Utilizing GIS Models in Prioritizing and Selecting Transportation Projects

Transcription

1 Utilizing GIS Models in Prioritizing and Selecting Transportation Projects GIS-T Conference Raleigh, NC April 7, 2016 Tyler Meyer, AICP Tram Truong, GISP

2 Outline Case Studies: 1. MPO project selection for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) 2. Sidewalk project prioritization

3 Case Study 1: Transportation Alternatives Program TAP program successor to Transportation Enhancements TAP program includes funding suballocated to 200,000+ UZA MPOs TAP requires a call for projects & competitive selection process Process subject to FHWA review & approval; requires public input FAST Act makes some changes

4 TAP Rules & Eligibility

5 MPO Narrowed Project Eligibility MPO determined to consider 3 project types: 1. Bicycle Infrastructure 2. Pedestrian Infrastructure 3. Intersection Improvement

6 91 Sidewalk Projects 10 Trail Projects 234 Intersections

7 GIS Model

8 1. Land Use Connectivity Residential Area Employment/ Retail Center School Park or Recreation Center

9 1. Land Use Connectivity 8 points Network Analyst Pedestrian projects: 8 points ½ mile: 2 points 1 mile: 1 point Bicycle projects: 1 mile: 2 points 1 ½ mile: 1 point Intersection projects: ½ mile: 2 points 1 mile: 1 point

10 2. Transportation System Connectivity 1. Connect to transit service (2 Points) 2. Connect to other transportation modes and/or facilities (3 Points) 3. Connect to existing facility and fill a gap (2 Points) 4. Is the project in an area underserved by bicycle & pedestrian infrastructure? (3 Points) 5. Extend key parts of the regional greenway system (Bicentennial, Piedmont, A&Y, Downtown Greenway, Mountains to Sea Trail) (4 Points)

11 2.1 Transportation System Connectivity Transit Connection 2 points Network Analyst Pedestrian projects: ¼ mile: 2 points 2 points ½ mile: 1 point Bicycle projects: ½ mile: 2 points 1 mile: 1 point Intersection projects: ¼ mile: 2 points ½ mile: 1 point

12 2.2 Transportation System Connectivity In an area underserved Bike/Ped facility 3 points % of existing sidewalk over total length of sidewalk <25%: 3 points 24.4% 3 points >= 25 & <50%: 2 points >=50% & <75%: 1 point >=75%: 0 point

13 2.3 Transportation System Connectivity Connect to other transportation modes/ facilities 2 points Connect to 1 of these facilities: Bus stop 2 points Bike facility Sidewalk

14 2.4 Transportation System Connectivity Fill a gap 3 points Connect to same facility 3 points

15 2.5 Transportation System Connectivity Extend key trails 4 points Bicentennial Piedmont A&Y Downtown Greenway Mountains to Sea Trail

16 3. Safety & Mobility 1. Safety problem (3 Points) 2. Barrier to mobility (2 Points) 3. Improve mobility for disadvantaged populations (2 Points)

17 3.1 Safety & Mobility Safety problem 3 points Bike/ pedestrian crash: 3 points Other safety issues (crossing, light, 3 points etc.): 2 points

18 3.2 Safety & Mobility- Barrier to Mobility 2 point Fill a gap: 1 point % worker with no vehicle to work (over total worker in a census tract) >2.88%: 1 point Fill a gap: 1 point 3.49%: 1 point Total: 2 points

19 3.3 Safety & Mobility- Household Poverty 2 points % of household poverty: >= 26.44%: 2 points 14.62% 26.44%: 1 point <14.62%: 0 point 18.38%% 1 point

20 4. Project Readiness & Viability Meet funds obligation requirements in the funding availability timeframe (4 points) Part of an adopted plan (2 points) Local government support (2 points) Community/ public support (2 points) Document source for the required 20% match (2 points) ROW acquisition status (2 points)

21 GIS Model

22 91 Sidewalk Projects 10 Trail Projects

23 234 intersections

24 Results

25 Project: Greensboro Pedestrian Signals Description: Install or upgrade the pedestrian signals Cost: $350,000 Total Score: 38 Current Funding: None Proposed Funding: TAP

26 Project 21: Phillips Ave Description: Where none exists between Summit Ave and Huffine Mill Rd Cost: $330,000 Total Score: 34 Land Use Connect 8 Percent of Existed Infrastructure 18.28% Disadvantaged Score 1 Match 2 Transit Connect Mode Type Connect Mode Connect Score Same Mode Connect Score 2 Infrastructure Score 3 Funds Obligation Score Sidewalk Trail Connect 0 Plan 2 2 Safety 3 3 Barrier 2 Government Support Community Support 4 2 ROW acquired Score Current Funding Proposed Funding 0 Length (ft) 0 CMAQ TAP 5,150.34

27 Project 65: Aycock / Walker Intersection Description: Intersection improvement at Aycock Street and Walker Avenue Cost: $173, Total Score: 33 Land Use Connect 8 Percent of Existed Infrastructure 71.00% Disadvantaged Score 2 Match 2 Transit Connect Mode Type Connect Mode Connect Score Same Mode Connect Score 2 Infrastructure Score 1 Funds Obligation Score Sidewalk Trail Connect 0 Plan 2 2 Safety 3 3 Barrier 2 Government Support Community Support 0 2 ROW acquired Score Current Funding Proposed Funding 2 Length (ft) 2 None TAP

28 Aycock Corridor & Intersection Project scope expanded following USDOT Safety Assessment Current Cost Estimate: $850,000

29 Case Study 1 Conclusions Automated GIS evaluation was useful Our attention to detail and testing during evaluation specification phase paid off GIS model produced valid results Top scoring projects realistically reflect top needs

30 Case Study 2: Prioritizing Sidewalk Sidewalk construction is an important local priority Currently miles of sidewalk in Greensboro miles of sidewalk added since miles of those miles built by road projects & 45 miles by independent sidewalk projects miles currently under design or construction

31 Manual Prioritization Methodology Staff developed a manual prioritization method based on Literature review Field experience City council guidance Data Roadway type, volume, speed Land use multifamily, commercial, school, park and recreation center Demand transit stop, path worn Connectivity filling gap Distribution across city

32 Manual Method Sidewalk Projects

33 Context for the GIS Model Input Data Input Criteria Scoring Prioritized Recommendation Land Use Connection Score Stakeholder Input Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Planners and managers review Selecting road segments with sidewalk needs Transit User Connectivity Socioeconomic Safety Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Pedestrian Crash Score Total Score Prioritizing road segments with sidewalk needs using geographic equity into Tiers. Tier 1 has the highest score range and Tier 4 has the lowest score range. Tier 1: Short Term Tier 2: Middle Term Tier 3: Long Term Tier 4: Long Term (After Tier 3) Field data collection to collect current sidewalk presence and condition Street Classification Street Classification Score

34 Introduction Introduce 2-step sidewalk prioritization: Step 1: Address the needs Step 2: Geographic equity adjustment Validation: Compare results of Step 1 & Step 2 with: Test 1: Ratio of max and min of % sidewalk mileage by district Test 2: Manual planned sidewalk projects

35 Input Data Input Criteria Scoring Prioritized Recommendation Land Use Connection Score Stakeholder Input Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Planners and managers review Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Prioritizing road segments with sidewalk needs using geographic equity into Tiers. Connectivity Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Total Score Tier 1 has the highest score range and Tier 4 has the lowest score range. Selecting road segments with sidewalk needs Socioeconomic Safety Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Pedestrian Crash Score Tier 1: Short Term Tier 2: Middle Term Tier 3: Long Term Tier 4: Long Term (After Tier 3) Field data collection to collect current sidewalk presence and condition Street Classification Street Classification Score

36 Methodology Step 1: Needs-based criteriacriteria Scoring Prioritized Step Scoring 2: Geographic Recommendation equity adjustment Land Use Connection Score Land Use Mixed Land Use Index Score Transit User Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Transit Connection Score Prioritizing road segments with sidewalk needs using geographic equity into Tiers. Connectivity Socioeconomic Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Total Score Total Score Tier 1 has the highest score range and Tier 4 has the lowest score range. Tier 1: Short Term Tier 2: Middle Term Safety Pedestrian Crash Score Tier 3: Long Term Tier 4: Long Term (After Tier 3) Street Classification Street Classification Score

37 Land Use Transit User Land Use Connection Score Mixed Land Use Index Score Top 50 Bus Stops by Ridership Score Step 1: Needs-based criteria Transit Connection Score Connectivity Socioeconomic Trail Connection Score Sidewalk Gap Score Worker With No Vehicle Score Household Poverty Score Total Score Tier 1: points Tier 2: points Tier 3: points Tier 4: 9 16 points Safety Pedestrian Crash Score Street Classification Street Classification Score

38

39 Test 1: Percentage of Sidewalk mileage overall Roadway mileage by Tier by District District Score District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Max/ Min Tier Tier Tier Tier Unrated

40

41 Test 2: Number of short term planned sidewalk construction projects by tier by district District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total % Tier % Tier % Tier % Tier % Unrated %

42 Methodology Step 2: Geographic Equity Adjustment Adjusted priorities based on geographic equity Identify most needed project by city council districts Ensure that projects are sufficiently distributed throughout the city Avoid funding conflicts Avoid spotty and unconnected sidewalk development

43

44 Validation Test 1 Percentage of Sidewalk mileage overall Roadway mileage by Tier by District Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Unrated District District District District District Max/ Mean Min

45

46 Validation Test 2 Number of short term planned sidewalk construction projects by tier by district Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Unrated District District District District District Total %

47 Case Study 2 Conclusion Introduce 2-step prioritization method Identify most needed projects in all five districts, minimize funding conflicts between the districts, and reduce spotty and unconnected sidewalk development throughout the city Meet an acceptable validation target: 85% of planned sidewalk projects are in tier 1

48 Publication Plan: 2015 Bicycle, Pedestrian, Trails & Greenway Plan Update - Greensboro MPO Paper: TRB Accounting for Geographic Equity in Prioritizing Sidewalks

49 Big Picture Conclusions GIS automation helps a lot to systematically implement conceptual evaluation schemes GIS models can identify high need locations that are reasonably consistent with manual methods Thinking through criteria and weights is the most important part validation is important GIS models can eliminate a good bit of the work required for manual methods for sidewalk prioritization Even so, some manual interpretations & field work will always be needed on the back end

50 THANK YOU! Contact: Tyler Meyer, AICP Tram Truong, GISP