november 30, 2012 beverly davis, aicp ron ratliff, aicp
TRANSCRIPT
MPOs:Past, Present and Future
November 30, 2012
Beverly Davis, AICPRon Ratliff, AICP
Transportation:1900 to 2012
1900 – 1920s Population migration to urban areas
for better economic opportunities Growth in urban mass transit – electric
railways/streetcar Primarily operated by electric utility
companies 1917:
Over 1,000 private streetcar companies 1920s began the move to motor
coaches
20th Century Transportation
1920s to 1930s First federal highway system
designated US Department of Commerce:
Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) to lead the program
Continuing increase in traffic resulted in the development of technical guidance and documents
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices AASHTO “Green Book” Highway Capacity Manual
20th Century Transportation
1930s to 1940s 1934: First dedicated source of federal funding for
non-construction One and a half percent of annual federal highway funding
Planning surveys, mapping, engineering studies, required to be completed cooperatively between states and BPR
1944: Expanded federal program Established primary and secondary systems and urban extensions Federal funding levels at 45%, 30% and 25%
BPR recognized the need for specific urban planning Advanced development of transportation study techniques
20th Century Transportation
1950s Creation of the National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways (1956)
Some MPO-like organizations created in major metro areas
Shifting emphasis on addressing urban mobility needs
Development of new techniques Gravity model 6-step planning process
20th Century Transportation
1. Data Collection
2. Forecasts
3. Goal Formulation
4. Network Identification
5. Alternatives Testing
6. Evaluation and Recommendations
1960s 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act
required urban transportation planning as a condition of federal funding
1964: Creation of the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) to provide financial assistance and technical guidance
1965 - 1966 224 urbanized areas Required the creation of MPOs Established the 3-C process and identified
planning factors Created USDOT
20th Century Transportation
Transportation Facilities
Economic Factors
Land Use
Travel Patterns
Intermodal Facilities
Traffic Control
Financial Resources
Population
Social and Community
Values
1960s Major focus on safety 1968: Traffic Operations Program to Improve
Capacity and Safety (TOPICS) Maximize Capacity Address Congestion Enhance Safety
Public involvement requirement Consistency
Plans Partners
20th Century Transportation
1970s Dedicated funding
Transportation planning UMTA projects
UMTA and FHWA issued joint regulations Guidance for urban planning efforts Required Long Range Plan
NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act Transportation legislation
Increased local planning flexibility Focused on energy conservation and environmental protection HPMS
20th Century Transportation
1980s Move to decentralize
transportation from the federal level to state and local level
Dedicated funding source from increased user fees of five cents per gallon
Focused on the completion of the Interstate system
Maintenance
20th Century Transportation
1990s ISTEA
Renaissance for MPOs Implemented a fiscal constraint requirement in plans Address land use, multimodal and intermodal connectivity Required long range planning for states Created Federal Transit Administration
TEA-21 Revised/updated the required planning factors Promoted rebuilding of infrastructure with record funding levels Expanded focus on multimodal and intermodal elements
20th Century Transportation
SAFETEA-LU Expanded programs for safety, congestion reduction,
freight movement and intermodal connectivity Innovative funding programs
MAP-21 Maintains current funding levels for two years Restructuring of seven core and 13 formula programs
into five core programs Emphasis on freight movements and performance
measures
20th Century Transportation
Transportation Planning Evolution Began as a federally focused process Emphasis on highway connections and statewide
transportation Beginning in 1960s a move toward focus on MPOs Over the decades MPOs have become more and
more important Today, MPOs are planning partners with State and
Federal agencies
20th Century Transportation
1900 1960 1990 MAP 21
Case Study:Performance Measures
MPO Planning Performance Measures Identify the cost benefit/return on investment FHWA Guidance
Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, & Time-bound
Drivers for MPOs Data availability Resources
Case Study: Mecklenburg-Union MPO (Charlotte, NC)
Performance Measures
INRIX Many State DOTs acquiring the data Traffic data collected anonymously through GPS Speed data Data collected daily on major facilities Used to develop speed profile Combined with traffic volume data to identify
levels and patterns of congestion Includes freight specific information for 2011
Performance Measures
Urban Mobility Report
• Prepared by Texas Transportation Institute
• 2010 data released - September, 2011
• Second year with Inrix data
• 439 U.S. urban areas
• 101 Cities– Very Large; Large; Medium and Small
Urban Mobility Report
Urban Mobility Report
YearEntire US Charlotte
Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) TTI Yearly Delay per Auto
Commuter (hours) TTI
2010 34 1.20 25 1.172005 39 1.25 25 1.201982 14 1.09 5 1.06
YearEntire US
Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) TTI
2010 34 1.202005 39 1.251982 14 1.09
• Key Findings
• Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours)– Delay / number of commuters in private automobiles
• TTI– Travel time during peak / travel time during off peak
Charlotte Congestion
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40
Nashville 39Indianapolis 38
Denver 21
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42
Nashville 39 35 23Indianapolis 38 24 49
Denver 21 49 8
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2Washington DC 7
Atlanta 8
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2 64 3Washington DC 7 74 1
Atlanta 8 43 13
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2 64 3 1.38 1Washington DC 7 74 1 1.33 2
Atlanta 8 43 13 1.23 16
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2 64 3 1.38 1Washington DC 7 74 1 1.33 2
Atlanta 8 43 13 1.23 16
McAllen, Texas 73Stockton, California 87
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2 64 3 1.38 1Washington DC 7 74 1 1.33 2
Atlanta 8 43 13 1.23 16
McAllen, Texas 73 7 101Stockton, California 87 9 99
Cities RankYearly Delay per Auto
CommuterTravel Time
IndexHours Rank Value Rank
Charlotte 43 25 42 1.17 34Raleigh 40 25 42 1.14 43
Nashville 39 35 23 1.18 26Indianapolis 38 24 49 1.17 34
Denver 21 49 8 1.24 13
Los Angeles 2 64 3 1.38 1Washington DC 7 74 1 1.33 2
Atlanta 8 43 13 1.23 16
McAllen, Texas 73 7 101 1.10 56Stockton, California 87 9 99 1.02 101
• Inrix Travel Time Data– Peak period: 6 hours
• 6:30 AM – 9:30 AM; 3:30 PM – 6:30 PM
– Off Peak: 7 hours• 10:00 AM–11:00 AM; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM; and 7:00 PM–11:00 PM
– 1.0 – 1.19: Facilities with No/Minimal Congestion– 1.2 – 1.49: Facilities with Heavy Congestion– >=1.5: Facilities with Adverse Congestion
Inrix Summary
Inrix Summary
<=19%
1-1.229%
1.2-1.537%
> 1.525%
Number of Segments vs. Max. TTI<=18%
1-1.245%
1.2-1.538%
> 1.59%
Length of Segments vs. Max. TTI
I-277 I-485 I-77 I-850%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
34%
74%
13%
55%
36%
9%
37%28%
17%
4%
19%13%13% 12%
31%
5%
Roadway
% M
ax T
TI S
egm
ent L
engt
hTravel Time Index - Interstates
I-277 I-485 I-77 I-850%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
67%
88%
52%
83%
25%
6%
26%
13%5% 2%
13%3%3% 4% 8%
1%
<= 1.0 1.01 to 1.2 1.21 to 1.50 > 1.50
Roadway
% o
f 15
-min
Occ
urre
nces
Application Congestion Management Process I-277 Loop Study
Possible Application LRTP Project Prioritization Process
Charlotte Case Study
Transportation:1900 to 2012
Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned GENERAL: HISTORICAL REVIEW CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE
MEASURESMPOs / Urban transportation planning are critical
Technology
Continuing urbanization Maximize staff resourcesFlexible / Adaptable Easily acquired and updated
datasetsMaximize return on investment Data should provide information
on the successes/benefits of projects
Coordination with partners Multiple applications
