CongestionSmart

CongestionSmart Livable, Safe, Sustainable Projects within Five Years

TOA’s approach to creating safer, more livable streets using the Congestion Management Process

“Solutions that Make a Difference”

What is CongestionSmart?

It often is a challenge for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to address ever‐increasing Federal requirements.

Sometimes we would like to just take a break from working on the requirements and do something to provide a benefit to our communities, especially if safety and livability benefits could be delivered quickly at a relatively low cost.

Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) has worked with many MPO clients throughout Florida over the years to develop a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that meets Federal requirements and, more importantly, helps MPOs excel at meeting immediate needs in their communities, such as: 

Reducing congestion



Making communities safer



Improving all modes of travel to promote livability



Helping member governments address other State requirements

Traffic congestion results in wasted time, pollution, and safety hazards for everyone. As pictured above, it also delays the response of fire crews responding to an emergency call.

Communities cannot wait to make progress on reducing unnecessary traffic congestion.

What’s Inside

2



The CMP Annual Update Process — page 4



Congestion Mitigation Strategies — page 6



Safety Mitigation Strategies — page 8



What Makes CongestionSmart Different? — page 11

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

CongestionSmart is TOA’s approach to implementing and managing a Congestion Management Process that can provide these benefits to YOUR community.

The Federal Perspective The Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a Federally‐required management system and process conducted by a Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to improve traffic operations and safety through the use of either strategies that reduce travel demand or the implementation of operational improvements.

MPOs are required by the Federal government to implement a CMP as part of their routine planning efforts. The public benefits from having a functional CMP in place, since it often can improve travel conditions through the use of low ‐cost improvements or strategies that can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe (within 5 to 10 years). More traditional capacity improvements, such as adding additional travel lanes, can take 10 or more years to implement and cost significantly more.

Projects identified through the CMP process also may be added to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan should they require a longer time timeframe to implement.

Federal 8‐Step Congestion Management Process A key element of a successful CMP is to address quickly the Federal requirements identified above and develop an annual process that is oriented toward the identification of projects and programs that reduce congestion and improve safety.

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. 3

The CMP Annual Update Process Phase 1: Congested Corridor Network Identification During this phase, annual monitoring efforts are developed or used to review the level of service on the roadway network to identify reoccurring congestion. Roadways that are congested today or forecasted to be congested in five years are considered for review through the CMP screening process in Step 2. This effort also can be used to support local concurrency management systems and other analysis required for the Comprehensive Planning development of annual Capital Improvement Elements. Crash data management systems are used to identify corridors or intersections with a high frequency of crashes that result in non‐reoccurring congestion. Safety improvements not only reduce the potential harm to persons in our communities, they also can reduce congestion.

Phase 2: CMP and Safety Strategy Screening Once congested corridors are selected for review, they are screened to identify mitigation strategies appropriate to reduce congestion or improve safety to reduce crashes. The Congestion Mitigation Process Strategy Matrix (Page 7) is used to address reoccurring congestion and the Safety Mitigation Strategy Matrix (Page 9) is used to address non‐reoccurring congestion. The Congestion Mitigation Process Strategy Matrix is typically used in a workshop setting to quickly review a corridor while the Safety Mitigation Strategy Matrix is applied based on a review of crash data.

Phase 3: Project and Program Identification and Implementation The congestion or safety mitigation strategies that are identified as having the greatest potential benefit are then evaluated in greater detail based on committee or technical recommendations. During this phase, additional analysis of potential projects (see p. 10) is undertaken to identify the specific improvement, implementation issues, and costs.

“Programs” such as demand‐reducing programs or policy changes are evaluated to identify recommended action items. Recommendations then are made for the projects or programs to be implemented. This may result in a near‐ immediate refocusing of existing resources, such as existing rideshare programs or local maintenance crews where possible, programming improvements in the local agency capital improvement programs, or using boxed funds controlled by the MPO, and finally may be identified as candidate projects for implementation in future Long Range Transportation Plans.

4

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

1.5

Recurring Congestion

1.1

Roadway LOS Volume/Capacity Analysis

Congested Roadways and Intersections

1.2

1.6

Non‐Recurring Congestion

1.3

Recurring

2.1

1.6

Priority Congested Corridors and Intersections

2.3

Recommended Strategies

by Location

Evaluation CMP Strategy Matrix

2.4

3.1

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

3.2

Conceptual Improvement Development and Costing

3.3

2.2

2.5

Priority Safety Location (Roads and Intersections)

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

Corridors and Intersections with High Crash Frequency (Safety Issues)

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

Non‐ Recurring

2.5

1.4

Crash Locations

CMP Task Force and Goods Movement Stakeholder Review and Recommendations

Recommended Strategies

by Location

Evaluate with Safety Matrix

3.4

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

3.5

Implement Strategies (Funding and Development)

Prioritize Specific Strategies and Projects

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. 5

Congestion Mitigation Strategies Developing goals and objectives is a new requirement for CMPs that was not previously required for Congestion Management Systems (CMS). Congestion mitigation strategies should be directly associated with the goals of the CMP. Typically, corridors in urban areas that have a high level of congestion will look favorably upon Tier 1, 2,

Goals & Objectives

or 3 strategies. These tiers are supportive of community planning efforts such as mobility plans, transportation concurrency exception areas, multimodal transportation districts, etc. Tier 4 strategies to improve roadway operations usually are favored where congestion is not extreme and minimal public transportation service exists.

Strategies

Goal 1 Reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per capita

Tier 1: Strategies to Reduce Person Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

Goal 2 Increase viability and use on non‐ automobile modes of travel

Tier 2: Strategies to Shift Automobile Trips to Other Modes

Goal 3 Improve and increase transit as a viable transportation alternative

Tier 3: Strategies to Shift Trips from SOV to HOV Auto/Van

Goal 4 Improve roadway operations to reduce congestion

Tier 4: Strategies to Improve Roadway Operations

Tier 5: Strategies to Add Capacity

6

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

Congestion Mitigation Strategy Matrix The Congestion Mitigation Process Strategy Matrix is used in Step 2.2 to evaluate all appropriate strategies for a corridor or intersection. Typically, it takes less than one hour for a committee to review an entire corridor. This streamlines the process of identifying strategies and adds credibility to the selection process early in the evaluation of the corridors. Committee participants have indicated that the review process is one of the most lively and enjoyable workshops in which they have participated.

Level of Potential Benefit: Each potential strategy is evaluated or reviewed during a CMP Committee Task Force Workshop. This quickly identifies the potential strategies that may be appropriate for the specific corridor. Two columns are provided to identify the potential differences in benefit for significant Transit Corridors versus Non‐Transit Corridors.

4

1.06

6 8 Existing Planned

Preferential for Free Parking for HOVs: This program provides an incentive for employees to car‐ pool with preferred of free‐of‐charge parking for HOVs.

Not Applicable

4

1.07

6 8 Existing Planned

1.08

4 6 8

10

8 Existing Planned

1

Not Applicable

3

1

8 Existing Planned Not Applicable

3

1

8 Existing Planned Not Applicable

3

2

6 8 Existing Planned

LOW MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM

No

HIGH

9

LOW MEDIUM

1

Yes

No

3 5

Comments:

HIGH

9

LOW MEDIUM

1 3 5

Yes

No

Comments:

HIGH

7

LOW

LOW MEDIUM

LOW LOW LOW

7

Yes Comments:

9

1 3 5

Yes

No

Comments:

7 9

1 3 5

Yes

No

Comments:

7 9

1 3 5

Yes

No

Comments:

7 9

10

4

5

9

2

6

7

5

10

4

5

9

2

6

7

3

10

4

5

9

2

6

9

1

10

4

5

consideration and what the specific recommended action item is. Action items may include coordination with other departments or agencies to focus on a rideshare program in the corridor or undertaking a detailed analysis at specific intersections to identify operational improvements.

Existing Planned

Not Applicable

7

LOW

2

8 Existing Planned

3

10

Not

6

7

Recommendations/Comments: Once each strategy

Negotiated Demand Management Agreements: As a condition of development approval, local Applicable is evaluated, the reviewers identify which governments require the private sector to contribute to traffic mitigation agreements. The agree‐ ments typically set a traffic reduction goal (often expressed as a minimum level of ridesharing par‐ strategies are recommended for additional ticipation or a stipulated reduction in the number of automobile trips).

4

5

1

2

MEDIUM

3

9

10

HIGH

Not Applicable

No

7

LOW

1

10

2

8 Existing Planned

10

2

6

9

MEDIUM

Safe Routes to Schools Program: This federally‐funded program provides 100 percent funding to communities to invest in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure surrounding schools.

4

5

9

2

HIGH

8

Not Applicable

3

Yes Comments:

7

LOW

6

8

Not Applicable

5

10

MEDIUM

4

Existing Planned

1

10

2

6 Existing Planned

HIGH

1.05

Alternative Mode Marketing and Education: Providing education on alternative modes of trans‐ portation can be an effective way of increasing demand for alternative modes. This strategy can include mapping websites that compute directions and travel times for multiple modes of travel.

Not Applicable

9

2 4

5

3

Demand Improvements

7

LOW

8

MEDIUM

6

HIGH

2 4

Existing Planned

3

10

LOW

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

7

MEDIUM

1.04

Guaranteed Ride Home Programs: These programs provide a safety net to those people who car‐ pool or use transit to work so that they can get to their destination if unexpected work demands or an emergency arises.

8

1

Recommendations/Comments

10

MEDIUM

8

MEDIUM

6 Existing Planned

6 Existing Planned

7

HIGH

4

1.03

1

10

2

4

5

9

2

1 3 5

Yes

No

Comments:

7 HIGH

8

MEDIUM

6

HIGH

2

Not Applicable

3

10

4

Existing Planned

1

7 HIGH

8

HIGH

Not Applicable

6 Existing Planned

LOW

Telecommuting: Telecommuting policies allow employees to work at home or a regional telecom‐ mute center instead of going into the office, all the time or only one or more days per week.

4

MEDIUM

Alternative Work Hours: There are three main variations: staggered hours, flex‐time, and com‐ pressed work weeks. Staggered hours require employees in different work groups to start at dif‐ ferent times to spread out their arrival/departure times. Flex‐time allows employees to arrive and leave outside of the traditional commute period. Compressed work weeks involve reducing the number of days per week worked while increasing the number of hours worked per day.

Not Applicable

2

HIGH

Not Applicable

LOW

Congestion Pricing: Congestion pricing can be implemented statically or dynamically. Static con‐ gestion pricing requires that tolls are higher during traditional peak periods. Dynamic congestion pricing allows toll rates to vary depending upon actual traffic conditions. The more congested the road, the higher the cost to travel on the road. Dynamic congestion pricing works best when cou‐ pled with real‐time information on the availability of other routes.

MEDIUM

1.02

Level of Potential Development

Non‐Transit Transit Corridor Corridor

MEDIUM

Level 1: Strategies to Reduce Person Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

1.01

Congestion Mitigation Strategy*

HIGH

Strategy #

HIGH

Level

9

10

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. 7

Safety Mitigation Strategies Each year, nearly 3,000 fatalities and 17,000 severe injuries occur on our roadways just in Florida. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death of persons ages 4 to 24. Reducing congestion is important to the public, but safety is even more important. It is strongly recommended that CMP efforts include both congestion and safety considerations. One of the most successful programs implemented on many of our interstate highways in Florida is the “Road Rangers” Program, which responds to crashes or renders aid to stranded motorists. An added benefit of the Road Rangers Program is that accidents are cleared more quickly, which reduces congestion and, potentially, other accidents. This is a good example of how a safety program can reduce some of the worst types of congestion.

MPOs are required to address the Safety Emphasis Areas of the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan in their planning efforts. This often is performed as part of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Planning efforts, but it is difficult to forecast crashes long into the future, and addressing existing safety issues should not be delayed. Including safety countermeasures should be an important part of the Congestion Management Process. Preventing a crash can lead to a congestion reduction, but more severe crashes often take longer to clear. The Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies four “Safety Emphasis Areas” described in greater detail below.

Safety Emphasis Areas

Vulnerable Users These are crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists, who are more vulnerable to severe injuries or death.

8

Aggressive Driving These crashes include impaired driving, reckless driving, or other crash types that often result in more serious crashes.

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

Intersections Intersections are planned conflict points and result in the greatest exposure for crashes to occur. These also are ocations where mitigation activities may yield the greatest benefit.

Lane Departures These crashes include head‐on collisions and run‐off‐the‐road crashes that result in serious crashes, and sideswipe crashes.

Safety Mitigation Strategy Matrix Related Crash Type and Frequency Crash data management systems (CDMS) are capable of identifying crashes by type and loca‐ tion. These crashes are then mapped or plotted on intersections to identify concentrations of specific crash types that would benefit most from mitigation improvements.

Safety Emphasis Areas Each crash types is identified by a safety emphasis area. MPOs are required to address the Safety Emphasis Areas of the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan in their planning efforts.

Common Mitigation These are the mitigation activities that are most commonly used to mitigate the crash types identified.

Recommended Follow‐Up Based on the review of crashes at the specific location,a recommended action is identified. In many cases, this will involve gaining assistance from the Florida Department of Transportation or local Public Works Department to evaluate the safety issue in more detail. Often, improvements can be made using existing budgets that have been set up to address identified safety issues. Existing plans to improve or resurface roadways also can be modified to include safety improvements at a lower cost. Additional funding may be available through Federal safety grant programs, resulting in more projects being implemented as a part of the CMP process to provide benefits to the community.

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. 9

Detailed Analysis SR 52 at Moon Lake Rd— Recommended Improvements Option 1

SR 52

Add 300’ NB to WB left turn lane (2 total lanes)

La ke M oo n

ROW Needed: Yes Feasibility: Medium Recommended: Yes

Ro ad

Option 2 SR 52

Add 150’ SB‐EB left turn lane (2 total lanes)

Add 300’ NB to WB left turn lane (2 total lanes) Ro ke La n M oo

´

ROW Needed: Yes Feasibility: Medium Recommended: Yes

ad

ROW Needed: Yes Feasibility: Medium Recommended: Yes

Moon Lake Road was a deficient roadway operating below the adopted level‐of‐ service standard when Pasco County performed an analysis to demonstrate that they were meeting State‐required financial feasibility requirements in their Comprehensive Plan. The fix to restore the level‐of‐service standard was originally identified as reconstructing all of Moon Lake Road as a four lane roadway, an improvement that Pasco County could not afford to implement. Through the MPO’s CMP process, TOA identified relatively minor low‐cost improvements at the intersection with SR 52 that restored the level of service to an acceptable level.

10

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

What Makes TOA and CongestionSmart Different?

 We identify real projects or programs and how to implement them. TOA identifies specific improvements for a corridor or intersection and the steps to implement them. 

We focus on project implementation. Too often, CMP efforts emphasize systemwide performance evaluation and reporting efforts, where the focus is on a report, not projects.

TOA’s goal is to address the reporting requirements with the least amount of effort possible so the focus is on supporting the MPO and local agencies to identify projects and programs that will be implemented in a short timeframe, sometimes at no additional cost.



We fully consider all mitigation strategies for all modes of travel. TOA’s approach addresses the Federal requirement to consider all strategies in an innovative, streamlined, and engaging format that that receives very positive feedback from MPO committees.



We address safety issues, not just level‐of‐service and concurrency concerns. While congestion on a roadway is a nuisance, being involved in a crash can be a life‐changing experience. TOA’s approach identifies safety issues that must be addressed so there is reduced congestion and our roadways are safer.



Our approach assists local governments and brings more money for improvements into the CMP effort. TOA’s analysis can be used by local governments to demonstrate that they meet the financial feasibility requirements of the State in the development of their annual Capital Improvement Elements. Our screening process often identifies lower‐cost improvements that can be implemented to meet these standards. This often leads to a desire to locally fund projects, which adds to the accomplishments of the MPO by serving both the local governments and the public by implementing more projects or programs.

Representative Clients



Sarasota Manatee MPO

Ocala—Marion County TPO



Spring Hill/Hernando MPO

West Central Florida CCC



Pasco MPO

Martin County MPO



Charlotte County ‐ Punta Gorda MPO

CongestionSmart | Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc. 11

www.tindaleoliver.com TAMPA 1000 N. Ashley Drive Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone (813) 224-8862

ORLANDO 1595 S. Semoran Boulevard Building 7, Suite 1540 Winter Park, FL 32792 Phone (407) 657-9210

BARTOW 545 N. Broadway Avenue Bartow, FL 33830 Phone (863) 533-8454

For additional information on CongestionSmart, please contact William Roll at (813) 224-8862 or wroll@tindaleoliver.com.