CRIS, GPS, and BLOS data collection tools for effective bicycle and pedestrian planning

1,039 views
1,005 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,039
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CRIS, GPS, and BLOS data collection tools for effective bicycle and pedestrian planning

  1. 1. CRIS, GPS, and BLOS: Data Collection Tools for Effective Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Lydia Kelly, Cecilio Martinez, Stephanie Velasquez
  2. 2. Presented by Lydia Kelly Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Planner Phone: (210) 230-6911 Email: kelly@sametroplan.org Cecilio Martinez Senior GIS & Web Analyst Phone: (210) 230-6905 Email: martinez@sametroplan.org Stephanie Velasquez Regional Transportation Planner Phone: (210) 230-6908 Email: velasquez@sametroplan.org www.sametroplan.org825 South Saint Mary’s St. | San Antonio, Texas 78205 | Phone: 201-227-8651 | Fax:210-227-9321
  3. 3. Introduction and MPO Plans and Programs Lydia Kelly Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Planner Phone: (210) 230-6911 Email: kelly@sametroplan.org
  4. 4. Agenda§  What  is  an  MPO  and  how  it  relates  to  active   transportation  §  Programs  and  Studies  §  Data:  Where  it  comes  from;  how  it  is  used  §  Incorporating  the  Safety  Program  §  Questions  
  5. 5. Metropolitan  Planning  Organization Northeast Partnership Greater Bexar County Council of Cities Metropolitan Transit
  6. 6. Transportation  Policy  BoardSenator  Jeff  Wentworth      Texas  Legislator    Representative  Joe  Farias      Texas  Legislator  Mayor  Chris  Riley,  Leon  Valley      Greater  Bexar  County  Council  of  Cities  Commissioner  Kevin  Wolff      Bexar  County  Commissioner  Sergio  Rodriguez      Bexar  County                            Commissioner  Tommy  Adkisson  (Chair)    Bexar  County  Renne  Green,  Director  Public  Works    Bexar  County  Councilman  Carlton  Soules      San  Antonio  Councilman  Cris  Medina      San  Antonio    Council  Ray  Lopez        San  Antonio  Councilman  Rey  Saldaña      San  Antonio  Majed  Al  Ghafry,  Dir.  Public  Works    San  Antonio  Mike  Frisbie,  Dir.,  CIMS  Department    San  Antonio  Councilman  William  Weeper,  Selma    Northeast  Partnership  Manuel  Peláez,  Board  Member      VIA  Transit  Mary  Briseño,  Board  Member      VIA  Transit  Mario  Medina,  District  Engineer      SA  District,TxDOT  Clay  Smith,  Planning  Engineer      SA  District,TxDOT  Dean  Danos,  Executive  Director      AACOG    
  7. 7. MPO  Programs  and  PlanUnified  Planning  Work  Program:  Budget  and  Planning  Studies  -­‐  2  years  Metropolitan  Transportation  Plan:    Future  goals,  strategies  and  transportation  projects  for  25  years  Transportation  Improvement  Program:  Funded  transportation  projects  within  4  years  
  8. 8. Components  of  the  Plans  &  Programs
  9. 9. Active  Transportation  Programs Walkable  Community  Program   Walkable  Community  Workshops  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle   Safety  Classes  for  children  and  adults  Bike  rodeos/related   activities  Defensive  Driving  Class  Support   Walk  &  Roll  Program     Walk  &  Roll  Rally  Supports  National  Bike  to  Work  Month   Encourages  businesses  to  support  active  transportation   Encourages  residents  to  “try”  active  transportation   Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Mobility  Advisory  Committees   Monthly  meetings  3  Bike  Night  meetings  a  year   Agency  Staff  and  Citizen  Representation  
  10. 10.  What  is  wrong  with  this  picture?  
  11. 11. Elements  desired  for  a  Community
  12. 12. The  Benefits  a  Walkable  CommunityTransportation  Benefits–  reduced  traffic  congestion,  improved  safety,  calms  traffic,  preserves  road  infrastructure.    Economic  Benefits  –  increased  retail  sales  (restaurants,  lodging  establishments,  retail  stores),  job  creation,  and  enhancement  of  nearby  property  values.        Environmental  Benefits  –  improved  air  quality  and  energy  conservation.    Social  Benefits  -­‐  quality-­‐of-­‐life  benefits  from  living  in  communities  with  more  open  space  and  greenways  and  that  provide  more  opportunities  for  walking  or  cycling.      Health  and  Fitness  Benefits–  it  is  well  recognized  that  Americans  would  benefit  in  many  ways  from  a  more  active  lifestyle.  Bike  lanes,  sidewalks  and  trails  promote  healthy  choices.  
  13. 13. Related  Studies Bicycle  &   Pedestrian  Data   Mobility  2035  Plan  Scenario  Collection  Project   Planning  Phase  I  and  Phase   II   San  Antonio   Scoring  for  Surface   Regional   Transportation  Projects  Bicycling  Travel   Metro  Patterns  Survey   Mobility  recognize  active     transportation  projects Pedestrian   Safety  Action   Safety     Plan   Program  
  14. 14. Study  Network  and  Data  Elements Cecilio Martinez Senior GIS & Web Analyst Phone: (210) 230-6905 Email: martinez@sametroplan.org
  15. 15. The  San  Antonio  –  Bexar  County  Metropolitan  Planning  Organization  (MPO)  Planning  area  
  16. 16. History
  17. 17. History 1975City of San Antonio’s Bicycle Master Plan 1975 San Antonio only had three bicycle corridors, which consisted of McAllister Park, a route connecting St. Marys University, Trinity University, San Antonio College and Brackenridge Park, and a bike trail along the San Antonio River in the historic mission area.
  18. 18. History 1995UPWP 94-2 San Antonio-Bexar County Bicycle Mobility Task Force Bicycle Mobility Plan. Full-time bicycle coordinators Identify bicycling funding
  19. 19. History 1997Community’s Bicycle Route Planning Workshop Proposed Bikeways
  20. 20. History 2005Adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan April 28, 2004 Consideration of a resolution to execute a Bicycle Master Plan for the City of San Antonio and Bexar County region as called for in the Unified Development Code (Development Services) Approved by San Antonio City Council on April 21, 2005 Approved by Bexar County Commissioners Court by resolution on July 12, 2005
  21. 21. Current  
  22. 22. Bicycle  Network
  23. 23. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 28. 6% +/- 5% margin of error 28.6% of Corridors Used From MPO Bicycle Mobility Plan (1994) andCommunity-Based Bicycle Planning Study (1997)
  24. 24. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 56. 8% +/- 5% margin of error28.2% of Corridors Used From 2001 Bicycle Route Suitability Study
  25. 25. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 62% +/- 5% margin of error5.2% of Corridors Used From2004 Existing and Funded Bicycle Facilities and Accommodations
  26. 26. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 72.9% +/- 5% margin of error10.9% of Corridors Used From2005 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Public Involvement
  27. 27. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 77. 2%4.3% +/- 5% margin of error 4.3% of Corridors Used From2005 Proposed Southside Initiative and some City of San Antonio Prop 3 Hike and Bike Trails
  28. 28. Total Percentage of the Bicycle Network 100% +/- 5% margin of error22.8% of Corridors Used From 2005 The City of San Antonio’s Major Thoroughfare Plan
  29. 29. How do we evaluate this network?
  30. 30. What is Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)?
  31. 31. What is Bicycle Suitability and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)?Bicycle level of service (BLOS) attempts to place a rating on theexperience of bicycling on the transportation networks of collector,arterial, service and local roads. The rating ranges from A to F, good tobad respectively along the lines of the automobile level of service (LOS)model. a1ln(Vol15/L) + a2SPt(1+10.38HV)2 + a3(1/PC5)2 - a4(We)2 + C where: Vol15 = directional traffic (15 minutes time period) L = total number of through lanes SPt = effective speed limit (see below) SPt = 1.12ln(SPP -20) + 0.81 SPP = Posted speed limit HV = percentage of heavy vehicles PC5 = FHWA’s five point surface condition rating We = Average effective width of outside through lane
  32. 32. Key Inputs for Bicycle Conditions Evaluation Width of bike lane/paved shoulder Width of outside lane Traffic volume Traffic Speed % Trucks Presence of on-street parking Pavement Condition
  33. 33. BLOSBasis for 2001 San Antonio studyBasis for 2005 San Antonio updatePart of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
  34. 34. Key Inputs for Bicycle Conditions Evaluation
  35. 35. Why Aerial Photography or Orthophoto Imagery? Orthophoto Imagery Digital orthophoto is a computer-generated image of an aerial photograph or aerial digitial image in which displacements caused by camera orientation and terrain have been corrected and the image has been projected to a standardized map projection. In other words, digital orthophotos are special photos because they have been processed to be spatially accurate. The MPO has access to imagery at 4 inch pixel resolutionThe resolution number represents the distance covered by one pixel inthe image. Therefore, a 4 inch image is an image where 1 pixel is equalto 4 inches.
  36. 36. Aerial PhotographyOur imagery is updated every year from our partnership with City of San Antonio, Bexar County Appraisal District and Bexar Metro 9-1-1. Which are part of the Strategic Geospatial Coordination Committee or SGCC
  37. 37. Quickly Identify Geometrics What can you collect using the Aerial Photography? 1. Number of Lanes =2 3. Configuration = undivided 6. Total width of outside lane & shoulder = 18ft 7. Width of outside striped lane = 5ft 8. Width of Parking =0 9. Percent of segment with occupied parking =0 10. Width of Sidewalk = 6ft
  38. 38. Segment Split
  39. 39. Right-Of Way
  40. 40. Pavement Condition RATING PAVEMENT CONDITION5.0 (Very Good) Only new or nearly new pavements are likely to be smooth enough and free of cracks and patches to qualify for this category. 4.0 (Good) Pavement, although not as smooth as described above, gives a first class ride and exhibits signs of surface deterioration. 3.0 (Fair) Riding qualities are noticeably inferior to those above; may be barely tolerable for high- speed traffic. Defects may include rutting, map cracking, and extensive patching. 2.0 (Poor) Pavements have deteriorated to such an extent that they affect the speed of free-flow traffic. Flexible pavement has distress over 50 percent or more of the surface. Rigid pavement distress includes joint spalling, patching, etc.1.0 (Very Poor) Pavements that are in an extremely deteriorated condition. Distress occurs over 75 percent or more of the surface.
  41. 41. A visual example of the Pavement conditions descriptions Figure 7: Pavement Condition Ratings & Images PCR 5.0 - Excellent PCR 4.0 - Good to Excellent PCR 3.3 - Good New or nearly new pavements. Pavements exhibiting few, if any, Evidence of initial deterioration Free of cracks, patches, or rutting. visible signs of surface deterioration. including hairline cracks and minor rutting. PCR 2.4 - Fair to Poor PCR 1.2 - Poor PCR 0.8 - Very Poor Visible defects including moderate Extremely deteriorated pavements. Pavement is completely deteriorated. cracking, distortion, and rutting. Defects include severe cracking, No structural integrity.No salvage value. Some patching may now be present. distortion, and rutting. Very extensive patching. Source http://www.state.me.us/mdot/systems_management/pvmnt-conditions.php
  42. 42. Traffic Count Texas Department of TransportationCity of San Antonio Bexar County
  43. 43. Field Collection is most accurate
  44. 44. Bicycle  Maps  (Free)2003 2005 2009
  45. 45. 2001 Bicycle Study with 2003 Bicycle Map ~1,000 miles of roadway studied ~34 miles of bicycle facilities existed ~10,000 copies Bicycle Level of Service Distribution 37% 40% Percentage of Study Network Segments 35% 30% 24% 25% 20% 15% 11% 10% 15% 10% 3% 5% 0% A B C D E F Level of Service Grades
  46. 46. 2005 Bicycle Study with Bicycle Map ~1,400 miles of roadway studied ~66 miles of bicycle facilities existed ~45,000 copies
  47. 47. 2009 Bicycle Study with Bicycle Map ~1,664 miles of roadway studied ~136 miles of bicycle facilities ~30,000 copies
  48. 48. Bicycle Study Summary Bicycle Bicycle Number of Year Network Facilities Copies (Miles) (Miles) 2003 1,000 34 10,000 2005 1,400 66 45,000 2009 1,664 136 30,000
  49. 49. Progressive StudiesBicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project   San  Antonio  Regional  Bicycling  Travel   Phase  I  and  Phase  II   Patterns  Survey  
  50. 50. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II   1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  51. 51. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II   Shoulders 4ft or Greater 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  52. 52. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  Bicycle LOS “B” for all collector and local streets, as well as arterials within one mile of the existing/planned Linear Creekway systemBicycle LOS “C” for all other arterial street 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  53. 53. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  CoSA: 10 ft. (11 ft. if along a VIA route or a road with significant horizontal curvature)TxDOT: 11 ft.Bexar Co.: 12 ft 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  54. 54. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  CoSA: 10 ft. (11 ft. if along a VIA route or a road with significant horizontal curvature)TxDOT: 11 ft.Bexar Co.: 12 ft 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  55. 55. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  Motor Vehicle LOS “C” 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  56. 56. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  Motor Vehicle LOS “C” 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  57. 57. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II   Right-Of Way and Cross Section 1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  58. 58. Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Data  Collection  Project  Phase  I  and  Phase  II   1.  Existing/Programmed Paved Shoulders or Bike Lanes 2.  Bicycle LOS Threshold Met 3.  Roadway Restripe Candidate 4.  Road Diet Candidate 5.  Add Paved Shoulders 6.  Detailed Corridor Study Needed
  59. 59. San  Antonio  Regional  Bicycling  Travel  Patterns  Survey   To gather data from residents to better understand bike travel in the region, including: Estimated number of residents who bike The reasons people bike Where people bike The frequency that people bike Barriers to biking Perceptions of current conditions for biking in the region The types of biking improvements that are needed
  60. 60. San  Antonio  Regional  Bicycling  Travel  Patterns  Survey   Profile of Bicyclists and Non-Bicyclists
  61. 61. San  Antonio  Regional  Bicycling  Travel  Patterns  Survey   The GPS survey was administered to 208 bicyclists ◦ 152 randomly selected bicyclists ◦ 56 active bicyclists who were members of cycling clubs, etc. The GPS device was carried by bicyclists for one week The GPS device recorded the routes used, speed, and other information that will help us better understand bike travel in the region
  62. 62. San  Antonio  Regional  Bicycling  Travel  Patterns  Survey  
  63. 63. Progress1975 2011
  64. 64. iMap and Bicycle Information
  65. 65. MPO’s Safety Program Stephanie Velasquez Regional Transportation Planner Phone: (210) 230-6908 Email: velasquez@sametroplan.org
  66. 66. History§  Efforts began in 2006 §  Best Practices §  Available crash data§  2009 began to work with TxDOT – safety data§  Request from partner agencies for information about traffic and safety crash information for more informed decision making§  2010 release of the MPO’s Regional Safety Study using 2008 Crash Record Information System data
  67. 67. Purpose of the 2010 Safety Study§  Exceptional growth over the next 20 years, expecting 600,000 new residents.§  Introducing CRIS and safety data to our region.§  Budget constraints limit the ability for the needed transportation improvements making safety even more of a pressing issue.§  Efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes has long been underway, this study offers a more coordinated effort across local jurisdictions.§  Priority for the MPO and Partner Agencies§  Requests from City of San Antonio Public Works§  San Antonio Police Department§  Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Advisory Committees
  68. 68. 2010 Safety Study Overviewv  Introduction v  Regional  Crash  Assessment   v  Impaired  Driving  v  Transportation Safety in v  Distracted  Driving   the Planning Process v  Road  Rage/Aggressive  Driving  v  Regional Safety v  Cell  Phone  Use   Committee v  Speeding  v  Methodology v  Bicycle  Crashes   v  Pedestrian  Crashes  v  Legislative Information v  Motorcycle  Crashes  v  Next Steps   v  Analysis     v  Technical  Appendix  
  69. 69. 2010 Safety Study Overviewv  Regional Crash Assessmentv  Impaired Drivingv  Distracted Driving Did you know?v  Road Rage/Aggressive v  The first automobile crash involving a cyclist in the United States occurred Driving in New York City in 1896, when a motor vehicle collided with a bicyclist. (www.cycling.org) v  Cyclists were the highest paid athletes in the U.S. until Babe Ruth joinedv  Cell Phone Use the Yankees.(www.cycling.org) v  Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. v  Twenty-onestates and the District of Columbia have helmet laws applyingv  Speeding to young bicyclists; none ofthese laws applies to all riders. (www.helmets.org)v  Bicycle Crashesv  Pedestrian Crashes On average, one bicyclist is involved in a crash with a vehicle every other day in ourv  Motorcycle Crashes region.
  70. 70. 2010 Safety Study Overview
  71. 71. 2010 Safety Study Overview Methodology Analyzed accurate quantitative and qualitative data. v  Crash Records Information System v  Transportation Survey v  GIS
  72. 72. Crash Records Information System (CRIS) Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News Crash Unit Person Crash Number Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News Photo courtesy San Antonio Express-News
  73. 73. Safety Study Overview – Next Steps §  Create a Regional Safety Program §  Develop an online public friendly format §  Current three years §  Develop an online application that allows public agencies to directly access data §  “iMap”
  74. 74. How is the Safety Data Used? §  City of San Antonio Bond Project Selection for 2012 §  STP-MM Funding for Future MPO Projects §  Walkable Community Workshops §  Bicycle Master Plan §  Pedestrian Safety Action Plan §  San Antonio Police Deployment of Resources §  Education and Awareness Campaigns §  Support Data for Grant Applications §  Northside Independent School District
  75. 75. MPO Safety 2012§  More formalization of safety efforts, analysis and data collection§  Information is updated online§  More in-depth information of analysis areas§  Additional contributing factors analyzed§  Includes year 2010 thus far§  8 contributing factors represent 76% crashes
  76. 76. Who helps us make decisions?§  Transportation Safety Committee §  Texas Department of Transportation §  San Antonio Police Department §  City of San Antonio §  Silver Eagle Distributors §  Bexar County Sheriff’s office §  Bexar County GIS Department §  Mother’s Against Drunk Driving §  Federal Highway Administration
  77. 77. Safety: an Important Component in Transportation Planning §  Bike Master Plan §  Pedestrian Safety Action Plan §  STP-MM projects §  City of San Antonio Bond Program §  Walkable Community Workshops
  78. 78. Bike Master Plan
  79. 79. Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
  80. 80. STP-MM projects Number of Crash Rate per No Entity Roadway Name Crashes VMT 57 TxDOT IH 410 Pedestrian Accommodations 0 0.00 59 TxDOT Loop 13 Pedestrian Facilities 15 1.39 60 TxDOT Loop 13 Pedestrian Facilities 3 0.68 67 TxDOT US 87 Bicycle Accommodations 3 0.72 The formula for calculating the crash rate for a roadway segment is presented below. The “Rate” ( R ) is expressed in crashes per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT), which is standard to the Traffic Engineering profession.Where:A = Average number of crashes along the study roadway per yearL = Length of roadway segment in milesV = Average Daily Traffic Volume along the roadway
  81. 81. City of San Antonio Bond Program
  82. 82. Walkable Community Workshops
  83. 83. Bike Night
  84. 84. iMap update with safety related data
  85. 85. Next Steps§  Safety Program Continued Development §  Regional Safety Trends §  Performance Measures §  Counter Measures
  86. 86. QuestionsLydia Kelly, Cecilio Martinez, Stephanie Velasquez

×