Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Level of Service F for Grade A Streets

670 views

Published on

Title: Level of Service F for Grade A Streets
Track: Prosper
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: Relying solely on Level of Service criteria for street design, which evaluates vehicle congestion, leads to poor outcomes on many of our roadways. LOS F, far from a failure, creates opportunities to reallocate roadway space for more livable street designs. In this session, learn about projects in Cambridge and San Francisco that overcame opposition and generated community support in prioritizing better bicycling and walking over vehicle capacity during the peak hour of travel.
Presenters:
Presenter: Michael Sallaberry San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Level of Service F for Grade A Streets

  1. 1. 1 Level of Service F for Grade A Streets Massachusetts’ Project Selection Advisory Council September 9, 2014 Scott Hamwey, Manager of Long Range Planning MassDOT September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
  2. 2. 2 Created in 2009 Consolidation of several independent authorities/departments resulted in a statewide multimodal DOT including: Roads, bridges and tunnels (tolled/untolled) Mass transit (commuter rail, subway, buses, ferries, paratransit) Bicycle/shared used paths Intercity Rail Registry of Motor Vehicles September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot 2 MassDOT: Background
  3. 3. 3 GreenDOT a comprehensive implementation plan outlining MassDOT’s approach to reducing transportation-related GHG emissions Healthy Transportation Directive a policy requiring all MassDOT project designs to accommodate all system users (or secure a waiver from the Secretary) Mode Shift a goal to triple the share of travel conducted by transit/bike/ped by 2030 September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot 3 MassDOT: Key Goals and Policies
  4. 4. 4 Purpose - Created by the Massachusetts Legislature to recommend : A set of uniform project selection criteria A project prioritization formula to be used in development of statewide transportation plan Membership - 8 seats filled by (3) gubernatorial and (4) legislative leadership appointments (plus Secretary) Deadline - 12/31/14 September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot Project Selection Advisory Council
  5. 5. 5 September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot Massachusetts Experience with Project Prioritization MassDOT Project Review Committee – scores projects as they are submitted by municipalities to enter the pipeline MBTA – used third party software and facilitation to develop scoring system MPOs – comprehensiveness and use varies by MPO; typically applied only to roadway projects weMove – scenario planning tool Statewide, multimodal set of evaluation criteria are entering uncharted territory
  6. 6. 6 Applicable across modes and project types Simple and transparent (quantitative metrics where possible) Consider regional equity and cost Focus on existing data; but identify aspirational data and metrics September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot PSA Council Goals
  7. 7. 7 Challenges to Aligning Criteria with MassDOT Goals Addressing existing auto-dependency and realistic potential for mode shift given existing land use Overcoming sub-par bicycle, pedestrian, and safety data and forecasting abilities Comparing projects across and within modes with one set of criteria Avoiding metrics becoming a box to check Recognizing political context September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
  8. 8. 8 Specific Challenges for Bike/Ped with Proposed Objectives It is tempting to reward projects with bike/ped elements for both real and imagined (or at least distant) outcomes Mode Shift: How closely should the metric align with this goal? How meaningful is the metric if it doesn’t? Reliability: Unlike transit, harder to improve upon the reliability/predictability of travel via biking/walking Safety: What if the near-term consequence of encouraging shift to a “safer” mode is more injuries/deaths? September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
  9. 9. 9 Other Proposed Objectives and Considerations Increase persons per hour capacity Reduce GHG emissions Increase physical activity Support sustainable development Reduce exposure to noise/air/water pollution September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot
  10. 10. 10 September 9, 2014 | Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence | www.mass.gov/massdot What do you think? How do you prioritize all projects against the same goals? – Some roads need to be auto focused. If we were to get a 6 month extension – what other approach should we consider?

×