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
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 2
What’s the Level of Servicefor this Roadway?
Pedestrian - F
Com
plete Streets
Auto - F
Is this really failure?s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 3
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
aren t necessarily reflective of similar levels of traveler satisfaction
27Transit
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 3
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 5
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• Urban Streets uses Average Travel Speed as percentage of Free Flow Speed for LOS
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 4
User Perception Methodology
Nationwide Video Simulation Labs• Portland
• College Station
Com
plete Streets
• Chicago
• Alexandria
• more…
s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 9
• Motorized vehicle– Volume
– Speed
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 5
Pedestrian LOS Flow Chart
Com
plete Streetss Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 10
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features 11
• Pavement condition
• On-street parking
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 6
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• 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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
, p
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 7
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• Details in NCHRP Report 616
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 8
Example Application
Com
plete Streetss Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 9
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• 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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
– Pedestrian LOSAuto C ETransit B CBicycle D CPedestrian C D
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 10
The Task
• Determine the LOS impacts of:
Com
plete Streets
– Converting conventional street
– To
– Complete Street
s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• Bus Speed Predictor– Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 11
Conventional Street
Com
plete Streets
11’ 11’11’ 11’8’5’ 5’8’s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
70 ft ROW
Street Characteristics
• 10,000 AADT
Com
plete Streets
• Traffic signals each block
• 35 mph speed limit
• 4 buses/hour
s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 12
Stage 1 of Conversion
Com
plete Streets 10’5’ 5’10’16’ 12’12’s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
105 510
70 ft ROW
1212
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 13
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
85 58
70 ft ROW
12125 5
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 14
Stage 3 – Complete Street
p Remove Parking Lanes(+) Bikes(-) PedsC
omplete Streets 10’ 12’5’ 5’8’5’ 5’8’12’
( )
s Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
70 ft ROW
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 15
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
– Reduced barrier between peds and traffic
– Improved bike LOS
• Adding new buffer strip & trees:– Counter balanced loss of parking lane barrier for peds
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 16
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
• 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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 17
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
>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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
30 feet crossing 10% yield rate
Output: Average delay = 44 sec
Ped LOS = E
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 18
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
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
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
Decision making considerations
• Tools vs. standards, HCM methodology evolution, variations in user satisfaction, companion documents
Using the HCM 2010 for Complete Streets Analysis
September 15, 2010
Guttenplan, Petritsch, Parks 19
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
Theo [email protected](813) 949-7449
Jamie Parkss Analysis
HCM 2010 – Multimodal Features
(410) 347-9610
2010 HCM Release -Planned for late-2010
Top Related