As of September 1, 2012, the University Transportation Center for Mobility (UTCM) is no longer an active center of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The archived UTCM website remains available here.

UTCM HomeConference Site MapContact Conference Webmaster

Conference on Performance Measures for Transportation and Livable Communities

SEPTEMBER 7-8, 2011 • AUSTIN, TEXAS

BREAKOUT SESSION 4:
Transportation Performance Measures for Communities of all Sizes, Shapes, and Forms

Click on the icon to view a PDF of the slide presentation.

Presiding

MAULIK VAISHNAV, Arup

	New Tools for Measuring Livability JEFF TAEBEL, Houston-Galveston Area Council
	Targeted Transportation Programs for Livable Communities: Lessons from Three Pennsylvania Programs MARK STOUT, Consultant
	Learning about Transportation-Related Livability: A Mixed-Methods Approach INGRID SCHNEIDER, Center for Tourism, University of Minnesota
	Livability and Sustainability Efforts in the State of Texas KIRK FAUVER, Federal Highway Administration

---

New Tools for Measuring Livability

JEFF TAEBEL, Houston-Galveston Area Council

Slides [PDF , 9.8M]

Jeff Taebel discussed livability plans, projects, and measurement tools at H-GAC.  He described planning activities in the area, pedestrian/bicycle special districts, and livable center studies.  Jeff covered the following topics in his presentation.

• Transportation and livability can result in numerous direct benefits, including reduced automobile dependency, shorter trips, and fewer crashes.  There are also numerous indirect benefits, including improved health and enhanced aesthetics.
• The 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) was used to identify the share of walk and bike trips to work in different cities throughout the country.  Boston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York had the highest levels of walk and bike trips to work.  Seattle Minneapolis, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Portland, and Honolulu round out the top 10 cities for the percentage of walk and bike trips to work.  These cities tend to be denser than Houston and other southern cities.
• The North Hardy alternative analysis study examined forecasted traffic volumes and peak period travel speeds for different alternatives.  The preferred alternative included eight lanes with four managed lanes and an estimated cost of $2.11 billion.  The preferred alternative provided travel time savings in both the general-purpose lanes and the managed lanes over the no-build alternative.  Consideration was also given to the economic value of the alternatives.
• The Bayou Greenway Initiative includes 236 miles of new trails, 10 miles of rebuilt trails, and 52 miles of existing trails for a total system of 298 miles.  The estimated cost of the project is $490 million.  The estimated annual benefit from the project is $117.1 million.
• The air quality cost effectiveness of different types of transportation projects are also estimated.  The Clean Air Action Public Outreach Program, which had a total cost of $814,938 was estimated to result in a reduced volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 64.41 tons a year and reduced oxides of nitrogen (NOX) by 90.178 tons a year for a cost effectiveness of $12,836 per ton.
• The H-GAC regional transportation/livability measures include both direct measures and indirect measures.  Examples of direct measures include trip distance, travel time, mode split, and per capita crashes.  Examples of indirect measures focus on the community, the economy, and the environment.
• Implementation metrics include the amount of funding allocated to transit, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and safety.  The amount of funding used in sustainable locations represents a second metric.  As an example, the travel time on transit to the nearest major employment center is examined.  Other factors include street activity and density, walkable urbanism, and TOD.
• Pedestrian-bicyclist special districts have been identified throughout the region.  The purpose of these districts is to improve circulation and safety in areas where non-motorized travel is in high demand.  Key elements include improving the on-street network for pedestrians and cyclists, upgrading intersections and crossings, and ensuring Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility and removing physical barriers.  A total of 10,429 pedestrian-bicyclist destinations were identified.  These destinations were scored by pedestrian-bicycle demand factors.  The analysis results were aggregated into districts.  The pedestrian-bicycle districts and study areas were identified.  Public meetings and workshops were used to identify and evaluate potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements in the different areas.
• Livable centers are also being identified.  Livable enters are walkable, provide mixed uses, and are connected.  Livable center studies are being conducted in different areas using a centers benefit calculator.  A total of 16 livable centers studies have been conducted to-date.
• The Waller Livable Center Study provides an example of these efforts.  Early initiatives and long-range projects are identified in the plan, as well as potential funding sources.  A total of $72 million in improvements and projects are included in the plan.  The early initiatives include a heritage trail, an extension of Field Store Road, redesign and reconstruction of Main Street, and the realignment of Main Street and Highway 290.  These projects are estimated at $2.4 million.  There are $30.1 million in other short-range improvements and $39.9 million in long-range improvements. The long-range improvements include street and sidewalk improvements, crosswalk and intersection improvements, streetscaping elements, a bike lane along Washington Street, and development of Station Square.
• The goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle use by 10 percent could be accomplished through different approaches to capture new growth.  For example, 36 percent of new growth could be captured through 25 neighborhood centers, 85 town centers, 18 regional centers, or 10 urban cores to equal the 10 percent reduction.  On the other hand, a 36 percent new growth could also be captured through 50 neighborhood centers, 25 town squares, seven regional centers, and one urban core to equal the 10 percent reduction.
• Partnerships are needed to advance livable communities in Houston and other areas.  Engineers, planners, health professionals, and economists are needed.  Public agencies, private sector, academia, and local organizations also need to be involved in these efforts.
• More information is available at the following websites:
• Livable Centers: h-gac.com/livablecenters
• Pedestrian and Bicycle: h-gac.com/go/pedbike
• Subregional Planning: h-gac.com/go/subregional
• Ecological: h-gac.com/community/environmental-stewardship/eco-logical/
• Sustainability planning grant: gosustainablenow.org

[ Top ]

Targeted Transportation Programs for Livable Communities: Lessons from Three Pennsylvania Programs

MARK STOUT, Consultant

Slides [PDF , 99K]

Mark Stout discussed the experience with three programs in Pennsylvania focusing on transportation and livable communities.  He described programs at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) in the Philadelphia region, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and the Lancaster County MPO.  Mark covered the following topics in his presentation.

• The Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) at the DVRPC represents one element of a smart growth approach promoted by the agency.  The TCDI was initiated in 2002 to help communities support revitalization.  More than $10 million has been invested in the program to-date.  For FY 2012, the program funding levels are $1.2 million in Pennsylvania and $1.0 million in New Jersey.
• Areas eligible for the TCDI include core cities, developed and mature communities, identified centers, and environmental justice areas.  Planning and early design projects, which include transportation improvements and support redevelopment, are eligible for TCDI funding.  The projects must be consistent with the DVRPC plan and other plans.  The project selection scoring criteria includes a direct relationship to the transportation network, revitalization, and consistency with the DVRPC plan and other plans.
• The DVRPC publishes periodic program evaluation reports on the TCDI.  Highlights from these evaluations include 13 percent of the projects involve planning or zoning changes and 20 percent of the projects involve a TOD.  The experience with the TCDI indicates that keys to successful projects include local leadership, agency partnership, community involvement, and innovative planning.
• The PennDOT Pennsylvania Community Transportation Initiative (PCTI) is the second case study.  PennDOT currently has a strong smart growth orientation and the PCTI was launched to promote a project-driven vision of smart transportation.  The development and implementation of PCTI was supported by the 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, an advocacy group.  The PCTI is a temporary program funded from the PennDOT Secretary’s discretionary funds.  In 2009, 50 projects were selected for a total of $59 million in funding.  In 2011, $25 million in funding was made available for 41 projects.
• There are no restrictions on eligible areas or eligible projects for the PCTI.  There are no requirements that a project be related to an adopted plan.  The scoring critera focuses on how well a project implements a smart transportation principle.
• The quality of applications has been mixed.  Some of the projects selected would not be considered the "smartest," including highway operational improvements.  PennDOT had hoped MPOs in the state would adopt spinoff programs, but there has been limited action on the part of MPOs.  PennDOT has also not yet adopted smart growth performance measures.
• The third case study is the Lancaster County MPO Smart Growth Transportation Program (SGT).  Lancaster County has a very progressive planning program.  The MPO area is the county, which makes planning easier.  Some of the MPO members wanted a better "smart growth" focus for transportation funds and created the SGT Task Force to examine different approaches.  A consultant helped explore options and approaches, including considering ideas from the TCDI and PCTI.  The SGT program was developed and implemented as a result of these efforts.
• Designated growth areas in the county plan are eligible to apply to the SGT program.  A sample list of eligible projects was developed.  Only 20 percent of the funds will be used for planning projects.  A project must be consistent with county and local plans, which means a municipality must have a plan.  The scoring criteria supports development in the identified growth area, increasing mobility options, context sensitive design, and implementing a study.
• The first round of SGT applications are due in the fall of 2011.  It is expected that the selection process will be very selective.  The Lancaster County MPO may consider a program evaluation in the future.  Keys to the successful launch of the SGT include strong local leadership and expert help.
• A number of lessons can be identified from the experiences with the three programs.  Although there were some performance measures for implementation, there were no performance measures for outcomes in the programs.  The careful targeting of communities and project types can promote better outcomes.  The three examples indicate that the diffusion of best practices does work.  More program evaluations with an emphasis on outcomes will be needed to help document the benefits programs.
• Suggestions for new targeted livable communities programs can also be identified from the experience with the three programs.  These suggestions include establishing a strong link to transportation and community plans, carefully defining target communities, and carefully defining target projects.  Other suggestions include being selective with project awards, cultivating strong local leadership, obtaining expert support, and never underestimating the lack of information.

[ Top ]

Learning about Transportation-Related Livability: A Mixed-Methods Approach

INGRID SCHNEIDER, Center for Tourism, University of Minnesota

Slides [PDF , 713K]

Ingrid Schneider discussed a study conducted for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) examining transportation and quality of life performance measures.  She described the study purpose, the work tasks, and the preliminary results.  Ingrid covered the following topics in her presentation.

• Quality of life is subjective.  Measuring quality of life is difficult as people lace different importance on different elements.  What is important to one person may not be important to another person.
• The purpose of this study is to better understand what quality of life means to Minnesotans and to identify where transportation fits within this mix.  The study examined how MnDOT programs and services address the identified quality of life factors.  The results will help MnDOT review and revise existing performance measures addressing transportation and quality of life.
• Three methods were used in the study to reveal 11 quality of life factors and seven transportation elements.  The study methods included a literature review, focus groups, and a survey.  The literature review was completed in November 2010.  The focus groups were conducted in the fall of 2010.  The survey was conducted in the spring of 2011.  These mixed methods are necessary to address the subjectivity and objectivity of quality of life measures and to meet the needs of different audiences.  Rich stories are needed for policy makers and the press, while objective and quantitative information is needed to guide, monitor, and track performance measures.
• The literature review results indicate that quality of life has been a topic of interest for at least 50 years.  It has been inconsistently measured, however, and typically includes a variety of domains and factors.  The World Health Organization (WHO) uses nine domains to define quality of life.  These domains are frequently used by other groups.  These domains include freedom, physical safety, and security; home environment; work satisfaction; financial resources; and health and social care.  Other domains are opportunities for acquiring new information and skills, participation in and opportunities for recreation and leisure activities, physical environment, and transportation.
• Few links between transportation and quality of life were found in the literature review.  There were also few transportation and quality of life performance measures.  Those that are in use focus on mobility and accessibility, or specific aspects such as traffic noise.
• The focus groups were based on a 2009 MnDOT pilot study, which broadly explored quality of life measures.  There were 24 focus groups conducted with residents in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and other parts of the state between August and November 2010.  Participants were selected from a telephone census-block list, which was purchased by MnDOT.  Participants were screened to obtain a variety of locations and community sizes, the inclusion of all MnDOT districts, and multiple age groups.
• A total of 11 quality of life domains emerged from the focus groups.  In alphabetical order, these domains included education, employment and finances, environment, housing, and family, friends, and neighbors.  Other domains were health, local amenities, recreation and entertainment, safety, spirituality and individual psychic, and transportation.  The initial exploration with diverse groups indicated differences by age and other characteristics.
• There were seven transportation elements identified by focus group participants related to quality of life.  These elements were access, design, the environment, maintenance, mobility, safety, and transparency.
• The survey included a representative sample throughout the state.  A 44 percent response rate was realized, with approximately 3,400 returned questionnaires.  The survey focused on quantifying quality of life and transportation’s role.  It included questions related to the importance of different transportation elements and satisfaction with the performance of these elements.  The analysis of the results is underway.
• The study results to-date present a number of implications for research. First, measuring quality of life domains is difficult.  Groups and individuals place different values on different factors and domains.  Second, there are nuances within the transportation elements and sub-elements.  The results also indicate that multiple methods are needed to fully understand quality of life factors and to develop and use quality of life performance measures.
• The implications for transportation planning are that quality of life measures are complicated.  There is a need to examine the population demographically, technologically, and attitudinally.  For example, younger individuals tend to think of access in terms of access to amenities, while the older individuals think more of access to health care.  There are also differences between metropolitan area residents and individuals in other parts of the state.

[ Top ]

Livability and Sustainability Efforts in the State of Texas

KIRK FAUVER, Federal Highway Administration

Slides [PDF , 724K]

Kirk Fauver discussed activities underway in Texas related to transportation, livable communities, and sustainability.  He discussed the FHWA’s role in supporting livable communities, and activities sponsored by the FHWA Texas Division, TxDOT, and MPOs in the state.  Kirk covered the following topics in his presentation.

• A livable community has been defined as one in which people have multiple, convenient transportation and housing options, as well as destinations easily accessible to people traveling by different modes.  Through workshops, training sessions, and dialogue on the concept of livable communities, the U.S. DOT has determined that livability is not a “one size fits all” concept.  Livability is a concept that means different things to different communities, and the U.S. DOT acknowledges that the needs of rural and urban communities are not necessarily the same.
• Livability involves providing more transportation choices, valuing unique characteristics of communities, and improving the links between public transit and communities.  Livability also means gaining better access to affordable housing, reducing transportation costs, enhancing the economic and social well-being of Americans, and providing easy access to employment opportunities and other destinations, while protecting the environment in communities.
• The FHWA supports building livable communities through transportation-related projects and activities such as CSS and public involvement, as well as funding programs such as the Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, and the Safe Routes to School Program.  The FHWA aids the planning and development of projects that may have multimodal, multi-faceted dimensions, non-traditional partners and sponsors, inter-disciplinary elements, and selection and criterion outside of the regular process.
• The FHWA Texas Division took a lead role in conducting a one-day workshop on Livability and Sustainability in conjunction with EPA, HUD, and the FTA Region VI offices.  On March 23, 2010 over 160 participants from MPOs, TxDOT, TTI, cities, counties, and regional transit authorities met to discuss livability and sustainability goals and objectives.  The outcome of this one-day workshop provided the participants with a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the EPA, HUD, FHWA, and FTA as part of the Sustainable Communities Partnership Initiative.
• On July 14, 2011, the FHWA Texas Division again supported a free one-day livability and sustainability workshop at the Austin City Hall.  Over 170 participants attended, representing MPOs, TxDOT, TTI, EPA, HUD, and FTA Region VI.  The outcome of this one-day workshop resulted in an action plan developed to focus on several areas of livability, including integrating TODs, strengthening federal partnerships, and improving land-use and transportation linkages.
• In FY 2010 the FHWA Texas Division also conducted a livability survey that included 25 MPOs in the state and TxDOT to determine how livability is being incorporated into transportation planning and programming processes.  All 25 MPOs and TxDOT responded to the survey.  The results indicate that MPOs and TxDOT are in various stages of incorporating livability goals into their transportation planning process.
• TxDOT has focused on increasing transportation choices through high-speed intercity rail studies, supporting transit, and incorporating bicycle and pedestrian projects into roadway projects where feasible.  The Texas Transportation Commission has selected 471 projects under the Safe Routes to School Program over three program calls totaling approximately $83 million.  Approximately 7 percent of all K-8 grade schools in the state are participating in the program.  TxDOT has also recently updated its design guidance manual to account for the principles of CSS/CSD into its highway design process.
• The Texas Transportation Commission has funded 59 percent of its TE program for bicycle and pedestrian improvements over the past several years under TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU.  Alternative forms of transportation, including non-traditional highway projects, have been funded through the TE program by the Commission.  Consideration of livability is indirectly part of TxDOT’s project prioritization process, since livability aspects (including safety, intermodal improvements, mitigation to reduce emissions and improve efficiency, and improved mobility via congestion relief) are incorporated within TxDOT’s planning and project development processes.
• The TxDOT Statewide Long-range Transportation Plan, adopted in November 2010 by the Texas Transportation Commission, includes three strategies related to livability.  The first strategy is to maximize available resources by refining the current project selection process to investigate comprehensive multimodal options and increasing investment in technology.  The second strategy is to manage demand by encouraging shifts in modal departure times and routes, considering capital investments that support modal shifts during peak hours, and coordinating with local governments to develop land use plans that support sustainable transportation systems.  The third strategy is to leverage partnerships to meet growing demands.
• The Pew Center Report, Measuring Transportation Investments:  The Road to Results, released in May 2011, noted that Texas is one of 13 states leading the way in having essential tools – goals, performance measures and data – needed to help decision-makers choose more cost-effective transportation funding and policy options.
• There are a number of examples of MPOs in the state incorporating livability into the planning process.  The Tyler MPO has programmed a pedestrian access study to identify routes and to inventory facilities.  The MPO has created a master trail plan throughout the entire MPO planning boundary.  The regional trail plan will connect multiple communities within the planning boundary for connections other than personal vehicle.  The Tyler Parks Department has developed a long-range plan for hike and bike trails throughout the city.  Currently, the MPO is utilizing PL funding to develop alternative transportation plans.
• The Texarkana MPO has developed a master bicycle-pedestrian plan, and has recently completed data collection for an inventory of sidewalks along arterials within two blocks of schools.  These data will be used to analyze the overall condition of sidewalks and any gaps in sidewalk service to develop a 20-year implementation strategy to repair and replace, upgrade, and expand the bike and pedestrian system in the area.
• The Corpus Christi MPO has completed a report funded in part by MPO PL funds on Transit’s Role in Livability and Sustainability.  The report is available on-line at: http://www.corpuschristi-mpo.org/studies/transit_coordination/transitroleinsustainability
  livability_052710.pdf.  Livability issues are being addressed by multiple agencies and groups in the area, including the City of Corpus Christi, the Regional Transit Authority, the Downtown Management District, Destination Bayfront, Smart Growth, and the Uptown Neighborhood Initiative.  Livability factors must be considered for each project, as are most accessibility improvements.  The Corpus Christi region has focused on livability for many years.  Award-winning projects, such as the Staples Street Station transit oriented design, and the recent Destination Bayfront initiative provide examples of this focus on livability.  Information on these projects is available at http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=113 and http://www.destinationbayfront.org/.
• The Midland-Odessa MPO conducted a series of workshops over an 18-month period as part of the community visioning/scenario planning process for the 2010-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), bringing together local communities to develop one over-arching vision for regional growth and transportation investments.  The MPO developed a preferred scenario for a well-connected transportation network that provides optimal mobility and accessibility for all travelers.
• The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO incorporated scenario planning into their 2035 MTP.  In March 2009, the MPO adopted a growth scenario focusing on infill and TOD.  Additionally, in April 2009, the MPO adopted and distributed a resolution to all municipalities encouraging them to adopt transportation and land use policies that promote multi-modal travel options.  For over 10 years, the MPO has hosted and staffed the Bicycle Mobility Advisory Committee and the Pedestrian Mobility Advisory Committee to support these active transportation modes. In 2011, the MPO celebrated its 15th year of annual Walk & Roll events.
• The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO also coordinates several related programs including the Walkable Community Program that focuses on the walkability and livability of neighborhoods throughout the San Antonio region.  The MPO hosts safety classes for adults and children on cycling, and conducts bicycle rodeos for children to promote safety and best practices with cycling in their communities.
• The NCTCOG has provided dedicated funding to sustainable development programs to address livability.  Most recently, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) provided local matching funds to allow for the submittal of HUD Community Challenge Grants, TIGER II, and HUD Regional Planning Grant applications for several projects that would advance livability principles for specific communities in the region.
• North Texas 2050, a product of Vision North Texas, of which NCTCOG is a partner agency, has addressed livability issues such as housing, the economy, mobility, climate resilience, the regional ecosystem, community character, education, and health in the 16-county region.  Individual communities are addressing livability as part of membership into the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, building of LEED buildings, supporting mixed-use developments, and bicycle and trail planning.  In 2008, projects were selected through the Regional Toll Revenue Program, which included set aside funds for sustainable development projects.  One of the major goals for the Regional Toll Revenue Sustainable Development program was to support sustainable, walkable communities.  These projects were recently funded and programmed within the FY 2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program and State Transportation Improvement Program. 
• Livability has been part of the NCTCOG project prioritization process since 2001.  A part of the Local Air Quality and Regional Toll Revenue Programs was the adoption of the Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy.  Agencies that did not have the Clean Fleet Vehicle Policy in place were not eligible to compete for funds.  This requirement ensured that livability and air quality concerns were considered in the project-selection process for all project types.
• Since 2001, the RTC has funded over $120 million for livability projects and programs.  The RTC seeks to advance livability throughout the region by incorporating livability criteria in the evaluation process of major funding initiatives.  Bicycle and pedestrian projects, air quality clean vehicle and marketing programs to promote energy conservation and clean air, and developing the regional ecosystem framework for the NCTCOG planning area that promoted conservation of natural assets and environmental preservation provide examples of efforts to promote livability in the region.
• There are a number of issues being examined at the national level associated with livable communities.  Examples of these issues include addressing livability in rural areas and establishing and tracking livability performance measures at the national, state, and local levels.  Other issues focus on incorporating livability concepts into design guides and standards, and determining methods to evaluate the economic benefits of livability.
• Additional information on livability is available on the following websites:
  • http://www.dot.gov/livability/;
  • http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/;
  • http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/index.html; and
  • http://fta.dot.gov/publications/publications_10935.html.

[ Top ]

The State of TexasTexas Homeland Security Statewide Search (TRAIL)Statutorily Required ReportsTTI Rules and Procedures

Copyright Statement and Legal Notices

Please send comments, suggestions, and queries about this web site to the UTCM Webmaster.

University Transportation Center for Mobility™
Texas Transportation Institute · Texas A&M University System · 3135 TAMU · College Station, Texas 77843-3135
ph. (979) 845-2538 · fax (979) 845-9761