1. ® ® Contributor Session on Smart Mobility Performance Measures

2. ® ® 2 Session Objectives Clarify the Performance Measures and their applications Evaluate effectiveness through case studies Provide feedback on appropriateness, clarity and consequences

3. Smart Mobility Performance Measures (part 1) ® ® 3 Conventional MeasureSmart Mobility Measure Safety Accident Rates and SeverityModal Accident Rates, Severity Design SpeedSpeed Suitability Mobility Highway Travel-Time MobilityModal Travel-Time Mobility Highway Travel-Time Consistency Modal Travel-Time Consistency General AccessibilityActivity Connectedness ADA AccessibilityUniversal Accessibility (ADA) Ped & Bike Mode Share Transit Mode Share Economy Time Lost to Congestion (VHD)Productivity Lost to Congestion Capacity, Volume/CapacityNetwork Optimization Return on Investment (ROI)ROI Nexus

4. Smart Mobility Performance Measures (part 2) ® ® 4 Conventional MeasureSmart Mobility Measure Environmental Quality Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT per capita relative to AB32 Target Fuel ConsumptionEnergy Consumption EmissionsEmissions, including CO 2 Noise Impacts Reductions in Ag, WetlandsLand Use Efficiency Customer Satisfaction Level of ServiceMulti-Modal LOS Speed and DelayMulti-Modal Accessibility

5. ® ® 5 Case Studies 1. RTP with SCS (SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy) 2. Context Sensitive Design 3. Corridor System Management Plan

6. ® ® 6 Case #1: RTP + SCS 6 Coordinate transportation (RTP) and land use planning (SCS) to achieve: acceptable levels of travel accessibility regional economic vitality cost-effective infrastructure investments minimal environmental impacts, induced travel Conformity with AB32 and SB375

7. ® ® 7 Case #1 Comparison of Alternatives Alt A: Trend-Line Land Use and Transportation Alt B: SCS for Transportation and Land Use Description Almost all growth occurs in suburban and rural areas as single uses rather than mixed-use sites Attempts to add highway capacity and systems management to keep pace with development trend Growth plan takes advantage of existing transportation and opportunity sites for infill, TOD and mixed-use. Tailors transportation plan with multi-modal services, providing accessibility to planned growth areas

8. ® ® 8 Case #1 Comparison of Alternatives Alt A: Trend-Line Land Use and Transportation Alt B: SCS for Transportation and Land Use Advantages Follows developer and local government planning practices of recent decades Invests in highway capacity to reduce congestion to benefit goods movement and essential personal mobility Reduces VMT/capita and GHG as required under AB32, SB375 Economic investment in central areas sites with potential benefits to environment, socio- economic equity Responds to demographic shifts

9. ® ® 9 Case #1 Smart Mobility Performance Smart Mobility Measure Acceptable Performance? Option AOption B Modal Travel-Time Mobility √ Activity Connectedness √ Walk, Bike, Transit Mode Share √ Productivity Lost to Congestion √√ ROI Nexus √√ VMT and Emissions relative to AB32 √ Land Use Efficiency √ Percent Checked28%100%

10. ® ® 10 Case #2: Context Sensitive Design 10 Arterial creates barrier and economic disincentive through established community Goal to improve safety and convenience for travelers and affected community and sustain community value

11. Comparison of Alternatives ® ® 11 Alternative A: Conventional Re-Design Alternative B: Context Sensitive Design Description  Add lanes at intersections as needed to improve traffic LOS  Time traffic signals to accommodate 45mph speeds with minimal delays  Narrow traffic lanes to allow bike lanes or wider sidewalks and landscaping  Redesign for 30mph through alignment curvatures and traffic signals timing Advantages  Improves travel time mobility  Improves bus on-time performance  Reduces emissions  Traffic speeds compatible with adjoining uses  Improves pedestrian environment, economic vitality  Reduces emissions

12. Case #2 Illustrative Performance Evaluation ® ® 12 Smart Mobility MeasureAcceptable Performance? Option AOption B Speed Suitability √ Multi-Modal Mobility √ Ped and Bike Mode Share √ Network Management √√ Emissions √√ Land Use Efficiency √ Multi-Modal Level of Service √ Percent Checked28%100%

13. ® ® 13 Case #3: Management of Freeway Corridor 13 50-mile transportation corridor exhibits: traffic congestion lack of parallel roadway capacity transit facilities approaching ridership capacity incomplete HOV network gaps and barriers within the bicycle network

14. ® ® 14 Difference in Performance Measures Compared with CSMP, Smart Mobility measures emphasize safety and service for all modes of travel Smart Mobility measures consider growth and travel inducement impacts of highway capacity increases, and Resulting growth in emissions relative to climate law.

15. ® ® 15 Three Questions 1. Are performance measures understandable and relevant to the evaluation? 2. Are the measures effective in determining which project alternative is most consistent with Smart Mobility principles? 3. Are there any biases in the set of measures to be corrected through revision to individual measures or the entire set?