A Look Ahead to the 2010 HCM

1. A Look Ahead to the 2010 HCM Mark Vandehey, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Paul Ryus, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Jim Bonneson, TTI Roger Roess, Polytechnic Institute of NYU Bastian Schroeder, ITRE Ken Courage, University of Florida

2. Session Agenda Overview of the 2010 HCM (Mark Vandehey) Multi-modal Level of Service in the 2010 HCM (Paul Ryus) What’s New Interrupted Flow Chapters (Jim Bonneson) What’s New Uninterrupted Flow Chapters (Roger Roess, Bastian Schroeder) Alternative Tools in the 2010 HCM (Ken Courage) Questions and Discussions

3. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Summary of significant changes • Overall organization • Conclusion

4. NCHRP 3-92 – Production of the 2010 HCM • HCM’s 5th Major Revision (1950, 1965, 1985, 2000) • Project began in October 2007 • Chapters delivered to TRB between July 2009 and March 2010 • Currently 95% Complete • Scheduled for publication by TRB by the end of 2010 • Key tasks: • State of the Art Review and Inventory • Focus Groups • Supplemental Research for 2010 HCM • Prepare Draft Chapters • Assist TRB During Publication Process

5. Outreach to Professionals • Focus groups on the HCM2000 early in the project • Mix of perspectives (DOT, city/county, consultants, academia) • Website for HCQS Committee members and friends • Research reports supporting new HCM content • Issue papers on HCM organization, objectives, content • Review and comment on draft chapters • Research team responses to comments • Presentations like this one

6. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Summary of significant changes • Overall organization • Conclusion

7. Summary of Significant Changes Incorporation of New Research Integrated Multimodal Approach Subject of a following presentation Improved planning applications Increased Emphasis of Alternative Tools Subject of a following presentation New Chapter on Active Traffic Management

8. Incorporation of New Research • NCHRP 3-60(Interchange Ramp Terminals) • NCHRP 3-64(HCM Applications Guide) • NCHRP 3-65(Roundabouts in the United States) • NCHRP 3-70(Multi-Modal Arterial LOS) • NCHRP 3-75(Freeway Weaving) • NCHRP 3-79(Arterial Travel Speeds)

9. Incorporation of New Research (cont’d.) • NCHRP 3-82 (Default Values for HCM) • NCHRP 3-85 (Guidelines for the Use of Alternative Traffic Analysis Tools) • NCHRP 20-7 (Two-Lane Highways) • FHWA Research on Active Traffic Management • NCHRP 3-92 supplemental research • Signalized Intersection Methodology (new delay method and structure changes reflecting actuated control) • Gap acceptance for six-lane, two-way stop-controlled Intersections • 75 mph speed-flow curve for freeways

10. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Summary of significant changes • Overall organization • Conclusion

11. HCM Evolution • HCM scope has grown over time • Increasing coverage of various system elements and modes • User interest in more-detailed procedures • HCM page count has grown correspondingly • 1950: 160 pages • 1965: 432 pages • 1985: 512 pages • 2000: 1,224 pages

12. Overall Organization • The 2010 HCM will consist of four volumes • Volume 1: Concepts • Volume 2: Uninterrupted Flow • Volume 3: Interrupted Flow • Volume 4: Applications Guide

13. Volume 1: Concepts • Bound & electronic versions • Nine Chapters • Basic concepts an analyst should be familiar with prior to conducting an HCM analysis, presented sequentially • Executive summary of the HCM for decision-makers • Material that is not expected to be significantly revised before next HCM edition • About 25% of the HCM’s printed pages

14. Volume 2: Uninterrupted Flow • Loose-leaf & electronic versions • Six Chapters • Uninterrupted flow methodologies described in sufficient detail that an analyst can understand the steps involved • Some computational details moved to Volume 4 • Alternative tool applications • Example problems • About 30% of the HCM’s printed pages

15. Volume 3: Interrupted Flow • Loose-leaf & electronic versions • Eight chapters • Interrupted flow methodologies described in sufficient detail that an analyst can understand the steps involved • Some computational details moved to Volume 4 • Ped, bike, and transit methodologies moved to appropriate system element chapters • Separate chapter for off-street ped/bike facilities • Users pointed to TCQSM for transit capacity details • Unsignalized Intersections chapter split into three chapters • About 45% of the HCM’s printed pages

16. Volume 4 • Electronic-only • 12 chapters • New Chapter on Active Traffic Management • Supplemental chapters • Target audience: • Users who seek a greater depth of understanding • Users who plan to develop HCM implementation software • Sensitivity analyses, statistics on methodological uncertainty, data collection forms, some worksheets • Example problems and computational results • Updated HCM Applications Guide • Technical Reference Library • Interpretations & clarifications

17. Style • Similar to HCM2000, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, and the Highway Safety Manual • Better use of margin space • More efficient graphics layout • Facilitates hyperlinking in the electronic version

18. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Summary of significant changes • Overall organization • Conclusion

19. Conclusion • The 2010 HCM will incorporate the results of more than$5 million in funded research since the HCM2000 • It incorporates a number of changes desired by the user community • It continues the HCM’s (and the user community’s) evolution toward a more multimodal approach to addressing transportation issues • It is designed to continue to be relevant to users in an age of increasing reliance on software tools

20. Thank you! • Mark Vandehey • mvandehey@kittelson.com

21. MULTIMODAL LOS IN THE2010 HCMPaul RyusKittelson & Associates, Inc.

22. Presentation Overview • Brief history of multimodal analysis in the HCM • Issues with the current HCM approach • 2010 HCM approach • Examples of multimodal LOS measures for urban street segments

23. History of Multimodal Analysis in the HCM:1950 and 1965 Manuals • 1950 HCM • Streetcars and bus impacts on vehicle capacity at traffic signals • Pedestrian impacts on vehicle capacity addressed indirectly • 1965 HCM • LOS concept introduced • Short (11-page) chapter on bus transit, with little quantitative info

24. History of Multimodal Analysis in the HCM:1985 Manual • New pedestrian chapter • Sidewalk and street corner LOS based on space per pedestrian • New 4-page bicycle chapter • Focused mainly on bicycle impacts on vehicular capacity • Expanded transit chapter • Bus capacity methods for bus stops, busways, and terminals • LOS based on passenger load and the probability of a queue of buses forming at a bus stop

25. History of Multimodal Analysis in the HCM:HCM2000 • Expanded pedestrian chapter • LOS for more facility types • Expanded bicycle chapter • Provided LOS for off-street paths, bike lanes at traffic signals, and along bike lanes along urban streets • Revised transit chapter • Drew material from the 1999 Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM)

26. History of Multimodal Analysis in the HCM:Issues with Historic Approach • Generally: • Information and analysis tools on non-auto modes are housed in mode-specific chapters that are easy to overlook or ignore • Bicycle and pedestrian modes: • LOS measures generally reflect a traffic engineer perspective • Speed, average space, delay • Florida & NCHRP 3-70 research suggest these aren’t the key factors • Transit mode: • Four transit LOS measures creates comparison difficulties • Difficulty keeping HCM in synch with TCQSM updates

27. 2010 HCM Focus Group Findings • Many jurisdictions don’t require multimodal analyses • Therefore, they aren’t performed • Jurisdictions that do want to perform pedestrian & bicycle analyses don’t find the current HCM measures useful • For example, Maryland & Florida use measures of user comfort • Most pedestrian and bicycle facilities don’t have capacity or speed issues • No need to analyze them using HCM procedures • Users refer to the TCQSM for transit-specific information

28. Multimodal Research Since HCM2000 • FHWA-sponsored research on off-street path LOS (2006) • Florida DOT research onon-street ped & bike LOS • Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook (2002 & 2009) • TCQSM, 2nd Edition (2003) • NCHRP 3-70, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2008)

29. 2010 HCM Approach (1) • Integrate multimodal concepts throughout the HCM • Encourages HCM users to consider all roadway users in their analysis and decision-making processes • Conceptual non-auto material integrated into Volume 1 chapters • Methods for determining LOS and other performance measures integrated into facility-specific chapters in Volumes 2 & 3 • No separate all-inclusive transit, bicycle, pedestrian chapters • Readers referred to TCQSM for transit-specific info • Transit LOS provided for urban streets (multimodal context) • Funding approved for a TCQSM 3rd edition (~2013 publication) • Technical transit material generally removed from HCM (concepts remain)

30. 2010 HCM Approach (2) • Analysts should consider modal interactions, trade-offs

31. 2010 HCM Approach (3) • Greater consideration of the traveler point-of-view through the use of traveler-perception models • Models allow more service-quality factors to be considered than traditional HCM measures • Models set LOS thresholds based on traveler responses to actual conditions • Many non-auto service measures are LOS scores • Predicts the average rating that users of a specific mode would give a specific system element under given conditions • LOS score cannot be measured directly in the field • Modal LOS scores for urban streets can be directly compared to each other (score has same meaning across modes)

32. Service Measures in the 2010 HCM

33. Pedestrian LOS: Urban Street Segments • Model incorporates these factors: • Outside travel lane width • Bicycle lane/shoulder width (acts as buffer from auto traffic) • Physical buffer presence (e.g., on-street parking, street trees) • Sidewalk presence and width • Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside travel lane • Pedestrian density considered separately • Worse of (density LOS result, perception-based LOS result) determines the segment LOS

34. Pedestrian LOS: Urban Street Segments Same LOS scale used for the bike, transit, and auto modes See NCHRP Report 616 for information on how these were derived

35. Bicycle LOS: Urban Street Segments • Model incorporates these factors: • Volume and speed of motor vehicle traffic in outside travel lane • Heavy vehicle percentage • Pavement condition • Bicycle lane presence • Bicycle lane, shoulder, and outside lane widths • On-street parking presence and utilization

36. Transit LOS: Urban Street Segments • Model incorporates these factors: • Service frequency • Average bus speed • Bus reliability (excess wait time) • Average passenger load • Shelter, bench presence • Pedestrian LOS score for segment • “Transit” covers on-street bus, streetcar, light rail • Refer to the TCQSM for LOS measures for exclusive transit facilities, routes in general, and transit service areas

37. Auto LOS: Urban Street Segments • Perception score model incorporates these factors: • Number of stops • Left-turn lane presence • This model had the best fit to the data, but testing around the US found an agency preference for the HCM’s current speed-based LOS • 2010 HCM will present two models: • Speed-based (used for determining auto LOS) • Perception-based (scores can be used to compare service quality between modes, but no LOS letter attached to them)

38. Summary • Alternative modes will be integrated into the 2010 HCM far better than before • Urban street LOS methods will facilitate “complete streets” evaluations • Relative service quality provided to each mode’s travelers can be determined • Trade-offs of different improvement alternatives or future demand scenarios can be evaluated • Toolbox of possible LOS improvement measures will include much more than just traditional auto capacity enhancements

39. Overview of Interrupted Flow Chapters Jim Bonneson Texas Transportation Institute Lee Rodegerdts Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

40. Presentation Overview • Vision for 2010 HCM - Interrupted Flow Facilities • 2010 HCM Organization • Highlight Changes • Chapter by chapter • Closing Comments

41. Vision for 2010 HCM - Interrupted Flow Facilities • Full System Coverage • Points, segments, facility • Recognize Need for Computational Engine • Computational intensity of some methodologies too great for manual worksheet presentation • Essential tool for committee to maintain methodology and document the more detailed calculations • Typically implemented in a spreadsheet Segment Segment TWSC Signal Roundabout AWSC

42. Vision for 2010 HCM - Interrupted Flow Facilities • Multimodal Evaluation • Emphasize combined evaluation of auto, ped, bike, and transit FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002 Interactions Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Automobile LOS Transit LOS

43. 2010 HCM Organization • Volume 1 - Concepts • Volume 2 – Uninterrupted Flow • Volume 3 – Interrupted Flow • Volume 4 – Applications Guide

44. 2010 HCM Organization • Volume 3 – Interrupted Flow • Urban Street Facilities • Urban Street Segments • Signalized Intersections • Two-way Stop-Controlled Intersections • All-way Stop-Controlled Intersections • Roundabouts • Interchange Ramp Terminals • Exclusive Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002

45. Highlight Changes Since 2000 HCM • Urban Street Facilities • Urban Street Segments • Signalized Intersections • Two-way Stop-Controlled Intersections • All-way Stop-Controlled Intersections • Roundabouts • Interchange Ramp Terminals FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002

46. Chapter Structure • Outline • Introduction • Level of service criteria • Required input data • Scope and Limitations • Methodology • Automobile mode • Pedestrian mode • Bicycle mode • Transit mode • Applications • Default values • Example Problems

47. Chapter 16Urban Street Facilities • Scope • Facility (= two or more segments) • 0.75 to 2.0 miles long in urbanized downtown areas • 1.5 to 5.0 miles long in other areas • Separate methodology for auto, ped, bike, and transit modes • Emphasizes combined evaluation of auto, ped, bike, and transit • Methodology • Aggregates key segment performance measures • Example Problems • Demonstrate integrated multimodal evaluation process

48. Chapter 17Urban Street Segments • Scope • Segment (= link + boundary intersections) • Signal, TWSC, AWSC, or roundabout boundary intersections • Models signal coordination • Separate methodology for auto, ped, bike, and transit modes • A Closer Look • Automobile methodology • Transit methodology

49. Chapter 17Urban Street Segments • Automobile Methodology • New input data • Link flow rate • Number of through lanes on link • Number of lanes/bays at access points • Median type, curb presence • Speed limit • Boundary intersection perf. measures • Running time prediction procedure • Free-flow speed • Segment length • Volume adjustment • Delay due to mid-segment turns FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002

50. F.O. F.O. Y.P. Offset F.O. F.O. Y.P. Chapter 17Urban Street Segments • Automobile Methodology • Coordinated operation modeling • Controller inputs • Force mode • Splits  used to estimate force off & yield points • Offset & offset reference point