Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB

Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis

September 15, 2010

Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 1

Using the New 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to Plan and Evaluate

“Complete Streets”

Com

plete Streets

Martin Guttenplan, Wilbur Smith Associates

Theo Petritsch, Sprinkle Consulting

Jamie Parks, Kittelson & Associates Inc.

s Analysis

HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features

September 15, 2010

What’s Wrong With this Picture?

Taverns

Com

plete Streets

University

s Analysis

HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 2


September 15, 2010


What’s the Level of Servicefor this Roadway?

Pedestrian - F

Com

plete Streets

Auto - F

Is this really failure?s Analysis


s t s ea y a u e

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

• Modes addressed in different chaptersC

omplete Streets

different chapters

• Minimal impact of one mode on another’s LOS

• Modes’ LOS scales aren’t necessarily

19Bicycles

18Pedestrians

15Urban

Streets

s Analysis


aren t necessarily reflective of similar levels of traveler satisfaction

27Transit


September 15, 2010


What is Measured Can Get Funded

• Current Measures of Effectiveness for LOS may not reflect the travelers’ perspective

OS

Com

plete Streets

• LOS thresholds determined without direct input from the traveling public

• Many local, state and federal agencies use the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to make investment decisions and to determine

f

s Analysis


impact fees

• Led to NCHRP 3-70 incorporation in 2010 HCM

2010 HCM

Multimodal• Not just cars and trucks anymore, multimodal efforts

• Embracing idea of interaction among travel modesCom

plete Streets

g g

• Vehicle impacting peds, bikes & buses and vice versa

Perception• Level of service based on one measurable parameter

• Moving toward more user perception based valuess Analysis


• Urban Streets uses Average Travel Speed as percentage of Free Flow Speed for LOS


September 15, 2010


User Perception Methodology

Nationwide Video Simulation Labs• Portland

• College Station

Com

plete Streets

• Chicago

• Alexandria

• more…

s Analysis


Auto Bike Pedestrian

Factors Affecting Pedestrian Segment Level of Service

• Presence of a sidewalk

Lateral separation ofCom

plete Streets

• Lateral separation of pedestrians and motorized vehicles– Includes presence of barriers and

buffers, i.e. parked cars, trees

s Analysis


• Motorized vehicle– Volume

– Speed


September 15, 2010


Pedestrian LOS Flow Chart

Com

plete Streetss Analysis


Factors Affecting Bicycle Segment Level of Service

• Proximity of bicyclists to motorized vehicles

– Paved shoulder/Com

plete Streets

Bicycle lane

• Motorized vehicle

– Volume

– Speed

– Types Analysis


• Pavement condition

• On-street parking


September 15, 2010


Modal Interactions

• Integrating non-auto modes of travel• Urban Street Segments

Multimodal

Com

plete Streets

• Urban Street Facilities

• Signalized Intersections

• Unsignalized Intersections

• Considers all users of the facility• Interactions among ped, bike and transits A

nalysis


• Consider trade-off in allocating right-of-way

• Analysis, design and policy considerations

HCM 2010 Transit Objectives

• Different transit LOS measure desired– Single measure to facilitate comparisons with

th d d f tibilit ith HCM

Com

plete Streets

other modes and for compatibility with HCM

– LOS thresholds tied to user satisfaction

• LOS grades mean the same thing across modes

– Opportunity for comparing impacts of other modes, where impacts exists A

nalysis


, p


September 15, 2010


Transit Model Inputs

• Includes factors:– that are known to influence ridership

inside the right-of-wayCom

plete Streets

– inside the right-of-way

– that can be affected by agency actions

• Primary factors:– Frequency

– Speed (travel time rate)

– Reliability (excess wait time)s Analysis


Reliability (excess wait time)

– Stop amenities

– Crowding (perceived travel time rate adjustment)

– Pedestrian LOS

Model Output

• Transit LOS score– A function of:

• Transit wait/ride score (weighted 89%)Com

plete Streets

• Transit wait/ride score (weighted 89%)

• Pedestrian LOS (weighted 11%)

– Addresses all three trip components

– Weightings based on on-board survey results that found that walk-to-the-stop satisfaction accounted for 11% of overall satisfaction

D t il i NCHRP R t 616

s Analysis


• Details in NCHRP Report 616


September 15, 2010


Example Application

Com

plete Streetss Analysis


Multimodal

• Interaction Examples

Modes Auto Ped Bike Bus

Auto Turning Vehicles Auto ConflictsLane

SeparationPulling Out

Ped Minimum Green Crosswalk

WidthOn Shared Use

PathsMinimum Green

T i O Sh d U L Bike

Turning Conflicts

On Shared Use Paths

Lane Constriction

Bike Racks

Bus Stop in Lane Bus ConflictsLane

SeparationStop in Lane


September 15, 2010


Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Analysis for Urban Streets

• Each urban street right-of-way is shared by 4 major types of users:C

omplete Streets

major types of users:– Automobile Drivers

– Transit Passengers

– Bicyclists

– Pedestrians

• The urban street should serve all users

10’ 12’5’ 5’8’5’ 5’8’

70 ft ROW

12’

s Analysis


• The urban street should serve all users

Definition of MMLOS

• MMLOS is the degree to which the urban street design and operations meets the needs of eachC

omplete Streets

design and operations meets the needs of each user type.

• Four level of service grades for each street:– Auto LOS

– Transit LOS

– Bicycle LOS

Bancroft Avenue Level of ServiceUser Type AM Pk Hr PM Pk HrAuto C Es A

nalysis


– Pedestrian LOSAuto C ETransit B CBicycle D CPedestrian C D


September 15, 2010


The Task

• Determine the LOS impacts of:

Com

plete Streets

– Converting conventional street

– To

– Complete Street

s Analysis


Required Tools – Until 2010 HCM Released

• HCM 2010 Urban Streets Spreadsheet

Com

plete Streets

• Auto Stops and Speed Predictor– HCS (speed)

– Synchro (stops and speed)

s Analysis


• Bus Speed Predictor– Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual


September 15, 2010


Conventional Street

Com

plete Streets

11’ 11’11’ 11’8’5’ 5’8’s Analysis


70 ft ROW

Street Characteristics

• 10,000 AADT

Com

plete Streets

• Traffic signals each block

• 35 mph speed limit

• 4 buses/hour

s Analysis



September 15, 2010


Stage 1 of Conversion

Com

plete Streets 10’5’ 5’10’16’ 12’12’s Analysis


105 510

70 ft ROW

1212

Impacts on Auto and Transit

Same Traffic Fewer LanesC

omplete Streets 10’5’ 5’10’16’ 12’12’

(-) Slow down AutosTrucks, and Buses

s Analysis


105 510

70 ft ROW

1212


September 15, 2010


Impacts on Bikes and Peds

(-) More Traffic closerTo Bikes and PedsC

omplete Streets 10’5’ 5’10’16’ 12’12’

To Bikes and Peds

(+) Slow down AutosTrucks, and Buses

s Analysis


105 510

70 ft ROW

1212

Stage 2 of Conversion

Com

plete Streets 8’5’ 5’8’10’ 12’12’5’ 5’

(+)Separate Bikesfrom Traffic

s Analysis


85 58

70 ft ROW

12125 5


September 15, 2010


Stage 3 – Complete Street

p Remove Parking Lanes(+) Bikes(-) PedsC

omplete Streets 10’ 12’5’ 5’8’5’ 5’8’12’

( )

s Analysis


70 ft ROW

Stage 3 – Complete Street

p

Add Planter Strip, TC

omplete Streets 10’ 12’5’ 5’8’5’ 5’8’12’

Trees(0) Bikes(+) Peds

s Analysis


70 ft ROW


September 15, 2010


Perception Models

• LOS based on a weighted index– Combination of multiple variables

– Example:Com

plete Streets

Ped Signal LOS = 0.00569 (RTOR+PermLefts) + 0.00013 (TrafVol x

TrafSpeed) + 0.0681 (# LanesCrossed 0.514) + 0.0401ln(PedDelay) –

RTCI (0.0027PerpTrafVol – 0.1946) + 1.7806

LOS Ped LOS Score

A ≤2.00

B >2 00 2 75s Analysis


B >2.00–2.75

C >2.75–3.50

D >3.50–4.25

E >4.25–5.00

F >5.00

Results

• Eliminating one lane each way for autos:– Slowed autos, Slowed transit

Put more autos closer to bikes and pedsCom

plete Streets

– Put more autos closer to bikes and peds

• Adding Bike Lane:– Improved bike LOS

– Improved ped LOS

• Eliminating Parking LaneReduced barrier between peds and traffics A

nalysis


– Reduced barrier between peds and traffic

– Improved bike LOS

• Adding new buffer strip & trees:– Counter balanced loss of parking lane barrier for peds


September 15, 2010


Other HCM Changes Affecting You

• Off Street Ped & Bike Facilities

• 10’ lane width = 12’ lane width capacityCom

plete Streets

p y

• Ped LOS for unsignalized crossings

• New recommended walking speed for ped clearance interval– 3.5’ per second to match MUTCDs A

nalysis


• Executive Summary for Decision Makers

33

Chapter 23: Off-Street Ped & Bike Facilities

• New bicycle path procedures – Based on recent FHWA research

• Guidance on applying pedestrian Com

plete Streets

methodologies to a wider variety of facility types

s Analysis



September 15, 2010


Effect of Lane Width on Capacity

Saturation Flow Adjustment Factors

HCM 2000 HCM 2010

Com

plete Streets

Lane Width Adjustment

Factor

<10.0 0.96

10.0 – 12.9 1.00

Lane Width

Adjustment

Factor

9 0.90

10 0.93

11 0.97s Analysis


>12.9 1.0412 1.00

13 1.03

14 1.07

LOS at Unsignalized Crossings• Estimates pedestrian delay

• Allows consideration of different crossing treatments

• Based on 4 factorsff # f

Com

plete Streets

– Traffic volume - # of lanes crossed

– Crossing distance - Motorist yield rate

Example:2-lane arterial with marked crosswalk, but nobody is yielding…

Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles2 lanes crosseds A

nalysis


30 feet crossing 10% yield rate

Output: Average delay = 44 sec

Ped LOS = E


September 15, 2010


LOS at Unsignalized Crossings

Example (cont.):Install rapid-flash beacons to

improve driver compliance…Com

plete Streets

improve driver compliance…

Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles

2 lanes crossed

30 feet crossing distance

80% yield rates Analysis


Output: Average delay = 6 sec

Ped LOS = B

Chapter 8: Policy Considerations

• Executive summary for decision-makers

• Outline:Com

plete Streets

– Highway capacity concepts for decision-makers

– QOS concepts for decision-makers

– Analysis process

• Levels of analysis, analysis tool selection, HCM methodologies, interpreting results

– Decision-making considerationss Analysis


Decision making considerations

• Tools vs. standards, HCM methodology evolution, variations in user satisfaction, companion documents


September 15, 2010


2010 HCM - More Information

• Final Report: NCHRP Report #616– http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf Com

plete Streets

• User’s Guide: NCHRP Web document 128– http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf

s Analysis

HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features49

2010 HCM - More Information (2)

• Contacts:

Martin GuttenplanCom

plete Streets

[email protected]

Theo [email protected](813) 949-7449

Jamie Parkss Analysis


[email protected]

(410) 347-9610

2010 HCM Release -Planned for late-2010

Education

Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB