how to integrate tdm in the planning · pdf filemore contemporary definitions of travel ......
TRANSCRIPT
6/20/2011
1
How to Integrate TDM in theHow to Integrate TDM in the Planning ProcessThursday, June 23, 2011
2:00 PM to 3:15 PM EDT
1:00 PM to 2:15 PM CDT 1 1Noon to 1:15 PM MDT
11:00 AM to 12:15 PM PDT
Sponsored by ACT, National Center for Transit Research at USF
Agenda
IntroductionsD S ll d M Rid /URS (5 i ) Donna Smallwood, MassRides/URS (5 min)
Polls (5 min)
Presentations (45 min) Egan Smith, U.S. Department of Transportation
Sandi Moody, TBARTA Commuter Services
Beth Alden, AICP, Hillsborough County MPO
Q&A (20 min)
6/20/2011
2
Sponsored by:
Association for Commuter Transportation
Advocates for TDM
Provides professional growth and networking opportunities
Communicates the latest information on TDM best practices and industry news
ACT International Conference Chicago August 27-31
For more info, visit www.actweb.org
Sponsored by:
National Center for Transit Research
NCTR is located at the Center for Urban
Commuter Choice CertificateCenter for Urban
Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida National TDM and
Telework Clearinghouse
Certificate Online courses www.commuterservices.com
Home of the new Best Workplaces for Commuters
Help Desk www.nctr.usf.edu/clearing
house
TRANSP-TDM listserv
www.bestworkplaces.org
6/20/2011
3
Credits Available
1. One credit under Commuter Choice Certificate program managed by the Center for Urban p g g yTransportation Research at the University of South Florida
2. CM credit for AICP members
Both REQUIRE you to provide your personal contact information on the evaluation form
Evaluation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/integratingTDMForm also will appear at end of event
Speakers
Beth Alden, AICPHillsborough County
MPO
Sandi MoodyTampa Bay Area
Regional Transportation
Authority
Egan SmithUSDOT
Introduction to Transportation Planning:Integrating TDM
E S ithEgan SmithCommunity Planner, Office of Planning, Federal Highway Administration
June 23, 2011
• Transportation planning process
• Who determines the transportation needs
Overview
needs
• Elements of the transportation planning process
• Efforts to Integrate TDM into the Planning Process
Transportation Planning
• Decentralized
• 3C Process – Continuing, Cooperative, Comprehensive
• Major Policy and Planning Issues Air Quality
Land Use and Transportation
Congestion Management Process
Financial Planning and Programming
3
p
Freight Movement
Safety
Security
Title VI/Environmental Justice
Performance Measures
g g g
Planning and Environmental Linkage
Public Involvement
System Management & Operations
Technology (GIS, TDM, Visualization)
Transportation Asset Management
Transportation planning is the process of:
• Establishing a vision• Demonstrating impact or influence of
Transportation Planning
g pdemographics
• Assessing opportunities and challenges of the future
• Identifying short and long-term options• Developing a financial plan• Implementation
Transportation Planning Process Transportation Planning
• Planning Factors1. Support economic vitality
2. Increase safety
3. Increase security
4. Increase accessibility and mobility
5. Enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life,
6
and promote consistency
6. Enhance integration and connectivity
7. Promote efficient system management and operation
8. Emphasize system preservation
Who Determines the Transportation Needs
Who Determines the Transportation Needs
• U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT)
Sets policies and provides guidance on planning issues Statewide & Metropolitan
Reviews and certifies selected planning activities
• State Department of Transportation (State DOT)
Develops statewide transportation plans and programs
8
Develops statewide transportation plans and programs
Coordinates with MPOs and neighboring States
Plans for non‐urbanized areas
• Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Develops metropolitan transportation plans and programs
Coordinates with neighboring MPO(s) and State(s)
Consists of Local Government
• Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement
CANADA
384 MPOs
MEXICO
Major Planning Products
• State DOT
Long‐Range Statewide Transportation Plan (LRSTP) – 20 years Can be policy‐oriented
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – 4 years
• MPO
10
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) – 20 years Congestion Management Process (CMP)
Transportation Conformity Demonstration
Financial Plan
Public Participation Plan
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – 4 years
RegionalAgencies
GovernmentTribalGovernment
States
Contributors to the Planning Process
ThePublic
User/Special InterestGroups
User/Special InterestGroups
PrivateSector
LegalSystem
GovernmentFederalGovernment
MPO
Elements of the transportation planning process
From Problem to Solutions
• Multiple ways to address a single problem
• Alternatives are the strategies/solutions to be considered
• Identification of alternatives starts with understanding problems and underlying causes
Analysis Evaluation and Decision-making
AlternativesAnalysis ofAlternativesInvolvement
of
Evaluation ofAlternativesEvaluation ofAlternatives
Decision
Agencies
and
the
Public
Programming
• Identify evaluation criteria
• Prioritize Projects for funding
Document decisions in the TIP/ STIP• Document decisions in the TIP/ STIP
Project Development
• Projects-planning process
• Environmental process
Efforts to Integrate TDM into the Planning Process
More Contemporary Definitions of Travel Demand Management
• Managing demand is about providing travelers, regardless of whether they drive alone, with travel choices, such as work location, route, time of travel and mode. In the broadest sense, demand management is defined as providing travelers with ff ti h i t i t l li bilit
23
effective choices to improve travel reliability.
• Demand management is designed to better balance people’s needs to travel a particular route at a particular time with the capacity of available facilities to efficiently handle this demand.
Efforts to Integrate TDM into the Planning Process
• Ridesharing Options Analysis and Practitioners’ Toolkit
• Identify how TDM strategies can and should be integrated into the planning process and also
24
g p g paddress livability goals
• Integrating TDM into the Transportation planning Process: A Desk Reference
Ridesharing Options Analysis and Practitioners’ Toolkit
• Benefits and Incentives of Ridesharing
• The Role of Ridesharing in U.S. DOT’s and FHWA’s Broader Initiatives
• The Public Sector Ridesharing Spectrum
• Ridesharing and Technology
25
Ridesharing and Technology
• Partnerships in Ridesharing
• Educating the Public About Ridesharing
• Ridesharing Program Implementation – the “how to”
• The Future of Ridesharing
• Ridesharing Database
http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/RidesharingOptions_Toolkit.pdfLink to Toolkit
TDM Strategies Address Livability Goals
• Identify, through case studies, MPOs that have innovatively promoted bicycle, pedestrian, and TDM programs as part of a complementary group throughout their planning processes.
26
Integrating TDM into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference
• Describe a contemporary view of TDM with relevance to various policy objectives
• Provide case studies, examples and best practices for integrating TDM in planning
• Identify integration opportunities for TDM in Planning Process – Statewide, Metropolitan, Corridor, Local
Provide guidance on tools and techniques for evaluating TDM approaches
27
• Provide guidance on tools and techniques for evaluating TDM approaches
• Summarize the known effectiveness of TDM strategies for various policy goals
For More Information…
Federal Highway Administration &
Federal Transit Administration
Transportation Planning Capacity Building
28
http://www.planning.dot.gov/
1
S A N D I M O O D Y
D I R E C T O R - P R O G R A M S A N D O P E R A T I O N S
Planning the TDM Future: Long Range TDM Plan
T A M P A B A Y A R E A
R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y ( T B A R T A )
Background
TBARTA Commuter Services (formerly Bay Area Commuter Services) is the regional commuter assistance
program agency promoting TDM services for West Central Florida covering Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus counties
TBARTA Commuter Services
Regional ridematching for carpool and vanpool
Regional Emergency Ride Home Program (ERH)
TBARTA Commuter Vanpool
Telework Tampa Bayp y
More Services
Working with land use entities to include TDM strategies in planning for development/redevelopment
Public Awareness Media Campaigns
Maintenance of traffic (MOT)
Community based transportation initiatives, such as school pooling
And much, much more . . .
Why Did We Develop A LRTDM Plan?
TDM has been low priority in transportation planning
TBARTA and other TDM agencies have made a strong impact, but more was needed
To achieve a greater impact, “buy-in” was needed from the local decision makers, to include TDM strategies in the Long Range Plan for 2025
3 Top Reasons Why Develop A TDM Long Range Plan
1. Help match resources to
t ti
Resources Expectations
expectations or match expectations to resources
We must develop realistic expectations of what TDM can do at specific levels of effort and investment.
2
Top 3 Reasons for LRTDM Plan
2. Identify funding needs (and program those needs)
3. Move policies from encouragement of TDM to action
Transition from vague policy references to budgeted TDM programs attached to specific goals and objecti es in Long programs attached to specific goals and objectives in Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs)
Plan of Action Components
Compel agency staff/elected officials to discuss and agree on quantifiable effects of TDM strategies on air quality and congestion
Effects of TDM strategies had to be quantifiable
Action Plan (continued)
Plan should identify the most effective strategies to pursue on a long term (20+ years) basis
Plan should be able to predict the effects of the appropriate TDM strategies on air quality and
ti l t b icongestion on a long term basis
Advisory Committee
MPO Staff Hillsborough County The City of Tampa Florida Dept. of Transportation (2 reps) The Environmental Protection
Commission The MPO’s Citizen Advisory Committeee O s C t e dv so y Co ttee The MPO’s Technical Advisory
Committee The MPO’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
To achieve credibility, TBARTA Commuter Services solicited members of these agencies for the
Advisory Committee . . .
Consultant’s Role
Collect baseline data Identify existing and potential TDM
products and services Develop scenarios with stakeholder
inputinput Run COMMUTER Model for county,
activity center and employer Develop plan in partnership with
TBARTA Commuter Services and Advisory Committee
Results
Quantifiable performance measures for validating TDM strategies’ effectiveness
By using the LRTP process, decision-makers use specific TDM language, stating the amount of
ti d d d t TDM congestion reduced due to TDM measures
Identification of the most effective TDM strategies for transportation agencies in our area
A definitive plan for creating effective TDM programs
3
BEFORE (1994)BEFORE (1994) AFTER (current)AFTER (current)
“The County shall encourage new d l
“The County shall require new development to
Stronger Policies in Comprehensive Plan
development to participate in transportation demand management strategies...”
development to participate in transportation demand management strategies…”
Secure Dedicated Funding
BEFORE: “The 2020 LRTP’s Cost Affordable Plan contained definition of
TDM, a list of strategies and benefits and overviews of the organizations involved in promoting TDM”
AFTER: “The 2025 LRTP’s Cost Affordable Plan allocates $2.56 million
per year to travel demand management programs, beginning in fiscal year 2010.”
Conditions for Success
Supporters within the MPO
TDM recognized as a set of tools to meet primary goal of LRTP: Reduce traffic congestion
Use of EPA’s COMMUTER Model Use of federally-created model added validity and credibility to
plan
Can be used as off-model to regional planning models to modify trip tables
As An Added Bonus . . .
This process provided a forum to get TDM strategies recognized by other agencies affecting transportation decisions . . .
A further benefit was the building and strengthening of relationships
Way To Go!
between TBARTA Commuter Services and other agencies in our community who plan for the future
of transportation . . .
Advice from the TDM Trenches
See the plan. Be the plan. The LRTDM Plan is your roadmap. Follow it!
Hold their feet to the fire. Use the plan for building relationships.
Put me in coach! Seek higher visibility within the transportation planning arena
Expand your horizons. Seek to be perceived as more than commuter ridesharing. TDM is
much more than changing mode behavior.
A TDMer’s work is never done. Planning is a continual process. Expect to update the plan.
4
Case Study
Hillsborough County Long Range TDM Plan
Full report available at: http://www.cutr.usf.edu/tdm/publications.htm
Contact Information
Sandi Moody Director – Programs and
OperationsTBARTA
TBARTA Commuter Services1-800-998-RIDEwww.TampaBayRideshare.orgwww.TBARTA.com
6/20/2011
1
TDM from the MPO’MPO’s Perspective
Beth Alden, AICP, Group Leader Hillsborough MPO, Tampa, FL
Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
Metropolitan Transportation Plan/ Long Range
What’s the Buzz at your MPO?What’s the Buzz at your MPO?
2
Transportation Plan (MTP, LRTP)
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Congestion Management Process (CMP)
Air Quality Conformity Determination
Federal PL Funds (from SAFETEALU)
Work & Budget approved by MPO Board
UPWP: “Planning Work”UPWP: “Planning Work”
3
Some work tasks are mandated, others are “local priorities”
“Local” example: Long Range TDM Plano Identified TDM activities appropriate for our metro area
o Forecast vehicle trips, emissions
o Estimated staffing costs & capital needs
Long Range TransportationTransportation Plan
Plan Adoption Required Every 4-5 Years
Federal & State Requirements
Local Local 55--year year CIP’sCIP’s
FDOT FDOT 55--year year
WPWP
Where will Where will growth be?growth be?
What What facilities will facilities will be needed?be needed?
Who builds or Who builds or operates, operates,
starting when?starting when?
Local Local CompreCompre--hensive hensive PlansPlans
Long Long Range Range
(20+ year) (20+ year) Transp. Transp.
PlanPlan
CIP sCIP s WPWP
HART HART 1010--year year
TDPTDP
THEA THEA ProgramProgram
TBARTA/ TBARTA/ BACS BACS
ProgramProgram
1. Improve quality of life while minimizing impacts to the environment
4. Coordinate transportation with land use
GoalsGoals
6
to the environment
2. Support economic vitality to foster global competitiveness
3. Promote accessibility & mobility by improving multi-modal choices
land use
5. Enhance safety & security
6. Preserve existing facilities
6/20/2011
2
Performance CriteriaPerformance Criteria
Help to make important investment decisions more objectively
C & f
7
Compare costs & benefits relative to performance objectives like:
Reduce delay, emissions, collisions, VMT
Improve traffic flow or mobility for the transportation disadvantaged
Ensure high-end performers are included in the final cost affordable plan
Performance CriteriaPerformance Criteria
8
p
Inform trade-off discussions, with higher weights for some goals and objectives
Ten Weighted Performance Criteria
7% Environmental
impacts
7% Maintain/ support existing
5% Security/ evacuation
17% Safety/
8 % Regional connections
crashes
7% Goods movement
10% Activity centers
15% Alternatives to
driving
8% Community plans & support
16% Reduce congestion
Committee Comment:
Level playing field for all types of projects!
Obj. 2.2Obj. 2.2 Relieve congestion and improve traffic flow.
Reducing traffic congestionM d D t S i C it i P li i
Weighting factor:
16%
10
Mode Data Scoring Criteria Policies
Highway
Transit
Bike, Ped
ITS
TDM
Volume/ capacity from E+C network w 2035 SE data
Reduces 2035 Volume/Capacity ratio
Creates a separate ROW for transit, or enhanced peak hour service, parallel to 2035 congested roads
New facilities on 2035 congested roads
Coordinated signals, etc. on 2035 congested roads
Reduce peak hour trips, promote alternatives to driving alone
Policy 2.2 A-F, 3.3D
Obj. 3.1Obj. 3.1 Maximize access to the transportation system and improve the mobility of the transportation disadvantaged. Obj. 3.2Obj. 3.2 Decrease reliance on single-occupant vehicles.
Alternatives to driving alone
Weighting factor:
15%
11
Mode Data Source Scoring Criteria Policies
Highway
Transit
Bike, Ped
ITS
TDM
2035 LRTP ridership forecasts (pax-mi per mi)
Multi-modal LOS evals, 06 & 07 MPO Bike Plan
Volume/capacity fr E+C network w 2035 SE data
Known to add lanes incentivizing HOV use, or combo of sidewalks, bike lanes, accessible bus stops
Attracts transit riders
Improves ped or bicycle level of service
Provides public info about alternatives
Makes vanpool vehicles available or provides public info about alternatives
Policies 2.2A-E, 3.1A-B, 3.2A-C
Obj. 5.1Obj. 5.1 Provide for safer travels for all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, transit, auto, and freight.
Safety (Reducing Crashes)Weighting
factor:
17%
12
Mode Data Source Scoring Criteria Policies
Highway, Bike, Ped
Transit
ITS
TDM
Safety Tech Memo for 2035 LRTP
Top crash rate segments and intersections (except widening 6+ lanes)
Passenger safety improvements
Provides info about incidents and delays
No TDM projects
Policies 2.2 A and E, 4.2F, 5.1D and E
6/20/2011
3
I-4, from 50th St to County Line: 4 Special Use Lanes
Env. Impact No significant impact 3
Regional On SIS 5
Traffic V/C > 1.5 in 2035 5
Commty Pln Not in adopted community plan 0
Alternatives If lanes are HOV or HOT 5
If not 0 (3.66)
Activity Ctrs Connects 2 Activity Centers 5
Freight Goods movement “Hot Spot” 5
Safety High crash rate area 5
Security Critical infrastructure/ key resource 5
Maintain Project in existing ROW 5
4.41
Improvements to Major Roads
83%
Transportation Spending:Status Quo
Bike/Ped/Trails2%
Signals/ITS1%
Transit14%
Hillsborough Hillsborough MPO MPO
Transportation Transportation Improvement Improvement
Program Program 09/1009/10--13/14 13/14
42% 15% W lki &
18% ITS
$47
$14 ITS
$16 Walking &
Transportation Spending:Public Comment
Transit25%
Highways
Walking & Biking
Transit Biking
$23Highways
Survey (%) The “Money Game” ($100)
Proposed Affordable By 2035
Trails & Bike Lanes, $96
ITS, $26Ped Improvemts,
$76
16
Transit, $5,844
Highways, $5,908
Capital Projects (in $M)
Total: $11.9 B
II--7575SR 56 to Fowler Ave – 6 lanes
Fowler Ave to I-4 – Design & ROW
Strategic Intermodal System Strategic Intermodal System Cost Feasible PlanCost Feasible Plan
Proposed TRIP Priority – Partial funding for “HOT” Lanes
Maintenance costs “off the top”
Advanced Traffic M t
MAINTAIN EXISTING SYSTEM - LRTP 7%
18
Management Systems
Travel Demand Management
6/20/2011
4
Congestion ManagementManagement Process
On-going Process
Shapes the Long Range Plan
CMP RequirementsCMP Requirements
• Develop Objectives• Define Network/ SystemD l P f M• Develop Performance Measures
• Collect Data & Analyze Problems• Identify Strategies• Implement Strategies• Monitor System & Evaluate Effectiveness
DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVESDRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1:
Improve Reliability of Travel
Major Issue 1‐A: High Crash Rates• Crashes contribute to a percentage of congestion
• Crash rates in Hillsborough County are 2‐4 times the national average
DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVESDRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOAL 2:
Shift Trips to Non‐SOV Modes
Major Issue 2‐A: Transit Effectiveness• A sample of 99 trips between major destinations in Hillsborough take significantly longer by bus than by driving, nearly ½ take more than an hour longer by bus.
• Transit operating in LOS D or better reaches 31% of total population and employment
DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVESDRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOAL 3:Reduce Peak‐Hour Impacts
Major Issue 3‐A: Constrained Roads & Intersections• Signalized intersections have a major effect on travel times
• 150.5 lane‐miles of constrained right of way• No capability of county to remotely adjust signals• County, Cities, and State systems are not coordinated
DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVESDRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOAL 3:Reduce Peak‐Hour Impacts
Major Issue 3‐B: Unchecked Demand• When a freeway is 90% full, it can still run. It’s the last few percent that create gridlock. A small reduction in traffic at peak can make a big difference.
• The driver may value his/her time enough to pay more to use a road
• Land use patterns directly affect congestion
6/20/2011
5
DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVESDRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Issue 3‐B: Unchecked Demand
Strategy 3‐B: Reduce Peak‐Hour Demand
Best Practices:Best Practices:
• Variable pricing: I‐95 Miami HOT lanes improved average travel times from 25 to 8 minutes
• Ramp metering: Minneapolis shows a 22% decrease in freeway travel time
•• TDM programsTDM programs–– forecast to reduce VMT 5% in 20 yearsforecast to reduce VMT 5% in 20 years
• Mixed‐Use Developments–reduce external trips 10%
Role of CMPRole of CMP
Define MPO’s focus
Generate a list of needed projects for metropolitan long range plan & TIP
If air quality non‐attainment area: before widening a road, must demonstrate that all other CMP strategies will not solve the congestion problem
Attaining Air Quality Standards
• EPA Revising Ozone Standard ‐ July 31, 2011
• Important for Health Reasons (e.g., Asthma Rates)
• If Don’t Meet Emissions Budget –Funds Withheld
• Must have “Conforming” Transportation Plan
• Must estimate emissions & potential reductions!
• Emissions budget for transportation in your region is set by your state government
• LRTP, TIP must meet budget (amendments too!)
• Others are working to meet budgets
Conformity Determination
(stationary & point sources)
• State Implementation Plan identifies “Control Strategies”
How to Create a Conforming Plan:Charlotte & Denver ExamplesCharlotte & Denver Examples
• Both cities faced with emissions over budget in the 90s’
• Charlotte adopted revised plan with better transit and smart growth trimming traffic and pollution. Won voter
lapproval.
• Denver’s problem was particulate matter. Added maintenance into regional plans, incentives for light rail, commitment to limit growth, and travel demand strategies. By 2001, Denver was only large metro area that attained every national air quality standard.
What Can Happen if Non‐Conforming:Atlanta’s StoryAtlanta’s Story
• Conformity Lapse 1998‐2000
• Redirected $300,000,000 from Capacity , , p yProjects to highway safety, transit, bike/ped, traffic signals, HOV, bridges, air quality
• Formed Georgia Regional Transportation Authority
6/20/2011
6
Public Process
Technical Advisory Committee
There’s Room for TDM at your MPO!There’s Room for TDM at your MPO!
31
Come plan with us!