1. NCHRP 20-05 Synthesis Topic 42-10 Extent of HCM Use in Planning Aaron Elias Richard Dowling January 22, 2012 Planning and Preliminary Engineering Subcommittee

2. Purpose of the Synthesis Survey how the HCM is used in planning Identify any shortfalls Recommend improvements Caveat: At the time of the survey (January/February 2010), survey participants were not familiar with the 2010 HCM

3. Survey Methodology Developed an online survey tool Identified survey subjects (DOTs, MPOs, and Local Gov.) Sent out link to online survey to survey subjects Compiled results Conducted follow-up interviews

4. Determining Survey Participants 35 individuals from 25 agencies were identified by the panel and contacted to participate 30 people from 18 agencies completed the survey (86%)

5. Responding Agencies Local Governments (3): Milwaukee, WI San Francisco, CA San Diego, CA Other (2) Federal Highway Administration Institute of Transportation Engineers (Transportation Planning Council)

6. Responding Agencies Metropolitan Planning Organizations (7) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC, San Francisco, CA) Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC, Atlanta, GA) North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG, Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX) Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG, Detroit, MI) Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study (BMTS, Binghamton, NY Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJ PDC, Charlottesville, VA) Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Organization (MTPO, Gainesville, FL)

7. Responding Agencies State Departments of Transportation (6) Ohio DOT Florida DOT Caltrans Oregon DOT Montana DOT Wyoming DOT

8. Web Based Survey Comprised of 12 questions Designed to take 15 minutes or less Questions were in the following areas: Background Overview of planning practices performed Overview of planning practices performed using the HCM Satisfaction in using the HCM for planning Challenges facing HCM use in planning Primary reasons to use the HCM Possible Improvements to the HCM

9. Background What type of agency do you work for? How would you rate your familiarity with the HCM

10. Planning Practices Performed with and without the HCM

11. Challenges Facing HCM Use

13. Primary Reasons to Use the HCM

15. Possible Improvements to the HCM

17. In-Depth Follow Up Interview Participants were called or emailed to resolve unclear responses Responses that were atypical were asked about for more clarification Each participant was asked the following two questions: What do you feel is specifically missing from the HCM in terms of capacity and LOS analysis in planning applications? Is there any other content in the HCM that you feel is missing that would make it more practical for planners?

18. Key Survey Findings Usage of the HCM for Planning 6% had NEVER used the HCM at all 13% had not used the HCM for short range planning 20% had not used the HCM for long range planning Satisfaction with the HCM for Planning 67% satisfied using the HCM for site impact studies Only 30% were satisfied using the HCM for ped/bike planning

19. Key Survey Findings Major Challenges Using the HCM in Planning 52% agreed the lack of HCM analysis techniques for advanced facility design (HOV/HOT) is a challenge A majority do not consider the data requirements or complexity to be a major challenge Top 5 Preferred Improvements HCM Planning Applications Guide (77%) Adding travel time reliability to the HCM (63%) Extend HCM to corridor/system analyses (63%) Integrate HCM with travel demand models (60%) Add system wide planning (MOEs) (60%)

20. Questions? Contact Information Richard Dowling Kittelson & Associates 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-1742 x120 rdowling@kittelson.com rdowling@kittelson.com Aaron Elias Kittelson & Associates 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 510-839-1742 x129 aelias@kittelson.com aelias@kittelson.com