Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
Public Transportation and Bicycle & Pedestrian Stakeholder Webinar
January 8, 2014
Agenda
• Modal Needs• Baseline Revenue • Modal Scenarios • Website• Public Transportation Plans• Bicycle and Pedestrian
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Jeff Carroll
2030 MTP vs. 2040 MTP Technical Changes
• Databases None
• Analysis Tools Maintenance Assessment Tool
• Agency Coordination Yes
• Modes Highway Bridges Mass Transit Premium Transit / Passenger Rail
• Databases 2011 HPMS 2011 NBI Transearch
• Analysis Tools HERS-ST (Highways) NBIAS (Bridges)
• Agency Coordination Yes
• Modes Highway Bridges Mass Transit Premium Transit / Passenger Rail Freight Rail, Ports, Aviation, Bike/Ped
2030 MTP 2040 MTPFHWA has developed analytical tools to identify future needs
Assumptions and Engineering Analysis
• HERS-ST – Roadways Highway Performance Monitoring System SCDOT staff input and review
• NBIAS - Bridges National Bridge Inventory SCDOT staff input and review
• Non-highway Modes Plans, reports, and studies SCDOT and agency staff input and review
• Planning horizon 2030 to 2033 linear growth estimate Seven additional years (2033 to 2040)
Modal Needs
• Highways• Bridges • Mass Transit• Premium Transit / Passenger Rail• Rail Freight• Ports• Aviation• Bicycle and Pedestrian
New in 2040 MTP
New Database driven tools in 2040 MTP
QUESTIONS
BASELINE REVENUE PROJECTIONSAmanda Spencer
Purpose
• Provides an estimate of revenues expected to be available for capital improvements to 2040
• Identifies the funding gap between revenues and modal needs
Methodology
• Projection of baseline revenues by mode – No new revenues– Business as usual – conservative estimate
• Based on current year revenues and short-term budgeted revenues, grown annually at assumed rates
• Converted to “real” dollars to account for inflation
Baseline Revenue Forecast
Results
Total Available2011-2040:$27.04 Billion(in 2011 Dollars)
Fed-eral
High-way
$13.33 49%
State Highway
$5.53 20%
Fed-eral
Transit$1.01
4%
State Transit$0.04 0.1%
SIB$2.04
8%
SPLOST$4.24 16%
C-Fund$0.85
3%
Total Available Revenue
20112013
20152017
20192021
20232025
20272029
20312033
20352037
2039$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,600,000,000
$1,800,000,000
Total Available Revenue (Nominal Dollars) Total Available Revenue (Real Dollars)
24% Reduction in Buying Power
QUESTIONS
Developing and Evaluating Modal Scenarios – Status Update
Don Vary
Modal Scenarios
• Develop different allocations of long-range plan transportation revenue – Revenue levels, investment types
• Evaluate according to quantitative and qualitative criteria
• Develop implementation strategies
Inputs
• Uses plan outputs– Vision, goals, objectives– Plan performance measures– Needs, gap– Baseline revenue forecast
• …And creates new inputs– Allocate fixed revenue levels into investment
categories– Measures of effectiveness
SCMTP Scenarios
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
Interstate OtherFederal-aid
Local Passengerrail/bus
Freight
Preservation/ModernizationCapacity
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
Interstate OtherFederal-aid
Local Passengerrail/bus
Freight
Preservation/Modernization
Capacity
• About $14.3B of $27.04B in available revenues is dedicated to current programs
• Remainder ($12.7B) treated as discretionaryTotal Needs by Category ($billions) Program Dedications by Category ($billions)
SCMTP Scenario Themes
1. Keep the Highway Core (Baseline) – emphasis on primary (core) system
– Well maintained, congestion addressed, high access to key areas and within cities
2. Multi-modal Core System
– Maintain and expand highway, transit, rail and non-motorized system linking cities and towns
SCMTP Scenario Themes
3. Serve the Drivers – investments to spur business attraction and retention– Ports, distribution facilities, airports, leisure destinations
4. Right Size System– What size system will future revenue support?
Scenarios – Themes
Baseline -Keep the Core
Serve the Drivers
Multimodal Core System
Right Size System
Mobility & System Reliability
Safety
Infrastructure Condition
Economic & Community Vitality
Environmental
Equity
Scenario Fulfillment of Full Capacity Needs
Baseline Multimodal Drivers Right-Size
Interstate Low+ Low Low Low+Other Federal-aid Moderate+ Moderate Moderate Moderate+
Local Low Low Low LowPassenger Rail/Bus Low Moderate
Low-Moderate Low
Freight Rail Low LowLow-
Moderate Low
Scenario Fulfillment of Full Modernization and Preservation Needs
Baseline Multimodal Drivers Right-Size
Interstate Moderate+ Moderate+ Moderate ModerateOther Federal-aid
Low-Moderate+
Low-Moderate+
Low-Moderate
Low-Moderate
Local High High High HighPassenger Rail/Bus
Low-Moderate
Low-Moderate+
Low-Moderate+
Low-Moderate
Freight Rail Low Low+ Low+ Low
Scenario Next Steps
• Analyze scenario performance according to goal areas
• Summarize trade-offs and policy implementation implications
Measures of Effectiveness
• Estimated pavement and bridge condition
• Estimated travel time and vehicle operating costs
• User costs
• Goal needs met based on funding
QUESTIONS
WEBSITEKaren Hadley
Live Website
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONCorinne Donahue
Big Picture
• “Blueprint for the Future”
• Develop statewide short & long – range plans
• Updating Regional transit & coordination plans
• Multimodal options/partnerships
Public Transportation Overview
Transit Tasks
Update 10 Regional Transit Plans
Update Statewide Public Transportation Plan, including Human Services Transportation
Coordination
Prepare Transit Section of the SC
MTP
What have we completed?
• Draft Regional Transit & Coordination Plans– 10 Regions
• Draft Statewide Public Transportation & Coordination Plan– Going through internal review now
Regional Transit & Coordination Plans
• Existing Transit Service w/in the region
• Demographic Profile• Updated Coordination Data• Future Transit Needs/Demand• Constrained Financial Plan
Regional Transit & Coordination Report
• Data Resources:– Transit provider data supplied to SCDOT annually for the
OpStats report– Previous Regional Transit Plans– Transit provider Needs Survey, Dec. 2012– SCDOT Transit Trends Report, FY2007-2011– Locally adopted plans
• Existing transit ridership– Statewide Public Transit FY2011
• 11.5M one-way trips• 416,000 Medicaid trips• 7,400 Alternate Programs (vanpool, etc.)
Ridership by Region
Appalach
ian BCD
Catawba
Centra
l Midlan
ds
Low Country
Lower Sa
vannah
Pee Dee
Santee
Upper Sa
vannah
Waccam
aw -
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
SC Statewide Ridership by Region
SC Statewide Ridership Trends
2009 2010 20110
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
SC Statewide - Public Transportation Ridership
Public Transportation
Statewide - Updated Human Services Coordination Plan
Information
• Data resources– Review of 2008 Human Services
Coordination Plans– COG outreach/survey – Winter 2013– Variety of responses
• State of Coordination• Coordination Barriers/Needs• Strategies/Actions
Overall Coordination Summary
• Since previous 2008 plan:– Some regions, forging ahead• Taking advantage of mobility manager options• Coordination trip sharing and transfers at
informal locations• Continuation of coordination meetings
– Some regions, little change– Some regions highly affected by statewide
Medicaid brokerage system
Coordination Needs Summary
• Transportation to/from rural areas – – limited service
• hours, service area, days, etc.
• Access to/from jobs• Regional fare structure• Increasing needs for elderly population• Need human service providers to be interested in
coordination• Understanding of all funds to assist in paying for
coordinated trips• Support from local community/elected officials for public
transit and for human services transportation
Coordination Strategies Summary
• Utilize Mobility Managers• Develop trip cost sharing• Continue coordination meetings w/ all transit
providers• Continue Medicaid coordination• Pursue & coordinate technology implementation
to ensure maximum efficiencies in trip planning and scheduling
• Continue to pursue sustainable local funding• Look beyond regional boundaries for trip
coordination
Vision & Goals
• Comprehensive Vision/Goals/Measures for Public Transportation– State, region– SCDOT Strategic Plan
• Significance– Focus at Federal level on performance levels– Examples:
• Category: Mobility/System Reliability:– Percent of transit needs met
• Category: Infrastructure Condition:– Percent of active duty vehicles past designated useful life
Transit Needs
• Data Resources:– Transit provider Needs Survey, Dec. 2012– Previous Regional Transit Plans– Locally adopted plans
• Needs Defined:– Operating Costs– Capital Costs
• Scenarios– Maintain Existing Services– Enhanced Services
Transit Demand
• 2 Methodologies used to measure demand in 2008 Plan– Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment Method
(APTNA)– Mobility Gap Method
• Methodologies based upon:– Demographic data– Trip rates
• 2008 Plan Adjusted Demand, based upon local feed back from regions– 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040
• Demand compared to existing transit ridership
Transit Demand – Regional Summary
Public Transit Demand
Public Transportation Outreach
• Kick-off Meeting – June 2012• SC Interagency Transportation Coordination Council
Meeting – September 2012• Transit Agency outreach – December 2012 via email• SC Councils of Government Transit Planner
Workshop – February 2013• SC Council of Government Transit Planner Human
Services Outreach – Feb 2013• Public Transportation Opinion Survey – Survey
Monkey – Mar 2013• Draft Regional Transit & Coordination Plans –
Reviewed by SCDOT/COGs – Fall 2013
Next Steps
• SCDOT Consolidating State and COG Comments for Regional Transit & Coordination Plans
• Draft Statewide Public Transportation & Coordination Plan– SCDOT Review– Local Stakeholders Review
QUESTIONS & ANSWERSCorinne Donahue
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIANJack Cebe
Outline:• Legislature Best Practices• Policy Review• Design Review• Funding Best Practices• Program Best Practices• Bike/Ped GIS Database
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
SC Policy and Design Documents Reviewed:
– SC Transportation Commission Resolution (SC Complete Streets
Resolution) (2003)
– SC Highway Design Manual (2003)
– SC Highway Design Manual Draft Chapter 11 Special Design
Elements: Bicycle Accommodations (2013)
– SCDOT Access & Roadside Management Standards (ARMS, 2008)
– SCDOT Engineering Directive Memorandum 22 and 53:
Considerations for Bicycle Facilities and Installation of
Longitudinal Rumble Strips
– SCDOT Traffic Engineering Guideline TG 8, TG 24 and TG 26
– SCDOT Traffic Calming Guidelines (2006)
– SCDOT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
(2009)
– Signal Design Guidelines (2009)
– SCDOT Standard Drawings
– SCDOT Road Map to Safety (2007)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
National Best Practice Sources:
– Many Peer States Including: Wisconsin, Virginia,
Georgia and North Carolina
– National Pedestrian Facility Design Resources (FHWA,
AASHTO, US Access Board)
– National Bicycle Facility Design Resources (FHWA,
AASHTO, NACTO)
– National Complete Streets, Context Sensitive
Solutions, and Smart Growth Resources (NCHRP, ITE,
Smart Growth America)
Reston, VA – Lawyers Road Before
After Road Diet
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
Legislature Best Practices Highlights
– Statewide texting while driving ban– Vehicles yield/stop for pedestrians in crosswalk
law– Legislative clarification on expected movements
at pedestrian crossings with or without signals– 3’ or 4’ safe passing distance law– Brake on bicycle law performance requirements– Lamps on bicycles law– Two-stage left-hand turn for bicyclists – Bicyclists take the lane law
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
Design/Policy Review Positives
– Recently improved bicycle and pedestrian guidance
– Support for bicycle and pedestrian considerations
in project planning and development
– Support for bicycle and pedestrian considerations
in several different manuals and guidelines
– Department supported traffic calming guidelines
– Support for Bicycle and Pedestrian safety and
education improvements in the 2007 Road Map to
Safety
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
Review of SCDOT Design Elements that Affect Bicyclists and Pedestrians Included:• Walkways• Un-signalized Crossings• Crossing Beacons for use at midblock or
unsignalized crosswalks• Signalized Intersections• General Roadway Design• Access Management• Transit Stop Considerations• Traffic Calming• Other
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon – Columbia, SC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
FHWA MUTCD (2009)
AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)
ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach (2010)
SCDOT Traffic Calming Guidelines
Pedestrian Focused Treatments Walkways Buffered sidewalks n/a Included Included Included
Pedestrian Scale Lighting n/a Included Included n/aStreet trees n/a Included Included n/aADA Curb Ramps Approved Included Included Included
Shoulders for Pedestrian Travel Approved Included n/a n/aMulti-Use Paths Approved Included n/a n/a"Sidepaths" Compliant Included n/a n/a
Design/Policy Review Highlights:(excerpt from Comprehensive Design Review Table)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
Design/Policy Review Highlights– Integrate bicycle and pedestrian considerations throughout roadway policy and design
guidance
– Provide additional contextual sensitivity (urban vs. rural)
– Ensure policies and guidelines are concurrent with nationally accepted best practices and
guidelines (ie. AASHTO, NACTO, ITE)
– Add additional guidance and/or increase guidance flexibility:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
• shoulders and rumble strips
• facility types and selection guidelines
• context sensitivity
• access management
• typical sections
• flexibility in travel lane width
• ADA guidelines
• signalization
• project prioritization
• maintenance minimum standards
• traffic calming guidelines
SC Funding Review Positives– Since 1992, over half of TE funds have been spent on pedestrian
and bicycle improvement projects.
– $14 million dollars has been spent on sidewalk improvements
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funds since 2009.
– Around $6 million was spent on sidewalk improvements in 2011
through TE.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
National Funding Best Practices– A dedicated funding source for bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be based on percent
transportation mode share, publicly expressed need and jurisdiction expressed need.– Several states supplement bicycle and pedestrian program funds with Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds as necessary to meet funding requirements of the State bicycle and pedestrian funding goals.
– Most states make 100 percent of Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) (MAP-21) funds available for eligible activities. These funds should not be redirected to other programs.
– Assign Highway Safety Improvement Program funding proportionately to the percentage of fatal and serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
– Some States “Flex” other non-federal funding sources, or develop funding assistance programs, to assure that low income communities who are unable to achieve the required 20 percent match for TAP funds are able to access these funds.
– Seek innovative funding opportunities such as: public-private partnerships, regional projects, and multi-agency and multi-objective collaboration.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
National Program Best Practices from Peer StatesEducation Examples
- Inter and Intra-departmental Workshops and Webinars
- Bicycle Law Enforcement Education for Police
- Complete Streets Workshops
Encouragement Examples
- Pedestrian and Bicycle Commuter Incentive Programs
- Safe Routes to School Program
- National Bike Month and Walk and Bike to School Day Support/Participation
Enforcement Examples
- Pedestrian and Bicycle Law Manuals and Guidebooks
- School Crossing Guard Training Manual
- Safety Messaging and Enforcement Programs
Bicycle and Pedestrian Review
Bike/Ped GIS Database
• Status of Database data collected– 28 counties / 10 COGs collected– Over 1500 miles of State Touring Routes
Proposed Bikeways on State and Local Roads by COG SCDOT Road Local RoadAppalachian 3077 mi 430 miBerkeley-Dorchester-Charleston 16 mi 0 miCatawba 514 mi 35 miCentral Midlands 835 mi 70 miLow Country 99 mi 2 miLower Savannah 1520 mi 24 miPee Dee 110 mi 6 miSantee-Lynches 161 mi 1 miUpper Savannah 11 mi 0 miWaccamaw 411 mi 184 miGrand Total 6754 mi 752 mi
Existing Bikeways on State and Local Roads by COG SCDOT
Road Local RoadAppalachian 207 mi 39 miBerkeley-Dorchester-Charleston 144 mi 33 miCatawba 292 mi 11 miCentral Midlands 35 mi 4 miLow Country 181 mi 19 miLower Savannah 42 mi 2 miPee Dee 151 mi 6 miSantee-Lynches 6 mi 0 miWaccamaw 75 mi 18 miGrand Total 1133 mi 132 mi
Bike/Ped GIS Database
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Mark Pleasant, SCDOTPleasantMD@dot.state.sc.us803-737-1437
Jeff Carroll, CDM Smithcarrollja@cdmsmith.com803-251-2189
Project Website:
http://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/default.aspx