Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

188 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND AGENCY OPERATIONSFIGURE 15(LOS) C.Orange County percentage over capacity of Level of Servicequiring solutions. In some instances, higher-volumeareas that are significantly over capacity may warranta reassignment to a higher MPAH classification or toa restructuring of the MPAH network. That situationis especially true of some of the older developed areasof North Orange County. In all cases, collaborationof the Orange County Transportation Authority andcounty and city jurisdictions is required for effectivesolutions.METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIAContactLisa Klein, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,101 8th Street, Oakland, CA 94607570-464-7832, 570-464-7848 (fax)lklein@mtc.ca.govPoster Session SummaryUsing Transportation System PerformanceMeasures to Evaluate Investments in theSan Francisco Bay AreaThe Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)is the metropolitan planning organization for the SanFrancisco Bay Area. MTC developed the Bay AreaTransportation Blueprint for the 21st Century to identifyinvestments and funding sources beyond the regionaltransportation plan (RTP). The blueprint includesan evaluation of rail, bus, ferry, and highwayexpansion projects. The evaluation focused on thebenefits and cost-effectiveness of individual projectsand demonstrated the limitations of our investmentoptions in the context of rapid growth (see Table 8).In the spring, MTC recommended a $3.8 billion implementationplan, based on the evaluation, for inclusionin Governor Davis’s traffic congestion relief program.MTC completed the blueprint evaluation on theeve of two state legislative initiatives promoting performancemeasures in the RTP. MTC will respond tothis interest in the upcoming 2001 RTP update. We
SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 189reflect here on the opportunities and challenges revealedby the blueprint exercise.Blueprint Evaluation Outcome The outcome shapedMTC’s recommendations for Governor Davis’s TrafficCongestion Relief Program for the California FiscalYear 2000–2001 budget. The principal finding is thatthe fastest-growing parts of the Bay Area are bestserved by a fleet of express buses operating on theregion’s expanding network of high-occupancy vehiclelanes. Table 9 offers comparisons of various transitpackages that the blueprint revealed.Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis revealedthe impacts of land use changes and parking fees (seeFigure 16):• Illustrative land use scenario—densificationbased on uniform percentage growth rate throughoutthe region;• Illustrative pricing scenario—$2.60 parkingcharge for all work trips; and• Land use and pricing—generating pronouncedchanges in numbers of transit riders, although thetransit mode share remains small.Recent Legislative InterestIn the California legislature 2000 session, State LawAB 2140 was enacted. It encourages the use of performancemeasures in the RTP: mobility and congestion;maintenance and rehabilitation needs, modeshare including bicycles and pedestrians, safety andsecurity, and equity and accessibility to jobs. However,State Law SB 1995 failed to pass. It would haverequired MTC to develop1. Measurable RTP goals and objectives,2. Performance measures for project evaluation inthe RTP, and3. A congestion reduction plan with baseline measurementsof congestion.The 2001 RTP update will address system performancemeasures.Challenges• Using performance measures when real fundingis on the line:–Mobility impacts of investments are overshadowedby regional growth; and–The RTP is a gateway to funding; project sponsorsmay resist quantifying impacts.• Defining measures that give us direction to actwhere we have agency and authority:–Major investments equate to tinkering at themargins: $8 billion dollar regional rail investmentreduces vehicle miles traveled by 0.7percent;–Land use and pricing have a greater impactthan do transportation investments, yet MTCcannot implement them; and–It is difficult to measure benefits of nonexpansionprojects, although we know that maintenanceand operations represent critical investments.Opportunities• Emphasize and expand the use of system-levelmeasures, as encouraged by AB 2140;• Extend the evaluation work in the blueprint, illustratingtrade-offs among investment packages; and• Invest in data-collection systems to provide asnapshot of existing system performance.TABLE 8Investment Alternatives: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CaliforniaPackage Number of Projects Capital Cost ($) Performance CriteriaBus 41 745 million Net new transit ridersCost per new transit riderRail 18 8.6 billion Net new transit ridersCost per new transit riderFerry 23 395 million Net new transit ridersCost per new transit riderRoadway 15 1.4 billion Vehicle and person tripsTravel time savingsChange in V/C ratioCost per a.m. peak period tripNOTE: V/C = volume to capacity.
Page 5 and 6:
National Academy of SciencesNationa
Page 7 and 8:
Workshop Summary ..................
Page 9:
General OverviewIntroductionExecuti
Page 12 and 13:
4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 14 and 15:
6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 18 and 19:
10 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 20 and 21:
Page 23:
Linking Performance Measures withDe
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Panel DiscussionJohn Poorman, Capit
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Workshop SummaryJohn Basilica, Loui
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 55 and 56:
RESOURCE PAPERImplementing Performa
Page 57 and 58:
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMEN
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Panel DiscussionJennifer Finch, Col
Page 69 and 70:
FIGURE 2Level of measures and align
Page 71 and 72:
PANEL DISCUSSION: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
WORKSHOP SUMMARY: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 81:
Selecting Measures, Data Needs, and
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Panel Discussion, Part 1Anita Vande
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Panel Discussion, Part 2Douglas Zim
Page 104 and 105:
FIGURE 11 Example data
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Workshop SummaryBrenda Berg, Trans
Page 110 and 111:
Page 113 and 114:
RESOURCE PAPERMeasuring That Which
Page 115 and 116:
MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 117 and 118:
TABLE 1Sustainability MeasuresNewma
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
PANEL DISCUSSION: CONNECTING SYSTEM
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Workshop SummaryScott Bassett, Oreg
Page 145: Freight Performance MeasuresCurrent
Page 148 and 149: 140 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 163 and 164: APPENDIX ASummaries of 20 Poster Se
Page 165 and 166: SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 157
Page 167 and 168: TABLE 1(continued) WSDOT Outcomes,
Page 177 and 178: FIGURE 2 Sacramento Regional Transi
Page 179 and 180: FIGURE 3Goal evaluation table: Chit
Page 187 and 188: TABLE 6Mobility Performance Measure
Page 195: FIGURE 13 MPAH lane-miles by roadwa
Page 207 and 208: SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FO
Page 223 and 224: APPENDIX C: RESEARCH STATEMENTS DEV
Page 225 and 226: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 217University,
Page 227: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 219Darwin Stua
show all

Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?