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.

Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes


Published on

Title: Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes
Track: Sustain
Format: 90 minute panel
Abstract: In the 21st century, the basic purpose of transportation studies needs to change from making it easier to drive to giving people options other than driving. This session will present case studies of alternatives to the auto-dominated Level of Service traffic impact studies in order to better address bicycling, transit and walking.
Presenter: Michelle DeRobertis Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities
Co-Presenter: Peter Albert San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Co-Presenter: Patrick Lynch Transpo Group
Co-Presenter: David Thompson City of Boulder, Colorado

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Transportation Studies in the 21st Century: Incorporating all Modes

  1. 1. Transportation Studies in the 21st Century- Incorporating All Modes Michelle DeRobertis PE Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities Oakland CA
  2. 2. 1950’s till now, goal of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) was: Accommodate Auto Traffic
  3. 3. Absurd Results of Tipping Scales in Favor of Autos: 1. Inequitable Development Conditions ▫ First in pays least ▫ Last in pays most (or changes project)
  4. 4. 2. SPRAWL
  5. 5. 3. Huge wide swaths of asphalt unused for 22 hours a day
  6. 6. 22 hours of the day, roadway capacity is unused
  7. 7. 4. Double Standard-
  8. 8. 21st Century Setting- Political & Social Landscape is Changing
  9. 9. Fewer Teen Drivers 1983-2010 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 0 50 16 17 18 19 1983 2010 17 18 16 19
  10. 10. 21st Century Setting-: CAR FREE Households Are Increasing
  11. 11. Even State Laws Are Changing ▫ Many States now have GHG reductions targets ▫ California has a state law that prohibits vehicle congestion from being considered significant impact in Environmental Documents
  12. 12. Our Speakers ▫ Peter Albert, City of San Francisco ▫ Patrick Lynch Transpo Group, Bellingham, Washington ▫ Doug Thompson, City of Boulder CO ▫ Michelle DeRobertis, ITE Transit Council
  13. 13. Michelle DeRobertis P.E.
  14. 14. Purpose of ITE Committee on Transit and Traffic Impact Studies Document whether and how: ▫ Transit Quality of Service is addressed. ▫ Traffic impacts on transit service and operations is addressed. ▫ Transit providers are involved in the TIS process.
  15. 15. State of the Practice Study Methodology ▫ Survey practitioners on the state of the practice on Transit and Traffic Impact Studies. ▫ Review of known traffic impact studies and TIS guidelines to see how well they address transit. ▫ Write a “State of the Practice” report to be published by ITE.
  16. 16. Problem – • Undue attention is given to the LOS of the surrounding freeways and arterials • Very little attention to the Transit Service ▫ Report may mention the number and frequency of busses, but does not rate whether the existing transit service is “good” or “adequate” • Conclusion often is that Roadways are operating at LOS F and “need improving” whereas the Transit service just “is”.
  17. 17. Result of Lopsided Analysis MORE CAPACITY FOR AUTO NO CHANGES TO TRANSIT
  18. 18. Current Transit QOS Measurements* • Service Availability ▫ Spatial- where the routes are ▫ Temporal – hours of service, headways ▫ Capacity- function of vehicle size and headways (2) • Comfort and Convenience ▫ Passenger load ▫ Average Speed -Travel Time (1) ▫ Reliability ▫ Safety and security ▫ Stations and stops
  19. 19. Possible Metrics for use in TIS 1. Travel time- ▫ Compare transit travel time to the site to auto-travel time Mitigation measures to improve travel time • Transit signal preemption • Bus only lanes
  20. 20. Possible Metrics for use in TIS 2. Capacity • compare capacity of traffic lanes serving a site to the capacity of transit service Mitigation measures to improve capacity • Decrease headways • more./larger train cars
  21. 21. SAN FRANCISCO MUNI-Frequency Standards Weekday PEAK BASE EVENING OWL RADIAL 10 15 20 30 EXPRESS 10 - - - CROSS-TOWN 15 15 20 30 FEEDER 20 30 30 --
  23. 23. 21st Century Way of Thinking: ▫ System is not “failing” when there is auto congestion; it is an indicator of a thriving economy. ▫ Congestion indicates that more/better transit is needed as well as bikeways/walkways. ▫ Level of Service Scale of A-F is wrong:  Implies LOS A is optimal where as in fact it is means there is excess capacity.  In fact V/C ratio of 1.0 LOS F could be considered ideal in the demand and capacity are balanced