Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Public Transportation

Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Public Transportation Subcommittee

Meeting #4January 29, 2019

Agenda

2

• Transportation Disadvantage (recap from Bike/Ped)

• Other P6.0 Improvements• Transit Dependence Index

• Project Cost – Bundling

• Schedule / Next Steps

Transportation Disadvantage

Transportation Disadvantage

4

• Recap from bike/ped subcommittee discussion…

• Discuss metrics presented by ITRE• Where/how to incorporate?

Institute for Transportation Research and Education

Assessing Measures of Transportation Disadvantagefor Public Transportation Project Prioritization

RP 2019-16

Brittany V. Gaustad, MPP, Principal InvestigatorWaugh Wright, MS

Kai Monast, MRP, Director, Public Transportation GroupEleni Bardaka, PhD

Institute for Transportation Research & EducationDec. 18, 2018

5


Presentation Overview• Definition of TD & Research Overview• Approaches to Calculating TD• Metrics Assessment

– Metric 1: TD Populations– Metric 2: Access to Points-of-Interest (POIs)– Metric 3: Transportation Service Provision (Equity Analysis)– Metric 4: Need for Service/Existing Transportation Infrastructure– Metric 5: Improved Connectivity– Metric 6: Impact Improvement (General)– Metric 7: Project Features to benefit TD populations

• Conclusions & Recommendations• Questions & Discussion

6


Transportation Disadvantage (TD)

• Transportation Disadvantage: A mismatch between transportation needs and access (Combs et al., 2016); Examples:– No car– Lack of transit/connectivity– Time, cost, language barriers– Physical/psychological barriers– Lack of safety/inclusion

• TD Populations: Groups that face barriers to accessing transportation

7


Research Overview

• Period of Performance: August 2018 – March 2019• Objective: To evaluate measures of transportation disadvantage and

recommend metrics to be included in the P6 prioritization process for public transportation projects

• Methodology– Literature Review – Peer State Interviews & Document Analyses– Metrics Assessment

8


List of Interviews Completed

9

No. Name Title Affi l iation Interview type

1 Debra Coll ins Public Transportation Director NCDOT Guidance2 Sarah Lee Senior Transportation Engineer NCDOT Guidance

3 Eric Sundquist DirectorState Smart

Transportation Guidance

4 Jennifer SlesingerTransportation Planner, Office of Transportation & Planning MassDOT Peer state

5 Quinn Molloy

GIS Analyst/Transportation Planner, Office of Transportation & Planning MassDOT Peer state

6 Craig SobczynskiTitle VI Specialist, Office of Diversity & Civil Rights MassDOT Peer state

7 Ann Ludwig Manager, Capital Programming NJTPA Peer state8 Zenobia Fields Department Director of Planning NJTPA Peer state9 Dave Vautin Principal Planner/Analyst MTC Peer state10 Anup Tapase Planning Department MTC Peer state

11 Neil I. Sherman

Director of Statewide Transit Programs, Department of Rail & Public Transportation VADOT Peer state

12 Mary McGowanSenior Transportation Planner, Trasportation Planning Unit ODOT Peer state

13 Michael RockUnit Manager, Transprotation Development Division ODOT Peer state

14 Naomi Zwerdling Transit Program and Policy Lead ODOT Peer state


Approaches to Calculating Transportation Disadvantage

• Mapping TD populations• Mapping multimodal transportation networks• Mapping out origin-destination data (access to points of interest)

– Can separate by TD/non-TD (equity analysis)• Equity analysis (compare benefits/adversities between TD & non-TD)• Indices (combine variety of measures)• Modeling approaches• Qualitative approaches (integrate local participation/surveys, self-rating of

the level of benefit to TD populations)

10


Metric 1: TD Populations

• Low-income (Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev normalizes to geographic region & HH size)– Percent unemployed/underemployed, rent-burdened, temporary laid-off

workers, [educational attainment]• Elderly (65+)• Minorities, Migrants/Immigrants, Limited-English-Proficient• Disabled - Physical/Cognitive• Carless, youth without car

11


Metric 2: Access to Points of Interest

• Employment (all or low-income specifically)– Access to CBD/business districts, etc.

• Medical facilities (hospitals, specialized services like PT, etc.)• Educational facilities (primary school, community colleges, universities)• Grocery stores (access to healthy food)• Child care centers• Recreational facilities/public parks, etc.• Safety facilities (police departments, domestic violence shelters, etc.)• Homeless shelters• Transit accessibility (e.g. 0.25 – 0.50 mile buffer around stops)

12


Metric 3: Transportation Service Provision(Equity Analysis)

• Transit travel time• Average distance to the nearest transit stop• Availability of night time service• Availability of low-cost transit options• Frequency of service• Degree of crowding• Number and quality of bus shelters• Service (Annual per capita vehicle hours)• Ridership (Annual per capita passenger trips) – can weight based on TD• Transit productivity

13


Metric 4: Need for Service/Existing Transportation Infrastructure

• The amount of adequate public transportation is established as a baseline– Can establish different baselines for urban/rural– Could combine with measures of connectivity and/or multimodal

• Areas in the state lacking adequate transit can be identified & projects can be prioritized in that area

14


Metric 5: Improved Connectivity

• GIS Connectivity analysis• Sub-measures used may include:

– Frequency of service– Number of bus stops– Complementary scheduling

• See NCDOT Bike/Ped Connectivity Lookup Table

15


Metric 5: Improved Connectivity

16


Metric 6: Impact Improvement – General TD

• All measures selected to indicate the TD population are integrated into a single measure/score sheet

• The overall purpose is to estimate the project benefits to the TD population• Some states also include a measure of harm (e.g. gentrification associated

with development in a TD area)• Refer to sample score sheet

17


Metric 7: Project Features to Benefit TD Populations• Remediate project-level barriers to access; Examples:

– Additional lighting/emergency areas– Spanish/Braille translations– Low-cost fares – Easy-to-understand & access transit schedule information, off-hour service– Hiring assistants that can help confused or cognitively disabled people– Providing security around bus stops in dangerous areas to walk people

home if needed (i.e. high crime areas)– Providing more parking around transit boarding areas

18


Conclusions & Recommendations• Comprehensive Approach - A more comprehensive approach is preferred,

combining the recommended metrics that were chosen based on peer states having implemented them, the literature, as well as how effectively they reflect a need for more transit

• Case-by-Case Basis - Scoring and implementation approaches should be tailored to each metric

• Feedback Loop – Involving the public as well as stakeholder feedback on approaches used to benefit TD; appeals process; assess benefits & harm

• Multifaceted Approach - Data collected and analyzed at both project submitter and state/county levels in a systematic analysis– Project Submitters: Open-ended explanations & rating scales– State Level Analysis: Rating open-ended explanations, rating scales,

weights/criteria, etc.

19

Other P6.0 Improvements

P6.0 Improvements

21

Proposal: keep P6.0 scoring as-is (same as P5.0)

• In light of NCDOT internal structural changes to Public Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Divisions, there will be a better handle by P7.0 on desired direction for both modes overall

• Besides TD, no new potential data or scoring metrics have become available

• Transit Dependence Index (TDI)?• Bundling?

Project Categories for P5.0• Projects are scored in 3 separate categories:

– Mobility (Route-Specific)– Demand-Response– Facility

• Project measures will be scaled within each criteria, separately within each project category

Mobility Demand‐Response Facility

Impact Scale Scale Scale

Demand/Density Scale Scale Scale

Efficiency Scale Scale Scale

Cost Effectiveness Scale Scale Scale

Criteria MeasureRegional Impact

(70%)Division Needs

(50%)

Impact Number of trips affected by project 15% 10%

Demand/Density Total Trips / Service population 20% 10%

Efficiency Total trips / Total revenue seat hours 10% 10%

Cost Effectiveness

Additional trips /(Cost to NCDOT / Lifespan of project) 25% 20%

Public Transportation Scoring:Mobility

23

Project Types:• Route-specific vehicles (new or expansion only)

• Fixed guideway vehicles, fixed route vehicles, deviated fixed route vehicles• Corridors

• Fixed guideway (commuter rail, intercity rail, light rail)• Bundle of vehicle + other (ex. stops / shelters, park and rides, bus pullouts)• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)• Bus on Shoulder System (BOSS) / Busway

Criteria MeasureRegional Impact

(70%)Division Needs

(50%)

Impact Number of trips affected by project 10% 10%

Demand/Density

Total hours with the project in place / Service population 20% 15%

Efficiency Vehicle Utilization Ratio 15% 10%

Cost Effectiveness

Additional trips /(Cost to NCDOT / Lifespan of project) 25% 15%

Public Transportation Scoring:Demand Response

24

Project Types:• Demand Response vehicles (expansion only)

• No facilities – either submit Demand Response facilities under Facility category or under Mobility category if bundled with a vehicle

Criteria MeasureDivision Needs

(50%)

Impact Number of trips affected by project 15%

Demand/Density Ridership Growth Trend for the Previous 5 Years 10%

Efficiency Efficiency Score 10%

Cost Effectiveness

Additional trips /(Cost to NCDOT / Lifespan of project) 15%

Public Transportation Scoring:Facilities

25

Project Types:• Passenger stations• Individual or bundled stops/shelters• Individual or bundled park and ride lots• Administrative / Maintenance buildings

Transit Dependence Index

Transit Dependence Index

27

• See file…• Extract 5-year ACS estimates of potentially transit-dependent

population segments. Combine the variables to calculate a transit dependence index (TDI).

Project Cost – Bundling

Project Cost – Bundling

29

• Bundling within Transit• By jurisdiction, system, multiple systems?

º How to score? Weighted average?º Geography limitations?

• Facilities – already not required to be along a route• Multiple project types – how to score?• What are the limitations/restrictions?

• Other questions:• How are local matches handled? (by percentage of project?)• Do we require project administration documentation/agreements up front?

• Helps increase LIP attractiveness, but increases local match

• Need to communicate 10-90% allowance better• And requirement for 90% on new rural facilities

Schedule / Next Steps

P6.0 Workgroup Meeting Dates

32

Workgroup Meeting #

Date Location

5 Monday, February 4, 2019 RTP Headquarters

6 Monday, March 4, 2019 RTP Headquarters

7 Monday, April 1, 2019 RTP Headquarters

8 Monday April 29, 2019 RTP Headquarters

9 Monday, June 3, 2019 (if needed) RTP Headquarters

Next Steps

33

Next subcommittee meeting TBD

Will share today’s discussions with Workgroup

Will share notes from meetings on Workgroup website

Homework…

Documents

Prioritization 6.0 Workgroup Public Transportation