MOBILITY PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK...the terms in the draft mobility performance framework along with identifying possible measures of effectiveness, methodologies, and data sources for

Fehr & Peers 1

MOBILITY PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK June 30, 2017

What is the Mobility Performance Framework?

Like many transportation agencies, WSDOT

relies heavily on traditional measures of

mobility like vehicle speed or delay. While

these measures are helpful for

understanding how congestion affects

mobility, they do not address other

important mobility issues. For example, the

inability to cross a busy highway when

walking or biking or gaps in transit service

that prevent people from accessing

economic opportunities are mobility issues

that matter to people in Washington.

WSDOT is exploring a broader range of

mobility measures to improve its

understanding of the needs of all travelers,

identify multimodal transportation problems

and opportunities, and evaluate the most

effective strategies to provide safe and

efficient transportation choices to people

and businesses.

Background

The purpose of this study was to build upon

the mobility performance framework

under development to support WSDOT’s

Practical Solutions approach. The study

focused on providing definition to each of

the terms in the draft mobility performance

framework along with identifying possible

measures of effectiveness, methodologies,

and data sources for the Identify Needs &

Assess Alternative Strategies steps in the

business process.

Practical Solutions is a performance-based

approach to transportation decision-

making. This data-driven approach uses

tools and performance measures to seek

lower cost approaches and efficiencies in

serving the travel needs of people and

business to reduce travel demand to save

money, and to reduce the need to build

costly new infrastructure.

Fehr & Peers 2

Other state-level efforts around the country

informed the Mobility Performance

Framework (MPF). Two notable examples

are from California and Virginia.

The study team considered lessons learned

from designing and implementing these

programs when making recommendations

on a MPF for WSDOT. Notably, both

programs focus on a few key mobility

measures that can be applied consistently

statewide. The MPF takes an all-inclusive

approach to assessing mobility but in

practice, WSDOT will select and apply

measures/metrics that are practical, context

sensitive, and align with objectives.

VDOT SMART SCALE:

PRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT

IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND

CONGESTION

In order to focus limited state

transportation funds on the projects that

produce the most benefits, the Virginia

DOT (VDOT) created Smart Scale, a rating

system that evaluates projects using

seven criteria, including accessibility and

congestion mitigation.

Smart Scale includes three accessibility

measures- access to jobs, access to jobs

for disadvantaged, and access to

multimodal choice. VDOT calculates the

two job accessibility measures for

applicants using a GIS-based tool.

For congestion mitigation, Smart Scale

considers person throughput and person

hours of delay.

CALTRANS SMART MOBILITY

FRAMEWORK: PLACE TYPE-BASED

PLANNING

Caltrans’ Smart Mobility Framework lays

out a new approach to planning and

project delivery for Caltrans’ District

Offices. It uses a place type-based system

to prioritize the right transportation

projects for different contexts.

Caltrans defines seven different place

types based on regional accessibility and

community design characteristics such as

density, jobs-housing balance, and

intersection density. The Framework then

recommends appropriate strategies for

each place type. For example, it states

that extensive bicycle and pedestrian

networks are appropriate for urban areas,

whereas safety improvements to existing

walking and bicycling facilities are more

applicable in rural areas.

Fehr & Peers 3

Recommended Mobility

Performance

Framework

This section defines a recommended

Mobility Performance Framework (MPF) and

puts it in context with WSDOT’s other

Transportation System Policy Goals.

Guidance is provided in terms of:

The types of mobility goals,

categories, and measures;

How the categories and measures

could be applied under different

planning contexts and across

different geographic scales; and

Examples of specific metrics that can

be used to quantify mobility

Introduction to the

Mobility Performance

Framework

The legislature established six

Transportation System Policy Goals

(RCW 47.04.280) for the planning,

operation, performance of, and investment

in, the state’s transportation system. These

goals are as follows:

1. Economic Vitality: To promote

and develop transportation

systems that stimulate, support,

and enhance the movement of

people and goods to ensure a

prosperous economy

2. Preservation: To maintain,

preserve, and extend the life and

utility of prior investments in

transportation systems and

services

3. Safety: To provide for and

improve the safety and security

of transportation customers and

the transportation system

4. Mobility: To improve the

predictable movement of goods

and people throughout

Washington State; including

congestion relief and improved

freight mobility

5. Environment: To enhance

Washington’s quality of life

through transportation

investments that promote energy

conservation, enhance healthy

communities, and protect the

environment

6. Stewardship: To continuously

improve the quality,

effectiveness, and efficiency of

the transportation system

To ensure progress toward meeting these

top-level goals, WSDOT is in the process of

developing a “performance framework” to

define options for evaluating each goal.

With better performance measures, the

agency can more readily address the variety

of users, local values, and land-use contexts

that WSDOT facilities serve. The MPF is one

of the first frameworks WSDOT is

developing under the umbrella of this effort.

The aim of the MPF is to provide specific

details on how to assess mobility in order to

achieve the state’s desired mobility

outcome: To improve the predictable

movement of goods and people throughout

Washington State, including congestion relief

and improved freight mobility. To achieve

this outcome, a team of WSDOT staff from

the Regions, Traffic, Public Transportation,

Safety, and the Multimodal Planning

Fehr & Peers 4

Divisions worked with Fehr & Peers to guide

the MPF. The flowchart below summarizes

the key elements of the MPF:

Using this initial framework, the team

identified three main goals: Accessibility,

Predictability, and Efficiency. Within these

three mobility goals, there were more than a

dozen categories and over 100 potential

measures. Working with representatives

from each of WSDOT’s regions, along with

others from Metropolitan Planning

Organizations, Regional Transportation

Planning Organizations, Cities, Counties, and

Transit Agencies, the team streamlined the

categories and measures into a smaller and

more manageable set. The remainder of this

chapter discusses the recommended MPF

and how it could be applied for different

types of WSDOT projects, and which specific

measures and metrics could be most

valuable for different land use contexts.

A key intent of the MPF is for it to be

scalable across the entire range of analyses

that WSDOT conducts – from corridor

sketch plans that are carried out across the

state to the planning and design of a spot

improvement at an intersection. In

discussing the MPF, the team determined

that the goals and most of the categories

are valid at all levels of application; however,

depending on type and scale of application,

different measures and metrics could be

applicable. In addition, metrics and

measures could also vary across different

land use contexts. For example, measuring

the travel time reliability for vehicles is

applicable for a corridor sketch plan in

almost any type of land use context (from a

rural area to a large city). However,

measuring the proportion of transit trips

that are on-time would not apply to a small

town with no transit service.

Select mobility performance measures

that:

Respond to the types of strategies

that WSDOT and stakeholders are

likely to pursue to improve mobility

Reflect the range of modes under

consideration in a project

Fit the project and geographic scale

of the study

Goals: Key areas by which to measure and evaluate mobility

Categories: Elements of each goal

Measures: What to analyze for each goal and category

Metrics: Quantifiable method to evaluate measures

Fehr & Peers 5

MPF Goals and

Categories

The MPF goals and categories are

summarized in the diagram below, followed

by Table 1 that briefly defines the goals

and categories.

Table 1 – MPF Goals and Categories

Goal/Category Definition

Accessibility Ability to easily connect to goods and services across modes, abilities, and socioeconomic groups

Proximity to services Quantity of jobs, households, services, schools, ports, freight terminals, etc. available within a reasonable distance or time, by mode.

Travel experience Convenience and ease of accessing destinations, by mode

Predictability Consistency of travel time and experience by mode, including measurement of congestion as well as options to avoid congestion

Travel Reliability Travel time it takes to reliably reach a destination, by mode; number of incidents that can impact reliable travel time

Network Resiliency Availability of route and mode options to avoid incidents, closures, and delays

Efficiency Number of current/potential users divided by the cost to build/maintain the transportation infrastructure

Mode usage Relative usage of the system relative to capacity (mode share, average vehicle occupancy, load factor)

Utilization Gross usage of the transportation infrastructure or potential users within a travel shed

Accessibility

Proximity to Services

Travel Experience

Predictability

Travel Reliability

Network Resiliency

Efficiency

Mode Usage

Utilization

Fehr & Peers 6

Context Analysis

The Design Manual revision to Chapter 1102

includes specific provisions for a roadway’s

land use context:

Context refers to the environmental,

economic, and social features that influence

livability and travel characteristics. Context

characteristics provide insight into the

activities, functions, and performance that

can be reinforced by the roadway design.

Context informs roadway design, including

the selection of design controls, such as

target speed and modal priority, and other

design decisions,

For purposes of the MPF, land use context is

the most applicable tool to stratify the MPF

measures and metrics. Chapter 1102.02(1)

describes the land use context categories in

detail. These four categories, adapted from

the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program project 15-52 final report

(Developing a Context-Sensitive

Classification System for More Flexibility in

Geometric Design) represent distinctive land

use environments beyond simply “rural” and

“urban” to help determine a more accurate

context.

The four land use categories are:

Rural

Suburban

Town/urban

Urban Core

Attached to this memorandum is the draft

Context Identification Worksheet

(Appendix B) that can be used to identify

which land use context should be used for a

MPF application.

Applying the Measures

and Metrics Tied to

WSDOT Decision Points

A number of policy documents guide

WSDOT performance measurement. These

policy documents range in specificity and

contain both outcome and output based

measures that guide WSDOT in its decision

making throughout the program and

project development process.

Tying the MPF to key WSDOT decision

points is a reasonable way to structure the

mobility measures and technical analyses.

In the following sections, we highlight

measures and metrics that are applicable at

four major decision points in the WSDOT

planning process. These decision points are

as follows:

1. Corridor Sketch Planning – A high-

level planning evaluation prepared

for all WSDOT’s highway corridors

across the state

2. System-Level Prioritization – A

statewide effort to identify and

prioritize areas with mobility

challenges. These decisions build

upon the results of the corridor

sketch plans.

3. Corridor/Subarea Strategy

Evaluation –Transportation planning

efforts designed to identify and

evaluate potential mobility strategies

within a defined corridor or subarea.

4. Project-Level Evaluation – Detailed

evaluation of mobility issues,

solutions, and designs for a defined

project (e.g. interchange,

intersection).

Fehr & Peers 7

The following sections describe how to

select appropriate MPF measures and

metrics to match the decisions made by

WSDOT. There is one section for each of

the four decision points, including a table of

measures/metrics and relationships to the

land use context areas described previously.

Corridor Sketch Planning

Table 2 shows the measures and metrics

that our team found to be most applicable

at the Corridor Sketch Planning level. Keep

in mind that the metrics are not intended to

be an all-inclusive list. There are other

metrics that could also be used to quantify

the same measure. In general, the measures

and metrics highlighted for corridor

sketches tend to be simpler than the metrics

and measures that are applicable at the

other levels.

Note that the recommended measures are

broader than those currently used in the

Corridor Sketches (see text box) but are

consistent with the intent to keep the

measures relatively simple both in terms of

data needs and analysis.

WSDOT’s Current Corridor Sketch

Process

WSDOT prepared datasets for all state

corridors based on operating speed as

percent of corridor free flow speed, the

first step in a draft screening

methodology that also included the

following metrics

Operating Speed as a Percent of

Corridor Free Flow Speed (FFS)

Duration of Congestion

Severity of Congestion

Travel Time Reliability

WSDOT planners also considered

multimodal factors such as transit

availability and accessibility, non-

motorized facility evaluation, and freight

movement characteristics as part of the

screening process.

Fehr & Peers 8

Table 2 – MPF Measures and Metrics Applicable for

Corridor Sketch Planning

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural

Goal: Accessibility | Category: Proximity to Services

Density of Housing and Jobs

Population density ● ● ● ○

Jobs density* ● ● ○ ○

Pedestrian Facility Availability & Connectivity

Sidewalk miles per capita* ○ ● ● ○

Bicycle Facility Availability & Connectivity

Bicycle facilities (miles) per capita ● ● ○

Transit Availability & Connectivity

Presence of local transit/regional service* ● ● ● ○

Goal: Accessibility | Category: Travel Experience

Level of Service Travel Time (speed), by mode* ● ● ○ ○

Goal: Predictability | Category: Travel Reliability

Modal Reliability Travel time reliability buffer index* ● ● ○ ○

Goal: Predictability | Category: Network Resiliency

Route and Mode Availability

Percent of corridor segments lacking a connecting and parallel network (by mode: roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit)

● ● ● ○

Goal: Efficiency | Category: Mode Usage

Vehicle Occupancy Number of persons per vehicle. (PMT/VMT) ● ● ○ ○

Goal: Efficiency | Category: Utilization

Vehicle Throughput VMT* ● ● ● ●

Person Throughput PMT ● ● ● ○

* Similar to WSDOT identified metric

Most applicable ●; Sometimes applicable ○; Least applicable [blank]

Fehr & Peers 9

System-Level Prioritization

Table 3 shows the recommend MPF metrics

and measures that could be most relevant

at the system level prioritization phase. Note

there is a fair bit of overlap between the

system-level and corridor sketch metrics

and measures, but there are substantially

more system-level prioritization measures.

The idea behind expanding the number of

variables applied at the system-level

prioritization stage is two-fold:

1) The intent of the corridor sketches is to

be a high-level, relatively low effort scan of

all the facilities in the state;

2) System-level prioritization is intended to

evaluate additional measures to facilitate a

better review of multimodal mobility gaps

and how to address those across regions.

The result of the system-level prioritization

would be decisions regarding priority needs

and corridors throughout the state.


System-Level Prioritization Planning

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural



Population density ● ● ● ○

Jobs density* ● ● ○ ○

Major Destinations Accessible

Jobs/services within xx minutes by vehicle and transit

● ● ● ○

Farm-to-market destinations within xx minutes by vehicle

○ ●

Access to industrial sites/ports destinations within xx minutes by commercial vehicle

● ● ○ ○

Percent people within 20-minute neighborhood walk/bike of services

● ● ●


Sidewalk miles per capita* ○ ● ● ○

Pedestrian crossing opportunities per mile ○ ● ● ○


Bicycle facilities (miles) per capita ● ● ○

Fehr & Peers 10

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural


Frequency of transit service* ● ● ○ ○

Presence of local transit/ regional service* ● ● ● ○

Access for Special Needs Populations

Percent accessibility for low-income, minority, youth/elderly or other disadvantaged populations

● ● ● ●


Level of Service Hours of Traffic Congestion ● ● ○

Travel Time (speed), by mode* ● ● ○ ○

Hours of Person Delay, by mode ● ● ○

Hours of Truck Delay* ○ ○ ○ ○



Ferry reliability ○ ○ ○

Non-recurring Incidents

Number and rate of crashes ● ● ● ●




● ● ● ○


Mode Share Percent mode shares (by mode)* ● ● ● ○


Load Factor Percent Capacity Used (by mode- Ferry, Rail, Transit) See count and forecast data below

● ● ○



Freight Throughput Ton Miles* ○ ○ ○ ○


Ferry Persons and Vehicles carried* ○ ○ ○

Transit Persons and Vehicles carried* ● ● ○

Rail Persons and Vehicles carried* ● ● ○



Fehr & Peers 11

Corridor/Subarea Strategy

Evaluation

When evaluating mobility strategies for

corridors or subareas, the team identified a

wide range of measures and metrics across

all the categories. As shown in Table 4,

there is varying applicability of the metrics

depending on the land use context of the

study area. These types of studies may be

particularly well-suited to the MPF as they

have the ability to look at multiple routes,

modes, and travel markets to consider a

holistic approach to transportation. For the

corridor/subarea evaluations, some of the

larger-scale metrics and measures are

removed from the list. In our work with

representatives from the different WSDOT

regions, these types of studies were often

brought up as either examples of where the

region was already working with

stakeholders in a process that had many

MPF-like measures, or where MPF measures

could better articulate the different mobility

goals and desires of various stakeholders.


Corridor/Subarea Strategy Evaluation Planning

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural




● ● ● ○


○ ●


● ● ○ ○


● ● ●


Percent of missing (or hazard) pedestrian facilities within xx mile on each side of corridor segment

● ● ● ○

Intersection density ● ● ●

Pedestrian crossing opportunities per mile ● ● ● ○


Percent of missing bicycle facilities within xx mile on each side of corridor segment

● ● ● ○

Fehr & Peers 12

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural



Population/ jobs within 1/2 mile of transit stop*

● ● ○



● ● ● ○

Percentage of ADA accessible facilities along corridor segments both sides

● ● ●


Level of Service Hours of Traffic Congestion ● ● ○ ○

Travel Time (speed), by mode* ● ● ○ ○

Level of Pedestrian Stress ● ● ● ○

Level of Bicycle stress ● ● ● ○

Hours of Person Delay, by mode ● ● ○

Intersection delay (weighted by persons) ● ● ●

Hours of Truck Delay* ○ ○ ○ ○




Percent transit on-time ● ● ○






● ● ● ○


Mode Share Percent mode shares (by mode)* ● ● ● ○



● ● ○

Fehr & Peers 13

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural



Freight Throughput Ton Miles* ○ ○ ○ ○


Ferry Persons and Vehicles carried* ○ ○ ○

Transit Persons and Vehicles carried* ● ● ○

Rail Persons and Vehicles carried* ● ● ○



Project-Level Evaluation

Project-level studies focus on a particular

location, such as an interchange or

intersection. These studies may include

multiple projects along a defined corridor

segment, so several of the measures and

metrics shown in Table 5 overlap with those

used for corridor/subareas. When

considering a project-level evaluation, it is

worth noting that there are likely many

other metrics that could be considered than

are listed in this table, depending on the

level of detail of the project, the project’s

purpose and need, and what the

stakeholders are seeking to gain

information on.

Fehr & Peers 14


Project-Level Evaluation Planning

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural




● ● ●



● ● ● ○

Intersection density ● ● ●

Pedestrian crossing opportunities per mile ● ● ● ○



● ● ● ○




● ● ○



● ● ● ●


● ● ● ○


Modal Reliability Travel time reliability buffer index ● ● ○ ○



Level of Service Travel Time (speed), by mode* ● ● ○ ○

Level of Pedestrian Stress ● ● ● ○

Level of Bicycle Stress ● ● ● ○

Intersection delay (weighted by persons) ● ● ●

Fehr & Peers 15

Measure Metric

Context

Urban

Core

Town/

Urban

Sub-

urban Rural








Mode Share Percent mode shares (by mode)* ● ● ●







Summary Table of MPF

Goals, Categories,

Measures, and Metrics

Appendix Table A-1 shows the combined

set of recommended MPF goals, metrics,

categories and measures organized across

each of the decision points listed above.

This table is intended as a general guide of

which categories, metrics, and measures to

consider when working on a particular study

or project. As the MPF evolves, additional

guidance may be provided as WSDOT staff

learn which measures and metrics tend to

have the most value when applied to

planning and design efforts.

Fehr & Peers 16

Data Needs and

Analysis Tools

This section identifies primary measures,

guidelines, data needs and analysis tools

used to determine the mobility performance

for a project. Each measure has unique data

needs and tools to measure them. The

following information is provided:

Data Needs- Describes what data to use

and some examples of how it can be

collected or obtained. Most of the data

needed are readily available for analysis, but

must be collected from a number of

publically available sources.

Guidelines and Methods-Provides

information on applying the data.

Analysis Tools- Describes how various

tools could be used to analyze existing

and future conditions within the study

area. These tools could consist of traffic

models, GIS maps, or other tools used to

break down the data into usable pieces

capable of providing a quantifiable

measurement for specific metrics.

Two tables are provided to guide review

of the data needs and analysis tools, as

summarized in the Text Box below.

How to Use Tables 6 and 7

Table 6: Summarizes data needs and analysis tools for each measure.

For further data needs for each metric, refer to Table 7.

Table 7: Focuses on each metric rather than the broader measure. It

summarizes a relative level of effort expected for the analysis and

examples of data needs and sources for each metric.

Fehr & Peers 17

Table 6 – Data Needs, Guidelines/Methods, and Analysis Tools for Measures1

Measures Data Needs

(Refer to Table 7 for Metrics) Guidelines and Methods Analysis Tools



Current Population and employment data can be taken for Census Block Groups and or Tracks (as appropriate for the scale of the project study area) available from the US Census Bureau's website, GIS files, local or regional planning studies. Future data available from travel models and/or comprehensive plans

Map major land uses in the area with densities of jobs and population (people per square mile, or on an appropriate scale for the project).

Population density can be shown graphically through a Geographical Information System (GIS) to show areas with high densities of employment and population


Location of major destinations within the project corridor and land uses at a parcel level. Travel times to and from via different modes.

Identify major destinations such as retail and employment centers, institutions, tourist attractions, recreational areas, and calculate travel time by vehicle, transit, bicycle, or walking.

Show transportation network, identified major destinations, and measure travel times using GIS analytics. Software such as WalkScore can also be used to identify walk accessibility.

Pedestrian Facility Availability and Connectivity

Sidewalk and crosswalk locations in GIS maps or from regional pedestrian plans verified in the field. Local or census population data.

Determine where sidewalks are missing, how many pedestrian crossings are required for important routes, and how many miles of sidewalk exist per capita.

Produce maps with existing sidewalk locations, and planned facilities. Note planned and funded pedestrian improvements listed in local agency pedestrian plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Use GIS analytics or spreadsheet.

Bicycle Facility Availability and Connectivity

Bicycle facility locations in GIS maps or from regional bicycle plans verified in the field. Local or census population data.

Determine where bicycle facilities exist and in what form (i.e. on street bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared use paths, shared lanes, paved shoulders, etc.). Note if there are critical missing links in the bicycle network.

Produce maps with existing bicycle facility locations, and planned facilities. Note planned and funded bicycle improvements listed in local agency bicycle plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Use GIS analytics or spreadsheet.

1 Refer to Table 7 for more information specific to individual Metrics

Fehr & Peers 18

Measures Data Needs


Transit Availability and Connectivity

Transit route maps and schedules provide service routes and frequencies. Population and Employment density.

Determine the availability and frequency of transit and note major destinations, employment, and population within 1/2 mile of transit stops.

Show 1/2 mile radius for stops within project area using GIS tied to census data for current conditions and travel demand models or land use forecasts for future conditions.


Population and income data for census block groups or tracks as appropriate for the scale of the project. Land use inventories from zoning maps and census data.

Determine where accessible crosswalks and sidewalks exist, if there are critical missing links or facilities. Note if critical low-income, minority, or otherwise disadvantaged populations have access to major destinations, and employment centers.

Show low-income, minority, and disadvantaged populations to determine how metrics (see Table 7) for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity compare to the overall populations.


Level of Service

Various data needed depending on metric (see Table 7). Real time traffic data and analytics. Roadway network data to calculate pedestrian and bicycle stress including sidewalk widths, bicycle facility types, and density or intersection and driveway crossings. Modal data to delineate autos, trucks, pedestrian, bicycle.

Calculate congestion, travel time, pedestrian and bicycle stress, person delay, and truck delay.

Travel time (speed) data available from NPMRDS or private traffic analytics vendors such as INRIX. Calibrated traffic models such as Synchro, SimTraffic, VISSIM, or HCS to calculate travel time and delay on the network. Spreadsheet tools to calculate bicycle and pedestrian stress.


Modal Reliability Historical and predicted travel time data. Transit and ferry on-time data.

Determine travel time reliability for all modes noting variability in travel time compared to free-flow travel time. Weight averages across road sections and time periods by VMT. Summarize on-time data available from transit agencies and/or WSF.

Real time travel time data from Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology, FHWA's NPMRDS or through a traffic analytics vendor. Refer to most recent WSDOT Corridor Capacity Report for highway system performance. Calibrated traffic models such as Synchro, SimTraffic, VISSIM, or HCS to calculate travel time and delay on the network.

Fehr & Peers 19

Measures Data Needs



Historic crash data Determine frequency of crashes, focusing on key locations, time of day, and type.

Use Standard WSDOT statewide indicators, complete crash analysis to determine safety improvements to reduce non-recurring incidents.



Summary of analysis from Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Availability and Connectivity

Identify the available alternate network and mode choices in the corridor including transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks, and their availability during planned and unplanned events.

Map alternative connecting and parallel routes and services for each mode type in GIS.


Mode Share Share of person travel by mode. Estimate the percent of total miles traveled by mode within the project study area.

Data collected from travel surveys and counts by mode. Transit/vanpool data from transit providers. Calibrated travel demand model to show estimated use of modes within the study area (current and future estimates).

Vehicle Occupancy Number of persons per vehicle. Divide person miles traveled (PMT) by vehicles miles traveled (VMT) or conduct separate counts.

Match survey data to calibrated travel demand model to estimate existing future vehicle demand tied to vehicle occupancy.

Load Factor

Roadway network and traffic data to calculate capacity and usage. Transit ridership along the corridor to determine transit capacity. Ferry boardings and allightings to determine ferry capacity and current usage. See most recent WSDOT Corridor Capacity Report.

Estimate how much of the capacity is being used for each mode in the corridor. Include non-motorized, vehicle, ferry, rail, and transit as applicable.

Traffic analysis models to estimate the total capacity of the roadway network, and future travel demand for all modes.

Fehr & Peers 20

Measures Data Needs



Vehicle Throughput Vehicle counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway segment mileage, by segment

Estimate the total vehicles miles traveled WSDOT average daily traffic counts and HPMS data. Calibrated traffic models to estimate future vehicle travel demand

Freight Throughput Freight flow data and roadway network mileage

Estimate total ton miles of freight movement in the corridor.

Freight flow data from WSDOT and/or vendors. Calibrated travel model to estimate future freight movement in the corridor (if trucks identified separately in the model).

Person Throughput

Person counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway network mileage Passenger counts for transit and rail

Determine the total person miles traveled by all modes within the project area.

Historical count data by person. Travel survey data on model choice. Calibrated travel mode to estimate total future person throughput.

Fehr & Peers 21

Table 7: Data Needs and Analysis for Performance Metrics2

Measure Metric

Data Needs & Analysis

Effort

required Data Needs

Goal: Accessibility |Category: Proximity to Services


Population density L

Local or census population data (current) Travel model or comprehensive plans (future) (Note: May need to convert households to population using census average housing occupancy)

Jobs density* L Local or census population data (current) Travel model or comprehensive plans (future)



M

Local or census jobs data Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Roadway network Transit network Travel times (GIS analytics)


M

Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Local farm and market location data Roadway network Travel times (GIS analytics)


M

Intermodal facility locations Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Truck routes Roadway network Travel times (GIS analytics)

2 Refer to Table 6 for descriptions for the overall measure

Fehr & Peers 22

Measure Metric


Effort

required Data Needs


M

Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Location of Local services (GIS or agency mapping) Bicycle network Walking network (sidewalks and trails) Travel times (GIS analytics)



M Walking network (sidewalks and trails) with sidewalk presence and condition information Roadway network

Sidewalk miles per capita* L Walking network (sidewalks and trails) Local or census population data

Intersection density M Pedestrian and roadway network

Pedestrian crossing opportunities per mile M Pedestrian and roadway network Pedestrian crossing treatments



M Bicycle network (lanes, routes, and trails) with presence and condition data Roadway network

Bicycle facilities (miles) per capita L Bicycle network (lanes, routes, and trails) Local or census population data


Frequency of transit service* L Transit schedule

Presence of local transit/regional service* L Transit network map

Population/ jobs within 1/2 mile of transit stop* M

Transit network Local or census population and jobs data Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Future land use forecasts

Fehr & Peers 23

Measure Metric


Effort

required Data Needs



M/H

Local or census population, income, and other demographic data Walking network Transit network Land use inventory at parcel or grid level


M ADA provisions along roadway and intersections ADA access surveys

Goal: Accessibility |Category: Travel Experience

Level of Service Hours of Traffic Congestion M/H Number of hours congested during specified time periods

Travel Time (speed), by mode* M/H Travel time (speed) by roadway segment Data by mode if available

Level of Pedestrian Stress M/H Pedestrian and roadway network data, including sidewalk widths, sidewalk quality, driveway frequency, crosswalk frequency, traffic volumes, heavy vehicle volumes, travel lanes, and traffic speeds

Level of Bicycle stress M/H Bicycle and roadway network data, including bike facility type, bike facility width, roadway quality, parking presence, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds

Hours of Person Delay, by mode M/H Travel time by mode during specified time periods Intersection delay by mode Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Intersection delay (weighted by persons) M/H Intersection delay by mode Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Hours of Truck Delay* M/H Travel time by trucks during specified time periods Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Fehr & Peers 24

Measure Metric


Effort

required Data Needs

Goal: Predictability |Category: Travel Reliability

Modal Reliability Travel time reliability buffer index* M

Travel time (by mode) during specified time periodsComparison to free-flow travel times

Ferry reliability L On-time data from WSF

Percent transit on-time L/M On-time data from transit provider


Number and rate of crashes M Crashes by milepost

Goal: Predictability |Category: Network Resiliency



L Roadway network Pedestrian and bicycle network Transit network and service levels

Goal: Efficiency |Category: Mode Usage

Mode Share Percent mode shares (by mode)* M/H

Travel survey data Counts by mode Forecasts of future mode shares

Vehicle Occupancy Number of persons per vehicle. (PMT/VMT) L

PMT and VMT (see below) Counts by mode


Vehicle and person counts (by mode) Vehicle and person capacity (by mode)

Fehr & Peers 25

Measure Metric


Effort

required Data Needs

Goal: Efficiency |Category: Utilization

Vehicle Throughput

VMT* L/M Vehicle counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway network mileage, by segment

Freight Throughput

Ton Miles* L/M Freight flow data, by corridor Roadway network mileage, by corridor

Person Throughput PMT M

Person counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway network mileage, by segment

Ferry Persons and Vehicles carried* L Vehicle and person counts

Transit Persons and Vehicles carried* L Passenger counts

Rail Persons and Vehicles carried* L Passenger counts

26

What did we LEARN?

Introduction

The team met with several regional WSDOT

offices (Eastern, South Central, Southwest,

Olympic, Northwest-Mt Baker, North Central

by phone) to get feedback on the Mobility

Performance Framework concept, comment

on the specific measures and metrics, and

discuss applicability to programs and

projects. Each meeting included region

planners and engineers. Regional

Transportation Planning Organizations,

transit providers, and local agency partners

were also invited and participated.

Which measures make

sense?

There was general agreement that the

current WSDOT mobility measure, percent

of posted speed was not enough and that

the framework should be expanded and

address other objectives. Broadening the

notion of mobility may better serve WSDOT

in identifying, evaluating and prioritizing

solutions as well as working with local

agency partners with transportation system

responsibility. The overarching goals of

accessibility, predictability and efficiency

resonated with teams, particularly when

they understood the performance measure

hierarchy and relationship to other

measures. Participants felt most metrics had

potential for addressing mobility.

Which measures should be

adjusted, eliminated or

changed?

Emerging Technologies – New

technologies including electric,

autonomous, and new transit vehicles and

new practices including shared use mobility

are emerging and may change mobility

measures. These technologies and how they

could impact mobility evaluations need

much more research.

Recommendation: Important topic for future

study and consideration as a measure.

Ferry Reliability – Add ferry measures

(reliability).

Recommendation: Added as a metric.

Freight Mobility – Perspectives were mixed

on whether freight should be considered

under economic development or mobility or

both. Some felt movement of goods did not

relate well to some metrics. Some thought

that we should expand the farm-to-market

accessibility measure to also consider the

mobility between manufacturing centers

and distribution hubs. One participant

wanted to make sure that freight mobility

did not dominate the economic

development framework and that other

economic development considerations

should also be considered.

Recommendation: Keep the freight measures

and metrics as identified, but consider

revisions once the economic development

framework is prepared.

27

Underrepresented Populations and ADA –

Several people asked whether this should be

considered as a mobility performance

measure given there are separate and legal

requirements for ADA and accessibility.

Others felt strongly that these metrics

should be included and stratified with

specificity for different population/customer

groups, for example, the needs of the

elderly and aging might be different than

the mobility needs of those with disabilities.

Some disabilities, for example blindness,

may have different needs than those in

wheelchairs. In general, most participants

agreed that this category should be

included in the MPF.


study and further refinement of the measure

and related metrics.

Cost Measures – Cost may be a factor in

least cost planning and be considered as

part of benefit/cost assessments. However,

cost may not specifically relate to mobility

during the ‘Identify Needs’ and ‘Assess

Alternative Strategies’ steps and may be

more important later in the planning

process. Most participants agreed that the

cost measures category could be removed

from the MPF. The Utilization and Mode

Usage categories are more directly related

to efficiency.

Recommendation: Do not include as a

mobility measure for this level of planning.

Non-Recurring Incidents – Some

participants questioned the value of

tracking recurring congestion with a high

level of detail. Several participants

suggested collision rates or totals to better

identify mobility issues related to non-

recurring incidents.



Route and Mode Availability – Some

participants identified weight limits and

seasonal flooding/landslide closures on

facilities as issues that should be considered

in route and mode availability.



Proximity measures – Expand to include

other key destinations like schools, retail for

people and manufacturing industrial centers

for freight.

Recommendation: Included these destination

types in the metrics.

Transit measures – Suggestions were made

to include statewide transit access measures

(access distance and frequency) and quality

of the access to transit (e.g., level of stress

to walk to transit stops).


study and further refinement of the measure

and related metrics.

Route availability – Route availability

should consider completeness of network –

not just parallel facilities but facilities

crossing or connecting to a corridor, for

example.

Recommendation: Included this revision in

the metrics.

Air Quality – Air quality, as an

environmental issue, may have greater

importance for MPOs in non-attainment

areas. This measure should probably be

28

removed from the mobility list and focused

on as part of the Environmental Framework.

Recommendation: Remove the measure but

closely coordinate the mobility and

environmental framework elements, since

there is a direct relationship.

Comments on the

applicability of the

framework

Place Types and Limits – The context or

place type may be too limited or should be

scalable to address a continuum of place

types. An example given was rural towns

where a State Route is also the main street.

Setting the project limits too narrowly may

also be a challenge. Overall, the framework

is intended to be scalable and not have so

many place types as to be overly complex.

Cost to Implement – This broader mobility

evaluation will require additional resources

and possibly more time in solution

development. Where will those resources

come from?

Practical Solutions Linkage – All mobility

measures are available for consideration

and may be tiered based on data availability

with greater detail applied as the solutions

are reduced to a preferred set. This aligns

well with the Practical Solutions process

steps.

Multi-modalism – Consideration of

movement of people (PMT) and mode

choice is very important. Some local

agencies or MPOs have set priorities or

constructs that limit consideration of

vehicular system widening with preference

toward alternative modes.

Coordination with partners – As part of

the Practical Solutions M3 process

(Multimodal, Multidisciplinary and

Multijurisdictional) WSDOT will reach out

and work collaboratively with agency

partners in finding mobility and

transportation solutions. This coordination

may be reciprocated from local agencies

and can result in better solutions overall.

Meeting future needs and link to

development regulation – Future

development can have a strong impact on

mobility, specifically if it is inconsistent with

long-term regional planning and does not

align to or address modal and system

hierarchies. The Mobility Performance

Framework provides measures that should

highlight some of these inconsistencies in

current and future (planning horizon)

conditions. Coordination and consistency

can be improved through the Practical

Solutions and regional planning processes.

Organizational Structure/Hierarchy and

Agency Support – Several mentioned how

to establish thresholds and/or performance

measures. NCHRP 660 addresses setting

performance measures. Thresholds and

measures also are scalable.

Materials to share – WSDOT is piloting

Sugar Access, a GIS Tool from Citilabs, as a

potential tool for measuring accessibility.

Others datasets are likely to be identified if

the Mobility Performance Framework is

adopted, including bicycle and pedestrian

stress and additional data on person

throughput.

29

RECOMMENDATIONS

for Next Steps to Support

the Mobility

Performance

Framework

Decide up front how mobility

performance measures will inform

decisions and at what level of detail the

performance measures will be analyzed.

Use a mix of performance measures and

metrics that fit the goals of the study. There

are no “one-size-fits-all” measures.

Start setting up data collection and

analysis protocols. There are a growing

number of sources that provide data on

accessibility measures, including the Sugar

Access tool that WSDOT is currently

exploring. This is an excellent opportunity

to partner with local and regional agencies,

who have been working with demographic

and transportation databases for several

years.

Make sure to consider both existing and

future conditions relating to mobility.

Separate tools are needed to explore future

mobility needs tied to changing land use

patterns and transportation networks. This

will require additional coordination with

transportation modelers at WSDOT and

MPO’s to capture the changes that are likely

to occur in the future.

Consider further reducing the number of

measures. There is a need to balance

being comprehensive with regards to

mobility versus creating an unwieldy and

inconsistent analysis process. As part of the

case studies, identify which measures (and

metrics) are most meaningful and

reasonable to analyze. Use this information

to further refine the MPF over time.

Coordinate with other frameworks being

developed by WSDOT. In the initial

development of the MPF, measures such as

freight movement, safety, cost, and air

quality/GHG were identified. However, as

the MPF was refined, these measures were

removed with the understanding that they

will be addressed in other frameworks being

developed for the other System Policy

Goals. As the remaining frameworks are

developed, the MPF measures should be

reevaluated and adjusted to be synergistic

yet not duplicative with the other framework

measures.

Integrate the Mobility Measures Fully

within the Practical Solutions Process. As

shown in the following table, there are many

opportunities to apply and refine the MPF

throughout this process.

30

Steps in the Practical Solutions Process Mobility Measures

1. Assemble a project advisory team Collect data from 3 M partners

2. Identify baseline need Apply available mobility measures to support

need development

3. Identify the land use / transportation

context

Apply mobility measures that reflect current

and future land use and system context.

Further examine MPF relationships to the

Transportation Context (1102.03)

4. Select design controls Establish modal compatibility tied to land use

and transportation characteristics

5. Evaluate alternatives Apply measures for the type of project to

help compare solutions

6. Select design elements employed and/or

changed by the selected alternative

Continue to refine mobility measures to

optimize solution sets

7. Determine design element dimensions Ensure that the impacts on mobility

performance have been considered

31

Appendices

A- Performance Mobility Framework Combined Table

B- WSDOT Design Manual Context Worksheet

Primary Authors:

Donald Samdahl

Chris Breiland

Rodney Brown

Chris Grgich

Jeanne Acutanza- Acutanza STS

Fehr & Peers 32

Table A-1: Mobility Performance Framework Potential Measures and Metrics M

ea

su

re

Me

tric

Decision Point Context Data Needs & Analysis

Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs

Goal: Accessibility |Category: Proximity to Services


Population density ● ● ● ● ● ○ L Local or census population data (current); Travel model or comprehensive plans (future)

Jobs density* ● ● ● ● ○ ○ L Local or census population data (current); Travel model or comprehensive plans (future)



● ● ● ● ● ○ M

Local or census jobs data Roadway network Transit network Travel times (GIS analytics) Land use inventory at parcel or grid level


● ● ○ ● M

Local farm and market location data Roadway network Travel times (GIS analytics) Land use inventory at parcel or grid level


● ● ● ● ○ ○ M

Intermodal facility locations Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Truck routes Roadway network Travel times (GIS analytics)

Fehr & Peers 33

Me

as

ure

Me

tric


Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs


● ● ● ● ● ● M

Local services location data Bicycle network Walking network (sidewalks and trails) Travel times Land use inventory at parcel or grid level



● ● ● ● ● ○ M

Walking network (sidewalks and trails) with sidewalk presence and condition information Roadway network

Sidewalk miles per capita* ● ● ○ ● ● ○ L Walking network (sidewalks and trails) Local or census population data

Intersection density ● ● ● ● ● M Pedestrian and roadway network

Pedestrian crossing opportunities per mile

● ● ● ● ● ● ○ M Pedestrian and roadway network Pedestrian crossing treatments



● ● ● ● ● ○ M Bicycle network (lanes, routes, and trails) with presence and condition data Roadway network

Bicycle facilities (miles) per capita

● ● ● ● ○ L Bicycle network (lanes, routes, and trails) Local or census population data

Fehr & Peers 34

Me

as

ure

Me

tric


Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs


Frequency of transit service*

● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ L Transit schedule

Presence of local transit/regional service*

● ● ● ● ● ○ L Transit network map


● ● ● ● ○ M

Transit network Local or census population and jobs data Land use inventory at parcel or grid level Future land use forecasts



○ ● ● ● ● ● ● M/H

Local or census population, income, and other demographic data Walking network Transit network Land use inventory at parcel or grid level


● ● ● ● ● ○ M ADA provisions along roadway and intersections ADA access surveys

Goal: Accessibility |Category: Travel Experience

Level of Service

Hours of Traffic Congestion

● ● ● ● ○ M/H Number of hours congested during specified time periods

Travel Time (speed), by mode*

● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ M/H Travel time (speed) by roadway segment Data by mode if available

Fehr & Peers 35

Me

as

ure

Me

tric


Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs

Level of Pedestrian Stress ● ● ● ● ● ○ M/H

Pedestrian and roadway network data, including sidewalk widths, sidewalk quality, driveway frequency, crosswalk frequency, traffic volumes, heavy vehicle volumes, travel lanes, and traffic speeds

Level of Bicycle stress ● ● ● ● ● ○ M/H

Bicycle and roadway network data, including bike facility type, bike facility width, roadway quality, parking presence, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds

Hours of Person Delay, by mode

● ● ● ● ○ M/H

Travel time by mode during specified time periods Intersection delay by mode Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Intersection delay (weighted by persons)

● ● ● ● ● M/H Intersection delay by mode Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Hours of Truck Delay* ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ M/H

Travel time by trucks during specified time periods Aggregate by time periods (e.g., peak, daily, annual)

Fehr & Peers 36

Me

as

ure

Me

tric


Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs

Goal: Predictability |Category: Travel Reliability

Modal Reliability

Travel time reliability buffer index*

● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ M Travel time (by mode) during specified time periodsComparison to free-flow travel times

Ferry reliability ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ L On-time data from WSF

Percent transit on-time ● ● ● ● ○ L/M On-time data from transit provider


Number and rate of crashes

● ● ● ● ● ● ● M Crashes by milepost

Goal: Predictability |Category: Network Resiliency



● ● ● ● ● ● ○ L Roadway network Pedestrian and bicycle network Transit network and service levels

Goal: Efficiency |Category: Mode Usage

Mode Share Percent mode shares (by mode)*

● ● ○ ● ● ● ○ M/H Travel survey data Counts by mode Forecasts of future mode shares

Vehicle Occupancy

Number of persons per vehicle. (PMT/VMT)

○ ● ● ○ ● ● ○ ○ L PMT and VMT (see below) Counts by mode

Fehr & Peers 37

Me

as

ure

Me

tric


Co

rrid

or

Sk

etc

h

(Ph

as

e 1

)

Sy

ste

m-l

ev

el

Pri

ori

tiz

ati

on

(Ph

as

e 2

)

Co

rrid

or/

Su

ba

rea

Str

ate

gy

Ev

alu

ati

on

Pro

jec

t-L

ev

el

Ev

alu

ati

on

Urb

an

Co

re

To

wn

/

Urb

an

Su

bu

rba

n

Ru

ral

Eff

ort

re

qu

ire

d

Data Needs


● ● ● ● ○ Vehicle and person counts (by mode) Vehicle and person capacity (by mode)

Goal: Efficiency |Category: Utilization

Vehicle Throughput VMT* ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● L/M

Vehicle counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway network mileage, by segment

Freight Throughput

Ton Miles* ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ L/M Freight flow data, by corridor Roadway network mileage, by corridor

Person Throughput PMT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ M

Person counts (current) and forecasts (future) Roadway network mileage, by segment

Ferry Persons and Vehicles carried*

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ L Vehicle and person counts

Transit Persons and Vehicles carried*

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ L Passenger counts

Rail Persons and Vehicles carried*

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ L Passenger counts


Most applicable ● L- Limited data and analysis required Sometimes applicable ○ M- Moderate level of data and/or analysis required Least applicable [blank] H- High level of data and/or analysis required

Fehr & Peers 38

Table B-1: Context Identification Worksheet (1102)

Context Identification Worksheet (Use ArcGIS Online Map Unless Otherwise Noted):

1. Review indicators (far left column) to define context (rural, suburban, town/urban or urban core) in table below.

2. Check one box in each row based on existing condition and another box in each row based on future condition.

3. Split segments by mileposts if indicators change significantly. Use one sheet for each milepost range.

Indicator Relevance Rural Suburban Town/Urban Urban Core Source

(Existing) Source (Future)

Land Use Within ½

mile of

roadway

Agricultural uses

with some isolated

residential and

commercial

Single uses (divided

into residential,

commercial,

institutional or

industrial uses)

Mixed-uses (blends

2+ residential,

commercial,

institutional and/or

industrial uses)

Mixed uses

except industrial

and agriculture

Aerial

Photos*

County Zoning &

Land Use

Designations, Local

Jurisdiction’s ArcGIS

Online data.*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Housing

Units/Acre

Polygons

adjacent to

roadway

< 1 unit/acre

1-4 units/acre

4-15 units/acre

15+ units/acre

EPA Smart

Location

Database*

County Zoning &

Land Use

Designations, Local

Comprehensive

Plans, EPA Smart

Location Data Base,

WAECY Urban

Growth Areas*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Jobs/Acre Polygons

adjacent to

roadway

0-1 jobs/acre

1-10 jobs/acre

10-50 jobs/acre

50+ jobs/acre

EPA Smart

Location

Database*

Local Comprehensive

Plans, EPA Smart

Location Data Base ,

WAECY Urban

Growth Areas*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Fehr & Peers 39

Indicator Relevance Rural Suburban Town/Urban Urban Core Source

(Existing) Source (Future)

Street

Intersection

Density

Polygons

adjacent to

roadway

< 15

intersections/

square mile

15-75 intersections

per square mile

75-150

intersections per

square mile

150+

intersections/

square mile

EPA Smart

Location

Database*

Local Comprehensive

Plans, EPA Smart

Location Database*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Typical

Building

Height

Visible from

roadway

N/A Mostly 1 to 2 story Mostly 2 to 4 story Mostly 4+

stories

Google

Maps

Streetview*

Local zoning codes

(Height by Zone

Tables)*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Setbacks Visible from

roadway

Varies 24 ft min (arterial)

12 ft min (non-

arterial)

6 ft min to 18 ft

max

2 ft min to 12 ft

max

Aerial

Photos*

Local zoning codes

(Setbacks by Zone

Tables)*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Parking Visible from

roadway

Off-street (on-

street rare)

On-street

residential, off-

street commercial

On-street common

supplemented by

off-street surface

Mostly on-street

with some off-

street structures

Aerial

Photos*

Local Comprehensive

Plans*

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □ Future

□

Existing □

Future □

Beginning

MP

Ending MP Existing Context Future Context Comments/Justification

Documents

MOBILITY PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK...the terms in the draft mobility performance framework along with identifying possible measures of effectiveness, methodologies, and data sources for