As of September 1, 2012, the University Transportation Center for Mobility (UTCM) is no longer an active center of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The archived UTCM website remains available here.

UTCM HomeConference Site MapContact Conference Webmaster

Conference on Performance Measures for Transportation and Livable Communities

SEPTEMBER 7-8, 2011 • AUSTIN, TEXAS

BREAKOUT SESSION 10:
State, MPO, and Local Examples

Click on the icon to view a PDF of the slide presentation.

Presiding

SAM SESKIN, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

	Go Ohio System Designation – Ohio Futures Statewide Plan ELIZABETH SANFORD, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
	Transportation Outlook 2040 TOM GEREND, Mid-America Regional Council
	Case Studies in Livability KEVIN TILBURY, Gresham, Smith and Partners
	Data Points for Measuring Livability in the Austin Area BETTY VOIGHTS, Capital Area Council of Governments, Austin, Texas

---

Go Ohio System Designation – Ohio Futures Statewide Plan

ELIZABETH SANFORD, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Slides [PDF , 1.0M]

Elizabeth Sanford discussed the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Go Ohio future statewide plan.  She described the plan strategies, analysis framework, and the livability analysis.  Elizabeth covered the following topics in her presentation.

• Go Ohio focuses on increasing economic growth and prosperity in the state.  It addresses economy-focused, data-driven strategies for transportation investments.  The four strategies are to increase Ohio’s competiveness, to connect transportation system investments to targeted industries, to link land use and transportation decision making, and to advance a green economy.
• The first strategy is to increase Ohio’s economic competiveness.  The Ohio gross state product (GSP) experienced steady growth from 1990 to 2008.  The state’s share of the U.S. economic declined from 2003 to 2008, however.
• The second strategy is to connect transportation investment to targeted industries.  This strategy realizes that the transportation network is the glue that binds the Ohio economy together.  The transportation network allows people to reach their workplaces, corporations to receive supplies and ship products, and visitors to reach attractions.  It also allows students to attend college, businesses to have face-to-face meetings, and restaurants and stores to draw customers.
• The third strategy is to link land use and transportation decision making.  This strategy realizes that transportation investments can be a tool for ensuring future economic development, while minimizing the cost of growth.  Ohio’s population and developed land have both increased over the past 30 years.  The person per developed acre has declined, however, indicating less efficient and sustainable development patterns.
• The fourth strategy is to advance a green economy.  Transportation options provide redundancy, reduce demand on all modes, and allow for efficiencies to be incorporated into the system, which leads to congestion reduction, air quality improvements, and potential reductions in VMT.  Encouraging modal diversity can be a tool for ensuring economic development while minimizing environmental impacts.
• The plan provides a foundation through goals and objectives for the analysis framework.  Four strategies were explored in the analysis.  The first strategy is to develop efficient, advanced, high-value transportation solutions that attract and grow business in Ohio.  The second strategy is to identify high priority transportation needs that have the potential to dramatically grow business and elevate Ohio’s position as a national transportation leader.  The third strategy is to ensure the safe mobility of the state’s residents, support the long-term vitality of communities, and incorporate green principles while improving its transportation assets.  The fourth strategy is to identify the most strategic elements of the state’s transportation system and specific performance measures that will improve accountability regarding future investments.
• The Go Ohio overarching analyses focuses on a general economic analysis, a targeted industry goods movement analysis, a targeted industry people movement analysis, and a livability analysis.  The overarching analysis components include analytic strategies, targeted industries, and all industries.  For example, one analytical strategy is to focus on goods movement.  Examining freight supply chains for target industries is one approach in this strategy.  Examining the factors of each county to indicate economic development readiness is a target for all industries.  The livability analysis is used as an integrated facet of overarching analysis, not a stand-alone analysis.  The general economic analysis focusses on transportation, labor, business climate, livability, utility infrastructure and costs, and land and buildings.  All of these elements focus on the business attraction criteria.
• The livability analysis focuses on the five building blocks of economic and social vitality, housing choice, transportation choice, the environment, and safety and security.  The livability analysis approach includes eight steps.  These steps include identifying a range of factors that contributes to each building block, refining factors to a manageable set of indicators that can be measured statewide, and determining whether statewide datasets are available to support these indicators.  Other steps are developing individual methodologies to measure each indicator, collecting and synthesizing data, and analyzing data and evaluating findings.  Additional steps are aggregating the individual indicators under each building block into a single metric for the building block and developing a livability index that weighs the relative contributions of each indicator to livability.
• The livability indices for economic and social vitality include the jobs-housing balance, vacancy rates, community growth or decline, population per square mile, and retail, dining, and related establishment density.  Housing choice indices are dwelling unit-to-households ratio, housing units by value, and housing affordability index.  Transportation choice indices include transit availability, relative transit accessibility, street grid density, and bicycle level of service (LOS).  Environment indices are air quality, water quality, and park space.  Safety and security indices are crashes on the road network and a modified index of crime per capita per county.
• A wide range of data was used in the livability analysis.  Examples of these sources include the U.S. Census, and ACS, ODOT, and the Ohio Department of Public Safety.  Transit availability, road density, and other data were presented graphically using GIS and other tools.
• Some lessons were learned through the experience in the transportation and livability analysis.  A basic tension exists between two competing issues – geographic scale and data availability.  From a geographic scale perspective, the study had a statewide focus, while livability is more naturally defined at a community or a neighborhood level.  From a data availability perspective, most of the indicators are calculated for census tracts to allow for measurement at the neighborhood level, where livability is naturally experienced, while also allowing for clearly defined statewide roll-ups.  Another lesson is the need for creative approaches.  Integrated planning using transportation and livability as components of overarching analysis is needed, as are a representative set of indicators.

[ Top ]

Transportation Outlook 2040

TOM GEREND, Mid-America Regional Council

Slides [PDF , 990K]

Tom Gerend discussed the development process and plan structure for the Transportation Outlook 2040, the long-range transportation plan at the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) in the Kansas City metropolitan area.  He described the performance measurement elements in the plan, the implementation process, and the feedback process.  Tom covered the following topics in his presentation.

• The plan was developed over a two-year period and adopted by the MARC Board in June, 2010.  There was extensive public input throughout the development process.  A segmented approval process was used.  The policy framework was approved first, followed by the financial assumptions and the evaluation framework.  The projects and measures were approved last.
• The policy framework components included the regional vision statement and the regional policy goals.  The vision statement and goals served as the structure and foundation for the plan’s content development, the project evaluation and prioritization, and the identification of performance measures.
• There are nine policy goals in Transportation Outlook 2040.  Five of these goals – system performance, system condition, safety and security, vital economy, and accessibility – were included in previous plans.  Four of the goals – place-making, healthy living, climate change and energy use, and the environment are new.
• The system performance goal focuses on managing the system to achieve reliable and efficient performance.  The accessibility goal is to maximize mobility and access to opportunities for all area residents.  The public health goal is to facilitate healthy, active living.  The climate change and energy use goal focuses on decreasing the use of fossil fuels through reduced travel demand, technology advancements, and transition to renewable energy.  The performance measurement element used the policy goals for measurement reporting.  Feedback was solicited on potential measures to help define the appropriate measures and track progress.  All available existing data sources were screened for reliability and continuous availability.
• The Performance Measures Progress Report tracks progress toward meeting the plan goals, objectives, and performance measures.  Key information and trends are highlighted in the report and presented graphically.
• The 2011 Performance Measures Progress Report provides an annual check-up on progress toward reaching the region’s transportation goals.  Overall, the economic vitality, climate change and energy use, environment, public health, safety and security, system condition, and system performance goals reflect positive trends.  The accessibility and place-making goals reflect negative trends.
• The level of transit service as measured by the ridership and vehicle revenue hours (VRH) is one metric for the accessibility goal.  The trends indicated a decline in ridership and VRH from 2008 to 2009, after annual increases from 2004 to 2008.  Daily VMT is traced for measuring the climate change and energy use goal.  Both daily VMT and daily VMT per capita declined from 2007 to 2008.
• The percent of population within one-half mile of fixed route transit service represents one measure of the level of transit service for the accessibility goal.  Based on 2000 and 2010 Census data, the percentage of population within one-half mile of a transit route declined from 56 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2010, while the percentage within one-half mile of a transit stop declined from 43 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2010.
• The portion of MetroGreen® network completed is tracked for measuring progress toward meeting the environment goal.  There has been a steady increase in the percentage of the MetroGreen® network completed from 2002 to 2010.  In 2002, approximately 7 percent of the network was completed.  By 2010, approximately 20 percent had been completed.
• The balance between modes of transportation is measures to assess multimodal options for the place-making goal.  The use of non-drive alone modes has increased from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 17.5 percent in 2009, with variations by year.
• The policy framework and related performance measures served as a project evaluation and prioritization tool for the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the CMAQ Program, and the TE Program projects.  The annual performance measurement report was developed to track regular progress, to report to policy makers, and to serve as a feedback loop for assessing plan objectives and strategies.
• Overall, the annual performance report indicates that the majority of measures are trending in the preferred direction.  The challenging areas relate to accessibility and place-making including coordinating growth and development.  The performance measures and annual reports are intended to help inform discussion regarding strategies and priorities.  The report is available at: www.marc.org/2040.
• A few lessons learned can be identified based on the experience to-date with developing, using, and monitoring performance measures at MARC.  First, as could be expected, there are gaps in the data needed to assess some of the measures.  Second, there is local versus regional sensitivity related to some measures.  Third, MARC did not set targets as it appeared doing so would be contentious.  Finally, the experience at MARC supports the need to build on a strong foundation.

[ Top ]

Case Studies in Livability

KEVIN TILBURY, Gresham, Smith and Partners

Slides [PDF , 7.1M]

Kevin Tilbury described examples of developing and applying livability goals, objectives, and performance measures.  He described the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Livable Community Initiative, the Knoxville Regional Plan for Livable Communities, and the Central Hamilton County Scenario Planning Study.  Kevin covered the following topics in his presentation.

• The FDOT Livable Communities Initiative focused on enhancing the street environment.  The SR 944/NW 54th Street Livable Corridor Study was conducted as part of the initiative.  The project developed livability goals and mobility expectations for the corridor.  Livability goals included creating an attractive and viable corridor that supports the economic development and revitalization of NW 54th Street and the Brownsville community; creating a safe, walkable corridor for all residents and visitors; and maintaining and preserving the corridor’s unique history, traditions, and resources.
• Measures were identified for each of these goals.  The mobility expectations were to provide adequate safety and mobility in the corridor and to provide a balance of transportation modes.  Measures for providing mobility and safety included vehicular LOS, delay in the corridor, and minimization of turn movement conflicts and other safety hazards.  Measures for balanced transportation modes included the presence of adequate facilities for all modes in the corridor, elimination of barriers to bicycling and walking in the corridor, and bicycle LOS, pedestrian LOS, and transit LOS.
• The livability goals, mobility expectations, and measures were defined with community input obtained through workshops and meetings.  They represent a mix of qualitative and quantitative measures.  Examples of evaluation factors included the opportunity for aesthetic features and enhancements to the roadway character, automobile access to businesses, pedestrian access to businesses, and the presence of safe, continuous pedestrian facilities.  These and other factors were used to evaluate maintaining the current situation and different future alternatives.
• The EPA Draft Guidebook for Sustainable Community Performance Measurement provides a good source of information.  It includes performance measures appropriate for use in different types of areas and settings.
• The Knoxville Regional Plan for Livable Communities includes a number of performance measures.  Examples of these performance measures include transit trips per capita, jobs well-served by transit, and residential units near employment centers.  Other measures are workers commuting by transit, bicycle, or foot and new homes built in areas well-served by transit or new homes built near employment centers.  Additional measures are affordable homes and rental units well-served by transit or near employment centers, household transportation costs, and low income households within a 30-minute transit commute or within a 20-minute driving commute of a major employment center.
• The Central Hamilton County Scenario Planning Study provides an example of using performance measures in practice.  The project examined the impact on the region of continuing 30 years of the current growth trends.  A number of elements were examined and modeled for three different future scenarios.  These scenarios were following current growth trends, following the existing comprehensive and area plans, and following alternative growth trends.  Residential units near employment and activity centers, new schools and parks, and homes within walking distance of retail, services, and parks were estimated and examined for each of the three scenarios.  The total dwelling units with bicycle potential, the total dwelling units with transit potential, and the minimum average distance to major attractors were also examined.
• The growth impacts on transportation were also examined.  For example, lane miles by roadway character and operating speed were analyzed for the three scenarios.  Slower travel speeds and more strip development along corridors occurred with the current trends scenario.
• In summary, livability has both qualitative as well as quantitative attributes.  As a result, both qualitative and quantitative performance measures are needed.  Performance measures are still an emerging practice.  A number of robust tools are available that can be used to analyze the impacts of different measures and different future scenarios.  These tools allow for creative applications and analysis to address the multi-faceted nature of livability.

[ Top ]

Data Points for Measuring Livability in the Austin Area

BETTY VOIGHTS, Capital Area Council of Governments, Austin, Texas

Slides [PDF , 286K]

Betty Voights discussed livability initiatives underway at CAPCOG.  She described the Datapoints Newsletter, projected growth trends in the region, and the Sustainable Places project.  Betty covered the following topics in her presentation.

• The Datapoints Newsletter is published monthly by CAPCOG.  It provides analysis of trends in the region.  Data on aging, migration patterns, and job growth are presented.  Information on commuting by county, economic trends and talent, and access to education is also documented.  The Austin capital area grew from 1.3 million residents in 2000 to more than 1.8 million residents in 2010, an increase of 36 percent.  Approximately 71 percent of this growth occurred in cities, while 29 percent occurred in unincorporated areas of the region.
• Approximately 1.5 million new residents are projected in the region by 2035.  This projection means an average of 63,000 new residents annually, or the equivalent of adding another city of San Marcos every year for the next 25 years. The forecasts also indicate that the region will gain 645,103 more housing units and 989,022 more vehicles by 2035.
• The regional labor shed, including the number of workers leaving their home county for work, is monitored and reported in the Datapoints Newsletter.  Only Travis County, which includes the city of Austin, has more workers remaining within the county than leaving for work.  Approximately 73 percent of residents of Travis County also work in the county.  Between 56 percent and 86 percent of workers in the other nine counties in the region work in another county.
• Housing in the region is becoming more expensive and less affordable for the average family.  Housing affordability in the major cities in the region in 2000, as measured by the ratio of median household income to median home value, was in the affordable range.  The ratio in two communities – Austin and San Marcos – moved into the unaffordable range in the 2007-2009 time period.
• Driving alone continues to be the most popular work travel mode, with approximately 75 percent of workers indicating they drive alone.  Carpooling accounts for approximately 12 percent of work trips.  Approximately 5 percent of the work force telecommutes on a regular basis, almost 3 percent use public transit, and 4 percent use other modes, including walking, biking, and riding a motorcycle.
• Many of these trends are counter to the ideas of livable communities.  The region continues to grow and the growth rate is constant for unincorporated areas.  A majority of workers travel to jobs in another county.  Housing continues to be less affordable and single-occupant vehicles continue to be the primary commute choice.
• The Sustainable Places project is examining the opportunity to blend data with education and change the development patterns in the region.  Activity centers in the CAMPO 2035 plan provide a foundation for focusing some growth into specific geographic areas.
• The Sustainable Places project focuses on activity centers as demonstration sites.  A site in each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) county will be selected.  It is anticipated that a mix of small and large cities will be included in the project.  The cities will be selected to align planning with Envision Central Texas principles.  A formal process focused on community commitment and the likelihood of implementation will be used to select projects.  An analytic tool using super computers will be developed to support planning in the area.  Examples of possible measures included in the tool are the proximity of transit to employment centers, the availability of housing choices, the cost of all services to residential users, mobility options impact on post-secondary education, and the ROI on public sector investment in infrastructure.

[ Top ]

The State of TexasTexas Homeland Security Statewide Search (TRAIL)Statutorily Required ReportsTTI Rules and Procedures

Copyright Statement and Legal Notices

Please send comments, suggestions, and queries about this web site to the UTCM Webmaster.

University Transportation Center for Mobility™
Texas Transportation Institute · Texas A&M University System · 3135 TAMU · College Station, Texas 77843-3135
ph. (979) 845-2538 · fax (979) 845-9761