation decisions which impact the environment

– Number of environmental problems to be taken care of with existing commitments

– Number of transportation control measures (TCMs) accomplished vs. planned

– Environmentally friendly partnership projects per year



• Miscellaneous

– VMT/speed relationships constraints to utilization due to noise (hours of operation)

– constraints to utilization due to water (dredge fill permits)

– # accidents involving hazardous waste

– Amount of recycled material used in road construction

– # and miles of designated scenic routes



Appendix C – Amsterdam-Utrecht Corridor

Haq, Gary. “Towards Sustainable Transport Planning: A Comparison Between Britain and the Netherlands”. Avebury. Hampshire, England. 1997; pp 192-232


University of VirginiaCase Study: Amsterdam-Utrecht Corridor

• Multimodal corridor analysis conducted in the late 90’s

• Similar to I-95 corridor

– Highway network experiencing congestion

• Affecting passenger travel and freight delivery

– Two track rail corridor at full capacity

• Passenger rail unreliable due to track-sharing conflicts

• Thorough description of corridor

• Consideration of all of VTrans2025 goals

• Effective presentation of findings

update for vtrans2025 technical committee

Documents