How can SC measure road performance?

The Coalition recently worked with partners from around the state to develop new ways SC can measure its road performance.  The new federal transportation legislation - MAP-21 - charged the states with designing their own way of grading road performance.  We just submitted the criteria we developed to SCDOT, on behalf of PCC membership and as our stakeholder input, to the Multi Modal Transportation Plan. 

What is road performance?  This is a way of giving your roads a grade for how well they perform.  Here are a few examples:  1) are they safe?, 2) did the costs outweigh the benefits to users?, 3) do they get people to where they want to go?, 4) do they promote economic development by connecting between and within cities?, and 5) does road design encourage driving speed that match posted limits? 

The Coalition recently submitted a host of performance standard recommendations to SCDOT as part of their Multi Modal Transportation Plan.  We loved that we had the opportunity to do so, and it's not over 'til it's over.  As a stakeholder, we have until the end of this summer to work with SCDOT in providing this input.

Here is what we recently submitted regarding recommended SCDOT performance standards:

PCC recommendations

for the

SCDOT Intermodal Transportation Plan

Performance Measures

·         Safety.  Primary: Increased ridership, with data collected by pneumatic tubes sensitive to bikes and cars.  Secondary:  Decreased injuries and fatalities, only as relative to ridership.  

o   Note:  Fatalities/injuries spike just after facilities are added, but only because ridership greatly increases.  Without measuring ridership, the actual safety ratio measure (fatality/injury per rider) cannot be measured, and higher fatalities/injuries will inaccurately lead the reviewer to think facilities create unsafe conditions.  Only by measuring both ridership and fatalities/injuries can a safety measure be valid. 

·         Safety funding (Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding):  Spend X amount on bike/ped infrastructure each year that matches the X% of bike/ped fatalities the previous year. 

·         Safety per person, not vehicle:  Evaluate crash rates per capita, not per vehicle mile.  Not doing this will place bias on those owning automobiles, and will trend safety performance on the vehicle, not the person driving it. 

·         Improvements to health indicators (hospital visits with asthma, heart attack, or Type II diabetes as primary diagnosis)

·         Mode shift towards more equal use of all modes (bike/ped/auto).  High performance = High # miles of established, safe alternatives. 

·         Cost Effectiveness Ratio, ie. Transportation $ spent per mile / customer served

·         Ratio of average motorist speed vs. posted speed limit (road design having positive influence on driving behavior).  High performance = 1. 

·         Number of exemptions from this policy approved.  High performance = 0.

·         Level of Service

o   BLOS:  Listed in order of importance. 

§  High # linear miles of rail/trail and bike lanes per square mile. 

§  # bike parking spaces per square mile, only including those located at high density non-residential areas

§  High Connectivity of Existing Bicycle Network (not linear miles, but instead a GIS function)

§  existence of bike holsters on transit busses

§  Cost effectiveness ratio = # residents and office workers / linear miles of bike lanes or rail-trails

o   PLOS:  Listed in order of importance.  

§  High # linear miles of sidewalks per square mile. 

§  Sidewalks in close proximity to Public Facilities/School

§  Sidewalks have High Transit Accessibility (average proximity to each stop)

§  Sidewalks in areas of high Traffic Speed

§  High Connectivity of Existing Sidewalk Network (not linear miles, but instead a GIS function)

§  Sidewalks in areas with existing Pedestrian Crossing Assistance Facilities

§  High # of new sidewalks built in areas with evidence of Existing Pedestrian Usage

§  Cost effectiveness ratio = # residents and office workers / linear miles of sidewalks added

Other Comprehensive performance measures

(reference:  http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm131.htm

·         Accessibility (ability to reach desired goods, services and activities), including the travel time and costs required by various users to reach activities and destinations such as work, education, public services and recreation (CTS 2010)

·         Land Use Density and Mix - Number of job opportunities and commercial services within 30-minute travel distance of residents.

·         Children’s accessibility - Portion of children who can walk or bicycle to Schools, shops and parks from their homes.

·         Commute speed - Average commute travel time and Congestion delay.

·         Transport diversity - Variety and quality of transport Options available in a community.

·         Mode split - Portion of travel made by walking, cycling, rideshare, public transit and telework.

·         Consumer Transport Costs and Affordability - Portion of household expenditures devoted to transport, including vehicle expenses, fares, residential parking costs, and taxes devoted to transport; particularly by people who are economically, socially and physically disadvantaged.

·         Facility costs - Per capita expenditures on roads, traffic services and parking facilities (Transport Costs).

·         Planning Practices - Degree to which transport institutions reflect Least-cost planning and investment practices. Higher is better.

·         User Evaluation – Overall user satisfaction with their transportation system.

·         Planning process - Range of impacts and options considered in the planning process, and quality of public involvement. 

·         Health and fitness - Portion of population that regularly uses active transport modes (walking and cycling).

·         Community Livability - Degree to which transport activities increase community livability (local environmental quality).

·         Basic Mobility and Access – Quality of transport to access socially valuable activities such as medical services, education, employment and essential shopping, particularly for disadvantaged populations.

·         Equity - Degree to which transport policies reflect equity objectives.

·         Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators evaluate the quality of various transport modes from a users perspective. This helps create a more neutral planning decisions compared with current practices which apply roadway LOS ratings but no comparable indictors for other modes.

·         Energy Consumption and Pollution Emissions – the amount of transportation energy used and pollutants emitted.

Walking	Sidewalk/path supply Pedestrian LOS Crosswalk conditions	Pedestrian mode split Avg. annual walk distance Pedestrian crash rates	Cost per sidewalk-mile Cost per walk-mile Cost per capita
Cycling	Bike path and lane supply Cycling LOS Path conditions	Bicycle mode split Avg. annual cycle distance Cyclist crash rates	Cost per path-mile Cost per cycle-mile Cost per capita

The Economics of Bike/Ped in SC

We know the Department of Transportation has more than enough challenges on its hands. Our roads aren’t in good condition.  Money is scarce, and no one seems up to the challenge of finding better ways to fund our transportation needs.

We are fully aware of the crisis our state faces with the condition of its roads.  We also do not question the fact that the Department must prioritize the operation of motor vehicles.  We also appreciate that there are not enough dollars to make ends meet when it comes to our transportation needs.  

But even with the dollars it has on hand, the Department frequently overlooks the equitable distribution to modes other than motor vehicles.

Especially in urban areas, there’s an explosion in the number of people on bikes.  It’s not a joke.  It’s a mode of transportation.  It’s not frivolous people in funny clothes. It’s now people going to work, or to school.

It’s not a joke because it’s a way for our population to become healthier.  It’s not a joke because smart, physically active people deciding where to take a job take it into consideration.  It’s not a joke because people are using it to get to work – or an errand – a couple of miles down the street.  Providing for transportation by two wheels goes hand-in-hand with economic competitiveness.  Building a complete street creates more local jobs than widening a highway.  A complete street serves every segment of the population, even those that can't drive.  People spend twice as much on their own personal transportation as they did 50 years ago.  But the trend is reversing.  Also changing is where South Carolinian's live.  While rural areas have remained stable, the urban South Carolina population increased by 20% in the last decade.  This explosion in bikes and urban living means what folks aren’t spending on gas is being spent elsewhere.  It’s a choice people are making in how they will get around.  Are we going to build our roads so they retain that freedom?  

Times are changing, fast. The Department is not keeping pace with the changes. Often, people like me have to work all too hard to persuade the Department to consider creative solutions that put bike lanes on roads it’s re-paving.  Often, it seems the thought just never occurred to the Department.

We won’t even talk about the willy-nilly rumble-strips that drove people on bikes off our roads, or endangered more lives than it could possibly have saved.

Two-wheeled transportation is a factor.  It’s a factor that should be built into the autonomic reflexes of SCDOT. New Project?  Repaving?  Cars—check.  Bikes—check.  Pedestrians—check. We need a statewide Complete Streets policy that implements this, and we need to measure road performance by including the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Failure to adapt will be one of the factors that keep us behind – in health scores, in economic competitiveness, and in the very important, elusive, happiness factor. What is our quality of life and how does our transportation system contribute to it – or not?  When North Carolina’s DOT built bike facilities on its Outer Banks, the Department studied the economic impact and recorded a return of nine times its original investment.  And there’s more.  Charleston’s Chamber of Commerce studied this and said we need a multi modal transportation system to attract high earning professionals to our cities.  And our own SC Municipal Association gets it.  They recognize higher numbers of people biking and walking, and they admit it’s because it’s the affordable transportation choice.  

Our local governments “get it”.  We need our state DOT to get it now.  If they don’t, our local economies will suffer.   It’s about building smart transportation that doesn’t only move folks fast between cities.  Our Department must work well with local governments who are trying to build accessible Main Streets.  Companies know business is better on an attractive Main Street, one that isn’t full of cars and congestion but sidewalks and people.  

The State of North Carolina has eight people assigned to this mission.  We have one. It shows.  Our local cities get it.  The people of South Carolina get it.  Now we need to help our own state’s DOT get it.  

...this post was written as a collaboration between Tom Bradford, ED of Charleston Moves, and Amy Johnson, ED of the Palmetto Cycling Coalition.  If you'd like to become more involved, please contact us. 

Communities for Cycling

Communities for Cycling (C4C), a partnership of local transportation planners & engineers throughout SC, recently advised SCDOT on their Highway Design Manual (HDM).  The Department is currently rewriting it to keep up with new federal guidance.

The Palmetto Cycling Coalition facilitates C4C, a membership-based group of planners & engineers from around the state, serving as recording Secretary, but we don't lead the effort.  The great thing is it leads itself.  Led by a Working Group composed of Directors from Planning Departments in Charleston, Rock Hill, Greenville, Clemson, and Sumter, the larger membership group includes folks from almost every major city or regional planning body in the state.  And yes, it leads itself.  Municipalities in SC decided at some point that focusing on bike/ped infrastructure was a good idea.  It just makes sense.  Planning for transportation and land use at the local level means you pay attention to issues of accessibility to the front door of Main Street businesses.  And that's where bike/ped infrastructure makes sense.

C4C serves to provide a forum of collaboration between planners & engineers already knowledgeable about bike/ped infrastructure in SC and those wanting to learn more.  It also serves as a collaborative tool for working directly with the state.  That's where the recent work came into play:  working with the SCDOT in how they plan to design our state owned roads today and 10 years down the road.  SCDOT is currently rewriting this Highway Design Manual, and since the last time this occurred was 2003, getting input from local governments is appreciated.  It's also important business for C4C.  

C4C recently submitted 8 pages of comments to the current HDM draft.  The group now awaits word from SCDOT.  Comments were essentially these:

• allow bicycle accommodation considerations for lane reconfigurations (retrofits)
• include sharrows and cycle tracks to the list of bicycle facilities
• selection of an appropriate bikeway facility requires the following information:  bicycling demand (current and future), connectivity information such as whether there is contraflow demand, and transit uses/stops along a corridor
• consult local or regional Bicycle Master Plans or Comprehensive Plans for integration, and when questions on bikeway type arises, consult those respective departments
• when rumble strips are necessary, always utilize reduced footprint, in addition to reviewing local bicycle plans to make appropriate exclusions,
• on high grade roads, provide considerations to wide (15 ft) travel lanes for shared use
• allow for variable bike lane width down to 4 feet
• include bikeway designs for 1 way streets
• for all roadway cross section designs, allow greater variability in lane width, especially to facilitate local decision making regarding road user safety (and for preserving local freedom to make decisions on how to accommodate local road users and their needs).  This will allow local and state road designers great flexibility in collaborating in state-owned, urban street design. 
• Please add this policy (we were only commenting on bike facilities, not pedestrian facilities)    

Bicycle Warrants:

• Standards - Bicycle accommodations shall be considered in all planning studies and included in all reconstruction, new construction, and capacity-adding projects that are located in areas with any of the following conditions:
  • if the project is on a designated (i.e, adopted) US, State, regional, or local bicycle route;
  • where there is an existing bikeway along or linking to the end of the project corridor (e.g., shared lane, paved shoulder, bike lane, bike boulevard, or shared-use path);
  • along corridors with bicycle travel generators and destinations (i.e. residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, colleges, scenic byways, public parks, transit stops/stations, etc.);
  • on projects where a bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated and the existing bridge width allows for the addition of a bikeway without eliminating (or precluding) needed pedestrian accommodations; and
  • where there is an occurrence of reported bicycle crashes which equals or exceeds five for a 1-mile segment of roadway, over the most recently three years for which crash data is available.  
  Guidelines - Bicycle accommodations should be should be considered on projects that are located in areas with any of the following conditions:
  • within close proximity (i.e., 3 miles) of a school, college, university, or major public institution (e.g., hospital, major park, etc.,..);
  • where a project will provide connectivity between two of more existing bikeways or connects to an existing bikeway;
  • where there is an occurrence of bicycle crashes;
  • along a corridor where bicycle travel generators and destinations can be expected prior to the design year of the project;
  • any location where engineering judgment, planning analysis, or the public involvement process indicates a need.
  Exclusions - The consideration of bicycle warrants may be excluded from roadways with any of the following conditions:
  • for very low speed (i.e., <35mph) residential roadways where bicyclists can safely share the roadway with motor vehicles; and on side road tie-ins where there is no existing sidewalk or bicycle accommodation and widening of construction limits for sidewalk or bicycle accommodation would result in disproportionate impacts to adjacent property (as decided by the project development team on a case-by-case basis)

For more information on Communities for Cycling, please visit PCC's C4C webpage, or contact Amy.