MPOs: Past, Present and Future

November 30, 2012

Beverly Davis, AICP Ron Ratliff, AICP

Transportation: 1900 to 2012

20

th

Century Transportation

 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

20

th

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

20

th

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

20

th

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 1. Data Collection 2. Forecasts 3. Goal Formulation 4. Network Identification 5. Alternatives Testing 6. Evaluation and Recommendations

20

th

Century Transportation

 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 Economic Factors Land Use Social and Community Values Population Travel Patterns Financial Resources Traffic Control Intermodal Facilities Transportation Facilities

20

th

Century Transportation

 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

20

th

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

20

th

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

20

th

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

20

th

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

20

th

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 1900 1960 1990 MAP 21

Case Study: Performance Measures

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

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

• Key Findings

Charlotte Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours)

25 25 5

TTI

1.17

1.20

1.06

• • 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

1.10

1.02

56 101

Inrix Summary

• 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

Number of Segments vs. Max. TTI <=1 9% > 1.5

25% Length of Segments vs. Max. TTI > 1.5

9% <=1 8% 1-1.2

29% 1.2-1.5

38% 1-1.2

45% 1.2-1.5

37%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 67% 25%

Travel Time Index - Interstates

<= 1.0

1.01 to 1.2

1.21 to 1.50

88% 83% I-277 5% 3% 34% 36% 17% 13% I-277 74% 6% I-485 2% 4%

Roadway

52% 26% 13% 8% I-77 9% 4% 12% I-485

Roadway

13% 37% 19% 31% I-77 > 1.50

13% I-85 3% 1% 55% 28% I-85 13% 5%

Charlotte Case Study

 Application   Congestion Management Process I-277 Loop Study  Possible Application  LRTP Project Prioritization Process

Transportation: 1900 to 2012 Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

GENERAL: HISTORICAL REVIEW CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Technology MPOs / Urban transportation planning are critical Continuing urbanization Flexible / Adaptable Maximize return on investment Coordination with partners Maximize staff resources Easily acquired and updated datasets Data should provide information on the successes/benefits of projects Multiple applications

Discussion/Questions

Ron Ratliff, AICP [email protected]

Beverly Davis, AICP [email protected]