1. November 30, 2012 Beverly Davis, AICP Ron Ratliff, AICP

3.  1900 – 1920s  Population migration to urban areas for better economic opportunities  Growth in urban mass transit – electric railways/streetcar  Primarily operated by electric utility companies  1917:  Over 1,000 private streetcar companies  1920s began the move to motor coaches 20 th Century Transportation

4.  1920s to 1930s  First federal highway system designated  US Department of Commerce: Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) to lead the program  Continuing increase in traffic resulted in the development of technical guidance and documents  Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices  AASHTO “Green Book”  Highway Capacity Manual 20 th Century Transportation

5.  1930s to 1940s  1934: First dedicated source of federal funding for non- construction  One and a half percent of annual federal highway funding  Planning surveys, mapping, engineering studies, required to be completed cooperatively between states and BPR  1944: Expanded federal program  Established primary and secondary systems and urban extensions  Federal funding levels at 45%, 30% and 25%  BPR recognized the need for specific urban planning  Advanced development of transportation study techniques 20 th Century Transportation

6.  1950s  Creation of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (1956)  Some MPO-like organizations created in major metro areas  Shifting emphasis on addressing urban mobility needs  Development of new techniques  Gravity model  6-step planning process 20 th Century Transportation 1.Data Collection 2.Forecasts 3.Goal Formulation 4.Network Identification 5.Alternatives Testing 6.Evaluation and Recommendations 1.Data Collection 2.Forecasts 3.Goal Formulation 4.Network Identification 5.Alternatives Testing 6.Evaluation and Recommendations

7.  1960s  1962 Federal Aid Highway Act required urban transportation planning as a condition of federal funding  1964: Creation of the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) to provide financial assistance and technical guidance  1965 - 1966  224 urbanized areas  Required the creation of MPOs  Established the 3-C process and identified planning factors  Created USDOT 20 th Century Transportation Transportation Facilities Economic Factors Land Use Travel Patterns Intermodal Facilities Traffic Control Financial Resources Population Social and Community Values

8.  1960s  Major focus on safety  1968: Traffic Operations Program to Improve Capacity and Safety (TOPICS)  Maximize Capacity  Address Congestion  Enhance Safety  Public involvement requirement  Consistency  Plans  Partners 20 th Century Transportation

9.  1970s  Dedicated funding  Transportation planning  UMTA projects  UMTA and FHWA issued joint regulations  Guidance for urban planning efforts  Required Long Range Plan  NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act  Transportation legislation  Increased local planning flexibility  Focused on energy conservation and environmental protection  HPMS 20 th Century Transportation

10.  1980s  Move to decentralize transportation from the federal level to state and local level  Dedicated funding source from increased user fees of five cents per gallon  Focused on the completion of the Interstate system  Maintenance 20 th Century Transportation

11.  1990s  ISTEA  Renaissance for MPOs  Implemented a fiscal constraint requirement in plans  Address land use, multimodal and intermodal connectivity  Required long range planning for states  Created Federal Transit Administration  TEA-21  Revised/updated the required planning factors  Promoted rebuilding of infrastructure with record funding levels  Expanded focus on multimodal and intermodal elements 20 th Century Transportation

12.  SAFETEA-LU  Expanded programs for safety, congestion reduction, freight movement and intermodal connectivity  Innovative funding programs  MAP-21  Maintains current funding levels for two years  Restructuring of seven core and 13 formula programs into five core programs  Emphasis on freight movements and performance measures 20 th Century Transportation

13.  Transportation Planning Evolution  Began as a federally focused process  Emphasis on highway connections and statewide transportation  Beginning in 1960s a move toward focus on MPOs  Over the decades MPOs have become more and more important  Today, MPOs are planning partners with State and Federal agencies 20 th Century Transportation 1900 1960 1990 MAP 21

15.  MPO Planning Performance Measures  Identify the cost benefit/return on investment  FHWA Guidance  Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, & Time-bound  Drivers for MPOs  Data availability  Resources  Case Study: Mecklenburg-Union MPO (Charlotte, NC) Performance Measures

16.  INRIX  Many State DOTs acquiring the data  Traffic data collected anonymously through GPS  Speed data  Data collected daily on major facilities  Used to develop speed profile  Combined with traffic volume data to identify levels and patterns of congestion  Includes freight specific information for 2011 Performance Measures

17. Urban Mobility Report Prepared by Texas Transportation Institute 2010 data released - September, 2011 Second year with Inrix data 439 U.S. urban areas 101 Cities – Very Large; Large; Medium and Small

18. Urban Mobility Report

19. Year Entire USCharlotte Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) TTI Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) TTI 2010341.20251.17 2005391.25251.20 1982141.0951.06 Year Entire US Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) TTI 2010341.20 2005391.25 1982141.09 Key Findings Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter (hours) – Delay / number of commuters in private automobiles TTI – Travel time during peak / travel time during off peak

20. Charlotte Congestion CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh40 Nashville39 Indianapolis38 Denver21 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh402542 Nashville393523 Indianapolis382449 Denver21498 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles2 Washington DC7 Atlanta8 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles2643 Washington DC7741 Atlanta84313 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles26431.381 Washington DC77411.332 Atlanta843131.2316 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles26431.381 Washington DC77411.332 Atlanta843131.2316 McAllen, Texas73 Stockton, California87 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles26431.381 Washington DC77411.332 Atlanta843131.2316 McAllen, Texas737101 Stockton, California87999 CitiesRank Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter Travel Time Index HoursRankValueRank Charlotte4325421.1734 Raleigh4025421.1443 Nashville3935231.1826 Indianapolis3824491.1734 Denver214981.2413 Los Angeles26431.381 Washington DC77411.332 Atlanta843131.2316 McAllen, Texas7371011.1056 Stockton, California879991.02101

21. Inrix Travel Time Data – Peak period: 6 hours 6:30 AM – 9:30 AM; 3:30 PM – 6:30 PM – Off Peak: 7 hours 10:00 AM–11:00 AM; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM; and 7:00 PM–11:00 PM – 1.0 – 1.19: Facilities with No/Minimal Congestion – 1.2 – 1.49: Facilities with Heavy Congestion – >=1.5: Facilities with Adverse Congestion Inrix Summary

23. Travel Time Index - Interstates

24.  Application  Congestion Management Process  I-277 Loop Study  Possible Application  LRTP Project Prioritization Process Charlotte Case Study

26. Lessons Learned GENERAL: HISTORICAL REVIEWCASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE MEASURES MPOs / Urban transportation planning are critical Technology Continuing urbanizationMaximize staff resources Flexible / AdaptableEasily acquired and updated datasets Maximize return on investmentData should provide information on the successes/benefits of projects Coordination with partnersMultiple applications

27. Discussion/Questions Ron Ratliff, AICP Beverly Davis, AICP Ron.ratliff@rsandh.comRon.ratliff@rsandh.com beverly.davis@rsandh.combeverly.davis@rsandh.com