Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB

Using the HCM 2010 for Complete September 15, 2010
Streets Analysis

Using the New 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) to Plan and Evaluate
“Complete Streets”

Martin Guttenplan, Wilbur Smith Associates
Complete Streets Analysis

Theo Petritsch, Sprinkle Consulting
Jamie Parks, Kittelson & Associates Inc.
s

September 15, 2010

HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features

What’s Wrong With this Picture?

Taverns

University
s

HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 2

Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 1

Streets Analysis

What’s the Level of Service
for this Roadway?
Pedestrian - F

Auto - F

Is t s really failure?
s this ea y a u e
s


Highway Capacity Manual 2000

• Modes addressed in
different chapters

• Minimal impact of one
mode on another’s
15

Urban
Streets LOS
18

Pedestrians
• Modes’ LOS scales
19

Bicycles
aren t
aren’t necessarily
s

reflective of similar
27

Transit
levels of traveler
satisfaction



Streets Analysis

What is Measured Can Get Funded

• Current Measures of Effectiveness for
LOS may not reflect the travelers’ perspective
• LOS thresholds determined without direct
OS

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

impact f
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 modes
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 values
s

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



Streets Analysis

User Perception Methodology
Nationwide Video Simulation Labs
• Portland
• College Station
• Chicago

• Alexandria
• more…
s

Auto Bike Pedestrian


Factors Affecting Pedestrian
Segment Level of Service
• Presence of a sidewalk

• Lateral separation of

pedestrians and motorized
vehicles
– Includes presence of barriers and
buffers, i.e. parked cars, trees
s

• Motorized vehicle
– Volume
– Speed



Streets Analysis

Pedestrian LOS Flow Chart
s


Factors Affecting Bicycle Segment
Level of Service
• Proximity of bicyclists to motorized vehicles
– Paved shoulder/

Bicycle lane
• Motorized vehicle
– Volume
– Speed
– Type
s

• Pavement condition
• On-street parking



Streets Analysis

Multimodal
Modal Interactions
• Integrating non-auto modes of travel
• Urban Street Segments

• Urban Street Facilities
• Signalized Intersections
• Unsignalized Intersections
• Considers all users of the facility
• Interactions among ped, bike and transit
s

• 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
other modes and f compatibility with HCM
th d d for tibilit ith

– LOS thresholds tied to user satisfaction
• LOS grades mean the same thing across
modes
– Opportunity for comparing impacts of other
modes, where impacts exist
, p
s



Streets Analysis

Transit Model Inputs

• Includes factors:
– that are known to influence ridership
– inside the right-of-way

– that can be affected by agency actions
• Primary factors:
– Frequency
– Speed (travel time rate)
– Reliability (excess wait time)
s

– Stop amenities
– Crowding (perceived travel time rate adjustment)
– Pedestrian LOS


Model Output

• Transit LOS score
– A function of:
• 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 Report 616
Details in R t
s



Streets Analysis

Example Application
s


Multimodal

• Interaction Examples

Modes Auto Ped Bike Bus

Lane
Auto Turning Vehicles Auto Conflicts Pulling Out
Separation

Crosswalk On Shared Use
Ped Minimum Green Minimum Green
Width Paths

Turning
T i On Shared Use
O Sh d U Lane
L
Bike Bike Racks
Conflicts Paths Constriction

Lane
Bus Stop in Lane Bus Conflicts Stop in Lane
Separation


Streets Analysis

Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Analysis for Urban Streets

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

– Automobile Drivers
– Transit Passengers
– Bicyclists 5’ 8’ 5’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 5’ 8’ 5’

70 ft ROW
– Pedestrians
• The urban street should serve all users
s


Definition of MMLOS

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

user type.
• Four level of service grades for each street:
– Auto LOS
– Transit LOS Bancroft Avenue Level of Service
User Type AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr
– Bicycle LOS
Auto C E
s

– Pedestrian LOS Transit B C
Bicycle D C
Pedestrian C D



Streets Analysis

The Task
• Determine the LOS
impacts of:

– Converting
conventional street
– To
– Complete Street
s


Required Tools – Until 2010 HCM Released

• HCM 2010 Urban Streets Spreadsheet

• Auto Stops and Speed Predictor
– HCS (speed)
– Synchro (stops and speed)
s

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



Streets Analysis

Conventional Street

5’ 8’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 8’ 5’
s

70 ft ROW


Street Characteristics

• 10,000 AADT

• Traffic signals each block
• 35 mph speed limit
• 4 buses/hour
s



Streets Analysis

Stage 1 of Conversion

5
5’ 10
10’ 12
12’ 16’ 12
12’ 10
10’ 5
5’
s

70 ft ROW


Impacts on Auto and Transit

Same Traffic
Fewer Lanes

(-) Slow down Autos
Trucks, and Buses

5
5’ 10
10’ 12
12’ 16’ 12
12’ 10
10’ 5
5’
s

70 ft ROW



Streets Analysis

Impacts on Bikes and Peds

(-) More Traffic closer
To Bikes and Peds

(+) Slow down Autos
Trucks, and Buses

5
5’ 10
10’ 12
12’ 16’ 12
12’ 10
10’ 5
5’
s

70 ft ROW


Stage 2 of Conversion

(+)Separate Bikes
from Traffic

5
5’ 8
8’ 5
5’ 12
12’ 10’ 12
12’ 5
5’ 8
8’ 5
5’
s

70 ft ROW



Streets Analysis

Stage 3 – Complete Street

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

5’ 8’ 5’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 5’ 8’ 5’
s

70 ft ROW


Stage 3 – Complete Street

p

Add Planter Strip,
Trees
T

(0) Bikes
(+) Peds

5’ 8’ 5’ 12’ 10’ 12’ 5’ 8’ 5’
s

70 ft ROW



Streets Analysis

Perception Models
• LOS based on a weighted index
– Combination of multiple variables
– Example:

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 >2.00–2.75
>2 00 2 75
s

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 peds

• Adding Bike Lane:
– Improved bike LOS
– Improved ped LOS
• Eliminating Parking Lane
– Reduced barrier between peds and traffic
s

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



Streets Analysis

Other HCM Changes Affecting You

• Off Street Ped & Bike Facilities
• 10’ lane width = 12’ lane width capacity
p y

• Ped LOS for unsignalized crossings
• New recommended walking speed for
ped clearance interval
– 3.5’ per second to match MUTCD
s

• Executive Summary for Decision
Makers


Chapter 23: Off-Street Ped & Bike Facilities
• New bicycle path procedures
– Based on recent FHWA research
• Guidance on applying pedestrian

methodologies to a wider variety of facility
types
s



Streets Analysis

Effect of Lane Width on Capacity
Saturation Flow Adjustment Factors

HCM 2000 HCM 2010

Lane Adjustment Lane Width Adjustment
Width Factor Factor
9 0.90
<10.0 0.96
10 0.93
11 0.97 10.0 – 12.9 1.00
s

12 1.00 >12.9 1.04
13 1.03
14 1.07


LOS at Unsignalized Crossings
• Estimates pedestrian delay
• Allows consideration of different crossing treatments
• Based on 4 factors
– Traffic volume
ff - # of lanes crossed
f

– Crossing distance - Motorist yield rate
Example:
2-lane arterial with marked
crosswalk, but nobody is yielding…
Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles
2 lanes crossed
s

30 feet crossing
10% yield rate

Output: Average delay = 44 sec

Ped LOS = E



Streets Analysis

LOS at Unsignalized Crossings
Example (cont.):
Install rapid-flash beacons to
improve driver compliance…

Inputs: 1,000 peak-hour vehicles
2 lanes crossed
30 feet crossing distance
80% yield rate
s

Output: Average delay = 6 sec
Ped LOS = B


Chapter 8: Policy Considerations

• Executive summary for decision-makers
• Outline:

– 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 considerations
Decision making
s

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



Streets Analysis

2010 HCM - More Information

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

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

49

2010 HCM - More Information (2)

• Contacts:

Martin Guttenplan
p

mguttenplan@wilbursmith.com
850.309.0838

Theo Petritsch
tap@sprinkleconsulting.com
(813) 949-7449

Jamie Parks
s

jparks@kittelson.com
(410) 347-9610

2010 HCM Release -Planned for late-2010



Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB

Similar a Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB (12)

Más de Sharon Roerty

Más de Sharon Roerty (20)

Último

Último (20)

Session 37: Using 2010 HCM for Complete Streets-PWPB