1 Traffic Information in NYC What We Know, What We Need to Know Prepared for Transportation Alternatives January 23, 2007 Schaller Consulting 94 Windsor Place, Brooklyn, NY (718)
2 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents...1 Part I. Traffic Information Needs and Availability...2 Traffic information needs...2 Traffic information currently available...4 Gaps in traffic information...5 Intro Part II. Traffic and Mode Shares Overview by Borough...7 Bronx...8 Brooklyn...11 Manhattan...15 Queens...19 Staten Island...23 Citywide data...27
3 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 2 Part I. Traffic Information Needs and Availability Traffic information needs Traffic planning has traditionally focused on ensuring an acceptable level of service (LOS) for motor vehicles passing through intersections, with the objective of maintaining acceptable levels of vehicular delay at each intersection. LOS analyses are most visible in environmental impact statements for major development projects. Data on traffic volumes, turning movements and physical and operational characteristics of a study area are fed into a computer traffic model to estimate current levels of service and the impacts of proposed development. While LOS remains a mainstay of traffic analysis, traffic and pedestrian densities in large urban areas may prevent adjustments to traffic signal timings, re-design of roads and intersections and other measures from achieving acceptable LOS levels. Modern traffic planning has thus recognized the need for broader analytic tools that focus on users rather than vehicles and that encompass all modes. Traffic planners have begun to give priority to high-capacity modes such as buses and to focus on overall performance of the street in moving people rather than vehicular-oriented LOS measures. This broader, multimodal perspective has been widely embraced. An assessment of future directions for transportation in the new millennium, prepared by standing committees of the federally chartered Transportation Research Board, stated that it has become important to expand the analysis area toward a single, integrated multimodal transportation system. 1 Traffic signal systems must change from primarily serving the needs of automobile drivers to serving broader transportation needs based on priorities of various users (emphasis in original). 2 These priorities have also been embraced by city and state governments in New York. In a recent speech, the City s transportation commissioner called for challenging the old paradigms and announced plans to carefully consider a wide range of strategies to shift travel away from the automobile and onto transit. 3 Recent studies ranging from New York City Department of Transportation s (DOT) downtown Brooklyn traffic calming study to the State DOT s recent Staten Island Expressway bus lane/priority lane study emphasized goals ranging from minimizing the impact of traffic on local communities, 4 1 Transportation Research Board, Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service, Highway Capacity and Quality of Service, in Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions, Transportation Research Board, January Transportation Research Board, Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, Traffic Signal Systems: Addressing Diverse Technologies and Complex User Needs, in Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions, Transportation Research Board, January Iris Weinshall, speech at Borough President Scott Stringer s Transportation Forum, October 12, 2006, available at: 4 New York City Department of Transportation, Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project, May 2004.
4 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 3 to carrying more people in fewer vehicles and increasing the attractiveness of transit use and carpooling. 1 This broader focus raises several key questions that must be considered in the planning process: How many people are traveling by each mode (auto, bus, cycling and pedestrian)? What are the modal shares? What is the relative attractiveness of different modes, measured in terms of speed of travel, reliability of travel times, cost, and comfort and convenience the key factors affecting travelers choice of mode. How can the street system be used to more efficiently move people and goods? Which streets are moving people efficiently and which are not? Are conditions improving or getting worse? These questions should be examined in terms of current conditions, trendlines, and in a comparative framework. In this way, current street performance and opportunities to improve the speed, efficiency and comfort of travel can be evaluated. A broader, multimodal focus necessitates a different set of metrics for assessing traffic flow. While LOS focuses on traffic volumes and motor vehicle delay, additional indicators need to be considered in a broader analysis. These include: Total number of persons traveling, including both motorized and nonmotorized modes. Total person hours of delay, as opposed to vehicular hours of delay. Delay for buses with 40 or more passengers should be given more weight in the analysis than delays for car with one to four occupants. Safety of drivers, vehicle occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists and others. Impact of traffic on residents and businesses. 1 New York City Department of Transportation, Staten Island Expressway Bus Lane / Priority Lane Study, October 2006.
5 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 4 Traffic information currently available In New York City, data collection currently focuses on traffic counts and counts of public transportation passengers. Specifically, the following information is collected and published by transportation agencies on an annual basis: Vehicle volumes at selected cordons (Manhattan central business district, the Queens/Brooklyn, Queens/Nassau and Bronx/Westchester borders, and bridges and tunnels throughout the city). These counts are in some cases available going back to Source: New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT). Subway ridership at the citywide, borough and route level. These counts are available going back to the construction of each subway line. Source: New York City Transit (NYCT). Bus ridership at the citywide, borough and route level. These data are available historically at the citywide level, but only since 1998 at the borough and route level. Source: New York City Transit. Auto/taxi/truck, subway, bus and commuter rail vehicle and passenger entries to the Manhattan central business district (CBD). The hub bound data are to some extent available back to Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), based on data collected by NYCDOT, NYCT and other operating agencies. Motor vehicle fatalities and crashes. Source: New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Part II of this report mines these data sources to show trends at the citywide and borough level and for travel into and out of the Manhattan CBD. The purpose is to provide an overview of travel trends and illustrate how the available data albeit limited is useful in understanding changes in traffic and transit usage and the relative attractiveness of different modes. Part II also presents mode shares at the borough level, based on the regional travel model developed for NYMTC. Certain limitations in these data should be noted. The traffic volumes for non-cbd travel are based on a limited number of cordons and bridges and may not be representative of borough-wide traffic trends. The hub bound auto/taxi/truck person travel data are based on vehicle classification and vehicle occupancy data from the 1980s and 1990s,which may have changed since they were collected. Cordon data for all modes are collected on a limited number of days. They do not take account of seasonal variations in travel and are do not capture day-to-day fluctuations in travel volumes, speed or delay. The NYMTC mode share data are snapshot data for 2002; no trendline mode share data are available. Modes shares are output from the travel model, which has been calibrated to field observations but are subject to error based on limitations of baseline data and the modeling process.
6 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 5 Gaps in traffic information The available traffic and travel information sources, listed above and reported in Part II, leave large gaps in traffic information: No citywide or borough-wide traffic volumes, except for NYMTC travel model estimates. No trendline traffic volume data. No traffic volumes for congested corridors outside Manhattan, except as collected for ad hoc studies. No traffic speeds, except as collected for ad hoc studies. No traffic delay data, except as collected for ad hoc studies. No vehicle classification data. No mode share data except for Manhattan CBD entries and exits. No trendline mode share data, except for the Manhattan CBD. No data on the reliability of travel times. No travel cost data. No indicators of comfort, convenience or overall attractiveness of alternative modes. Although there are gaps in traffic information citywide, the gaps are particularly pronounced outside Manhattan. Data comparable to the hub bound traffic counts are not available for any other cordon in the city, nor for any of the city s major streets or arterials. The information available for non-cbd areas is either limited to area-specific and corridor-specific studies that are conducted from time to time, or simply nonexistent. While this might have been appropriate when travel and congestion was focused on the Manhattan CBD, this is no longer the case. Even for hub bound traffic, data collection activities do not capture traffic speeds, vehicle or person delay, reliability of travel time, cost or comfort. Thus, even for CBD travel, it can not be determined whether changes in traffic levels or mode share are due to changes in traffic speeds, reliability, cost, etc., or other external factors. The paucity of comprehensive traffic data contrasts with New York City Transit s program of collecting detailed route-specific ridership and travel time data for buses and subways in all five boroughs and for tracking on-time performance of buses and trains. NYCT has established performance standards and regularly evaluates itself in light of these standards. New York City lacks a comparable system for traffic information and management.
7 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 6 Intro 199 Council bill, Intro 199, mandates that NYCDOT set performance objectives and performance measures to inform comprehensive policy solutions to problems such as traffic congestion and pollution. 1 Performance targets and indicators would be developed at the citywide and boroughwide levels. Objectives of the bill include reducing commute times and increasing the proportion of persons walking, biking and using mass transit to the central business districts. While Intro 199 does not define the specific performance targets and indicators to be developed, the following areas for indicator development can be identified. At the citywide and borough level: Person and vehicle travel volumes. Should include vehicle classifications and occupancy rates. Would most likely be based on a statistically representative sample of locations throughout the five boroughs. Mode shares. Motor vehicle crashes. Plans to reduce auto use and attract greater use of public transportation and nonmotorized modes should then be developed for key corridors throughout the city and at cordons for downtown Brooklyn, Jamaica, Flushing, Long Island City, etc. Data needed for development of these plans includes: Person and vehicle volumes, mode shares and crashes (comparable to the citywide and borough data) Travel times by mode. Reliability of travel time by mode. Travel cost. Comfort and convenience indicators. These data would form the basis for evaluating the current performance of the street system, setting performance targets and developing strategies and plans to reduce traffic, promote the use of public transportation, accommodate growth in population and employment, improve air quality, reduce noise and congestion, and increase the safety of pedestrians, cyclist, motorists and other users of the public streets. 1 Intro 199, Section 1.
8 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 7 Part II. Traffic and Mode Shares Overview by Borough This section mines available data sources to show trends in traffic and transit use as well as motor vehicle crashes at the borough and citywide levels, and for travel into and out of the Manhattan CBD. Mode shares at the borough level, based on the regional travel model developed for NYMTC, are also presented. The purpose is to provide an overview of travel trends and illustrate the importance of traffic and travel information to understanding changes in traffic and transit usage and the relative attractiveness of different modes. As discussed earlier, limitations in these data should be noted: The traffic volumes for non-cbd travel based on a limited number of cordons and bridges and may not be representative of borough-wide traffic trends. The hub bound traffic data are based on vehicle classification (auto, taxi, truck, van, bus) and vehicle occupancy data from the 1980s and 1990s. Cordon data for all modes are collected on a limited number of days. They do not take account of seasonal variations in travel and are do not capture day-to-day fluctuations in travel volumes, speed or delay. The NYMTC mode share data are snapshot data for 2002; no trendline data are available. While bearing these caveats in mind, the data suggest that a mode shift from auto to transit took place for travel within and between the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens in the 1990s and has continued into the new century. The picture for the Manhattan CBD is surprisingly different. While mode shift from auto to transit is seen at the 60 Street cordon, Brooklyn has seen stable mode shares and Queens has seen mode shift in the reverse direction from transit to auto. These intriguing results leave many questions unanswered. Is mode shift to transit actually taking place outside the Manhattan CBD? What is the source of that shift? What are the implications for use of the street system? Why would auto be growing more quickly than subway and bus for trips between Queens and the Manhattan CBD and at the same pace for trips between Brooklyn and the CBD? How are these trends affecting traffic in neighborhoods just to the east of Manhattan? Why is mode shift favoring transit occurring elsewhere but not for CBD-bound travel from Queens and Brooklyn? These preliminary results thus illustrate the need for a better understanding of traffic and travel trends and the implications of these trends for traffic management in the city.
9 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 8 Bronx Overall results: Three-fifths of Bronx-based trips are by public transportation, walking or other nonmotorized modes. Bronx shows a continuing mode shift from auto to public transportation. Traffic volumes (based on available traffic counts) have almost leveled off in the last 5 years. As in the rest of the city, motor vehicle crashes declined since 2000, but only after increasing significantly in the late 1990s. Detailed results: Between 2001 and 2005, traffic volumes (based on available traffic counts) increased by 2%. Over the same period, bus and subway patronage grew by 7% and 3%, respectively. These trends are a continuation of trends in the 1990s, when public transportation ridership increased much more quickly than traffic volumes.
10 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC Mode Shares for Bronx-based trips Walk, bicycle 36% Auto 29% Subway, bus 24% Taxi, car service 8% School Bus 1% Commuter rail 2% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Data are based on journeys with home-base of the Bronx. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
11 Bronx Borough-Wide Indicators Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* Motor vehicle fatalities Subway ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury 15,000 13,000 11,000 9, ,000 Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on Bronx/Westchester cordon count, Harlem River crossings, Whitestone and Throgs Neck bridges, Triboro Bridge Bronx Plaza, and NYCDOT bridges within the borough of the Bronx. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
12 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 11 Brooklyn Overall results: Two-thirds of Brooklyn-based trips are by public transportation, walking or other nonmotorized modes. Brooklyn shows a continuing mode shift from auto to public transportation for trips not involving the Manhattan CBD, although at a slower rate since For travel between Brooklyn and Manhattan, however, traffic volumes and subway ridership grew at about the same pace both in the 1990s and in recent years. Motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have dropped sharply since Intra-Brooklyn and other non-cbd travel: Between 2001 and 2005, traffic volumes (based on available traffic counts) decreased by 2%. Over the same period, subway patronage grew by 3% and bus ridership was flat. These trends are a flattening of trends in the 1990s, when public transportation ridership increased far more rapidly than traffic volumes, even though traffic showed a substantial growth of 15% between 1993 and Brooklyn/Manhattan travel: Traffic volumes between Brooklyn and Manhattan dipped sharply after 9/11 due to traffic restrictions and remains 7% below the 2000 level. Subway ridership also fell starting in 2001 and remains 5% below the peak in Traffic volumes between Brooklyn and Manhattan increased by 12% and subway ridership by 13% between 1993 and Bus ridership between Brooklyn and Manhattan, although relatively small, increased modestly in the past several years after rapid growth in the 1990s.
13 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC Mode Shares for Brooklyn-based trips Walk, bicycle 34% Auto 26% Subway, bus 31% Taxi, car service 8% School Bus 1% Commuter rail 0% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Data are based on journeys with home-base of Brooklyn. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
14 Brooklyn Borough-Wide Indicators 1.4 Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* 150 Motor vehicle fatalities Subway ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury 29,000 27,000 25,000 23,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 15,000 Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on Brooklyn/Queens cordon counts, Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and NYCDOT bridges within the borough of Brooklyn Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
15 Brooklyn to the Manhattan CBD Traffic volumes and transit ridership between Brooklyn and the Manhattan CBD (below 60 St.) Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (thousands) ,450 Subway ridership, avg weekday (thousands) 1,300 1,150 1, Bus ridership, avg weekday (thousands) Data include travel to and from the Manhattan CBD. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "Hubbound Travel"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
16 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 15 Manhattan Overall results: Five out of seven Manhattan-based trips are by public transportation, walking or other nonmotorized modes. Mode shares have not changed significantly in Manhattan since 2001, a sharp break from the 1990s when public transportation ridership growth far outpaced auto usage (based on available traffic counts). Borough-wide indicators: Between 2001 and 2005, traffic volumes at upper Manhattan river crossings and 60 Street decreased by 3%. Over the same period, subway patronage grew by 3% while bus ridership declined by 2%. By contrast, from 1993 to 2001 subway ridership at Manhattan stations grew by 35% while traffic volumes (at upper Manhattan river crossings and 60 Street) increased by 10%. Travel into and out of the CBD (below 60 Street): Since the 2000 peak, traffic volumes and subway ridership into and out of the CBD both fell by 5%. Bus ridership into and out of the CBD, by contrast, increased 18% since Prior to 2000, subway ridership into and out of the CBD was increasing more quickly (16% from 1993 to 2000) than either traffic volumes (11% increase) or bus ridership (5% increase). Commuter rail/amtrak ridership fell sharply after 2002 but is still above mid-90s ridership levels.
17 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC Mode Shares for Manhattan-based trips Auto 13% Walk, bicycle 34% Taxi, car service 15% School Bus 1% Commuter rail 0% Subway, bus 37% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Data are based on journeys with home-base of Manhattan. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
18 Manhattan Borough-Wide Indicators Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* Motor vehicle fatalities Subway ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9, Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on Harlem River crossings, GW Bridge, Triborough Bridge Manhattan Plaza, and 60th Street cordon counts. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
19 Manhattan CBD Traffic volumes and transit ridership into and out of the Manhattan CBD (below 60 St.) 1,800 1,700 1,600 Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions) Commuter rail & Amtrak ridership, avg. weekday (thousands) 1, , ,300 1,200 1, , ,000 Subway ridership, avg weekday (thousands) 140 Ferry (thousands) 3, , , , Bus ridership, avg weekday (thousands) Data include travel to and from the Manhattan CBD. 300 Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "Hubbound Travel"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
20 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 19 Queens Overall results: Three-fifths of Queens-based trips are by public transportation, walking or other nonmotorized modes. For travel within Queens and other non-cbd travel, mode shares have not changed since , halting a mode shift from auto to transit in the 1990s. For travel between Queens and the Manhattan CBD, mode shift has gone in the opposite direction toward the auto since 2000 as well as in the 1990s. Intra-Queens and other non-cbd travel: Traffic volumes (based on available traffic counts), subway and bus ridership has not changed significantly since early in the decade. From 1993 to 2000, Queens subway ridership grew by 36% compared to 12% growth in traffic volumes. Bus ridership also increased more rapidly than traffic, by 23% in the shorter period for which data are available ( ). Queens/Manhattan travel: Traffic volumes between Queens and Manhattan have returned to the 2000 level after dipping sharply in Subway ridership between Queens and Manhattan is 5% below the 2000 peak and bus ridership is down by 7%. From 1993 to 2000, traffic volumes between Queens and Manhattan increased by 24% while subway ridership increased at about one-half that rate (13%) and bus ridership by even less (10%).
21 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 2002 Mode Shares for Queens-based trips Walk, bicycle 28% Auto 33% Subway, bus 27% School Bus 2% Commuter rail 3% Taxi, car service 7% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Data are based on journeys with home-base of Queens. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
22 Queens Borough-Wide Indicators 2.8 Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* 150 Motor vehicle fatalities Subway ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on Queens/Nassau and Queens/ Brooklyn borders, Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges, Triboro Bridge Bronx Plaza, Cross Bay and Marine Parkway Bridges, and free NYCDOT bridges within the borough of Queens Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
23 Queens to the Manhattan CBD Traffic volumes and transit ridership between Queens and the Manhattan CBD (below 60 St.) 300 Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (thousands) 300 LIRR & Amtrak ridership, avg. weekday (thousands) ,000 Subway ridership, avg weekday (thousands) Bus ridership, avg weekday (thousands) Data include travel to and from the Manhattan CBD. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "Hubbound Travel"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
24 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 23 Staten Island Overall results: Two-thirds of Staten Island-based trips are by auto, while bus, SIRR, walking and cycling account for most of non-auto travel. Traffic on Staten Island bridges has declined since 2001 after a period of rapid growth. Bus ridership has been flat since 2001 after growing in the 1990s. Ridership on the SIRR is down from both 2001 and Detailed results: Since 2001, traffic volumes on bridges connecting Staten Island to New Jersey and Brooklyn have dropped by 8%. Public transportation ridership has been stable or declining since 2001: bus ridership down by 1% and ridership on the Staten Island Railroad is down by 13%. From 1993 to 2001, bridge traffic grew by 24%. SIRR ridership declined by 22% while bus ridership increased by 24% in a shorter period for which data are available ( ).
25 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC Mode Shares for Staten Island-based trips Walk, bicycle 12% Subway, bus 15% Commuter rail 0% School Bus 3% Taxi, car service 4% Auto 66% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Data are based on journeys with home-base of Staten Island. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
26 Staten Island Borough-Wide Indicators Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* Motor vehicle fatalities SIRR ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury ,500 4,300 4,100 3,900 3,700 3,500 3,300 3,100 2,900 2,700 2,500 Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and crossings between Staten Island and New Jersey. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
27 Staten Island to the Manhattan CBD Staten Island Ferry 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "Hubbound Travel"
28 TRAFFIC INFORMATION NEEDS FOR NYC 27 Citywide data 2002 Mode Shares for All New York City-based trips Walk, bicycle 32% Auto 28% Subway, bus 29% Taxi, car service 9% School Bus 1% Commuter rail 1% Source: Best Practice travel model data provided by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. Mode shares are model outputs calibrated by ground counts.
29 Citywide Indicators 5.6 Traffic volumes, avg. weekday (millions)* 500 Motor vehicle fatalities Subway ridership, annual (millions) Motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1, ,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50, Bus ridership (NYCT), annual (millions) Borough-level bus ridership not available prior to 1998 *Traffic volume based on cordon counts between boroughs, crossing the City line and on bridges within each borough. Does not include traffic into and out of the Manhattan CBD, which is shown in the Manhattan CBD page. Sources: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, "2004 Regional Transportation Statistical Report"; NYC DOT; NYC Transit
Bicycle Crash Data 2013 Local Law 13 of 2011 requires the NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) to compile the total number of bicycle crashes that are reported to city agencies beginning October 1,
Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets 1 Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets New York City s streets are constantly called on to the meet new and varied needs
Overview of the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology Prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) Authors: Scott A. Peterson, Manager Ian Harrington, Chief Planner March 29, 2008 1 OVERVIEW
Transportation Trends 2001-2011 Executive Summary Project No. TR12 0722 September 2013 1.0 Introduction The Cordon Count program was established to collect traffic data as a tool for measuring travel trends
Where Do We Want to Go? How Can We Get There? The BRTB has adopted nine goals, with supporting strategies, performance measures, and performance targets. Together, these goals, strategies, measures, and
Context Sensitive Design for Urban Transportation in West Philadelphia Transportation Research Board 85 th Annual Meeting 24 January 2006 Jeffrey M. Casello University of Waterloo Robert Wright City of
Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC New York City Department of Transportation Polly Trottenberg, Commissioner September 2014 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 Overview Since 2007, the New York City
H O W NEWYORK M O V E S A GUIDE TO NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RAIL NYC Subway NJ Transit PATH Amtrak LIRR Metro-North LOCAL TRANSIT NYC Subway......................... 5,086,833 Average weekday
Chapter 1: Background 1.1 Trends in Bicycle Ridership and Collisions in Toronto Toronto has relatively high levels of bicycle traffic on its downtown streets. On a typical weekday, bicycles make up roughly
Support to the Casey Overpass Study Central Transportation Planning Staff Support Staff to the Boston Region MPO Overview of the Regional Travel Demand Model Set May 18, 2011 OVERVIEW The model set that
Towards Zero Conference Gothenburg, Sweden June 9, 2015 1 New York City Department of Transportation NYCDOT Assets: 6,000 miles (9,700 km) of roadway 12,000 miles (19,300 km) of sidewalks 789 bridges 13,000
A Bicycle Accident Study Using GIS Mapping and Analysis Petra Staats, Graduate Assistant, Transportation Policy Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA firstname.lastname@example.org Summary Surveys
San Francisco Complete Streets Strategy Timothy Papandreou Deputy Director Sustainable Streets 2013 Sacramento 2 million San Francisco Bay Area 8 million Central Valley 4 million Los Angeles 19 million
Sustainable urban mobility: visions beyond Europe 2 nd October 2013 Brest Udo Mbeche, UN-Habitat The Global Report for Human Settlements Published every two years under a UN General Assembly mandate. Aims
CHAPTER 2 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CONCEPTS CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...2-1 II. CAPACITY...2-2 III. DEMAND...2-2 IV. QUALITY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE...2-2 Service Flow Rates...2-3 Performance Measures...2-3
BICYCLE TRENDS IN CAMBRIDGE Cambridge promotes bicycling as a healthy, environmentally friendly way of getting around as an important part of the City's efforts to improve mobility and protect our environment.
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Final Long-Range Transportation Plan - Destination 2035 Attachment A DESTINATION 2035 DESTINATION 2035 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT A Moving Toward a Greener Tomorrow
2. Traffic Characteristics Traffic volumes have increased in concert with population growth in the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) maintains
COMPLETE STREETS/COMPETING PRIORITIES Making Concepts Concrete UCLA DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES FORUM / MAY 14, 2015 Francie Stefan, Transportation & Strategic Planning Manager City of Santa Monica Santa Monica
The New Mobility: Using Big Data to Get Around Simply and Sustainably The New Mobility: Using Big Data to Get Around Simply and Sustainably Without the movement of people and goods from point to point,
Taxi and Livery Crashes In New York City, 1990-99 February 28, 2001 TAXICAB AND LIVERY CRASHES IN NYC 1 Contents Coverage of This Report... 2 Summary... 3 Implications... 4 Taxi/Livery Crashes Increased
Downtown Tampa Transportation Vision Executive Summary August 1, 2006 Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization County Center, 18 th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 813-272-5940 www.hillsboroughmpo.org
7.0 Transportation Management I. Introduction The Kansas City region has invested considerable effort and resources in the design and implementation of its regional multimodal transportation system. As
Ne w J e r s e y Tr a f f i c Co n g e s t i o n : A Growing Crisis January 2008 Cover photo : Route 3, Passaic County introduction A rising tide of traffic congestion threatens to increase roadway gridlock,
Technical Memorandum PERFORMANCE MEASURES Prepared by: March 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 1 1. Introduction... 2 1.1 Performance Measures and the Public Sector... 2 1.2 National Focus: MAP
1 Transportation Alternatives Transportation alternatives involve a variety of components: Location Alternatives - when and where service is provided - general location as well as level of service on the
PORTSTORONTO Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Results of Fall 215 Traffic and Passenger Surveys i Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1 2. Modal Split 2 3. Shuttle Usage 5 4. Taxi Usage
Performance Measures for a Sustainable Transportation Network Pasadena s Approach Frederick C. Dock, Ellen Greenberg, Mark Yamarone Abstract. As California cities move into the second decade of the 21st
City of Seattle Department of Transportation Stone Way N Rechannelization: Before and After Study N 34th Street to N 50th Street May, 2010 INTRODUCTION Population density in Seattle is increasing within
Hon. Iris Weinshall Commissioner, NYC Dept. of Transportation New York City Department of Transportation Room 1105 Attn: Truck Study 40 Worth Street New York, NY 10013 Re: Truck Route Management and Community
Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City 1996-2005 A Joint Report from the New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and the New York
City of Rockville Regional Development Impacts: Transportation Capacity Analysis June, 2013 Purpose and Need Response to Council and Public Evaluate use of more advanced traffic analysis methodology and
Infrastructure and Growth Leadership Advisory Group Ideas and Approaches Survey In its second meeting, the Infrastructure and Growth Leadership Advisory Group expanded and refined the list of approaches/ideas
Appendix J Santa Monica Travel Demand Forecasting Model Trip Generation Rates SANTA MONICA TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL TRIP GENERATION RATES SUBMITTED BY: 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Santa Monica,
Security Strategy: A Layered Approach Anthony Mercogliano Metropolitan Transportation Authority Assistant Director of Security New York, NY Protecting the System Operating Components System Overview Policing
SAN DIEGO - A BICYCLE FRIENDLY CITY MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY The designated bicycle paths and lanes in the City of San Diego (City) are often substandard because of their location and
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE COALITION 2012 2017 Strategic Plan OVERALL GOAL BY 2017, AT LEAST HALF OF SAN FRANCISCANS WILL BICYCLE OCCASIONALLY, AND AT LEAST ONE-QUARTER WILL BICYCLE FREQUENTLY OR AT LEAST A
Ideal Public Transport Fares Mike Smart 29 April 2014 Sapere Research Group Limited www.srgexpert.com Energy & natural resources Regulated industries Health policy & analysis Public administration & finance
IBO New York City Independent Budget Office Expanding Yellow School Bus Service: Fiscal Impact of Three Proposed Policy Changes In response to a request from Council Member Stephen Fiala, the Independent
New York Office Visitors Guide A helpful guide for those planning to visit the New York Office of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP INDEX Office Address, Phone & Fax Office Hours Airport Information Banking Courier
Comprehensive Mobility Project Development Process Capital Metro ¼-Cent Fund Analysis Transportation & Mobility projects that meet the following criteria: enhances regional mobility; supports public transit;
A Framework for Monitoring the Performance of Travel Demand Management and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Activities WA-RD 806.1 Mark E. Hallenbeck June 2013 Orion Stewart Anne Vernez Moudon Office
About the Model What is it: The Cost of Commute Calculator provides a multimodal comparison of the expanded costs of transportation impacts in the Metro Vancouver Region. These include both personal costs,
CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2040 Chapter 4: Transportation System Operations and 1. Introduction 4-3 2. Transportation System (TSM) and Transportation Demand (TDM) 4-5
Bloomington/Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization Crash Report Calendar Years 2003 through 2006 August 2007 (this page intentionally left blank) Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Introduction...
CHAPTER 2 CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: FORECASTING AND TRENDS PLAN 2040 Chapter 2: Creating a Sustainable Future: Forecasting and Trends 1. Introduction 2-1 Forecasting Methods Regional Trends and the
PERFORMANCE MONITORING APPROACH OAR 660-044-0040(3)(e) directs Metro to identify performance measures and targets to monitor and guide implementation of the Climate Smart Strategy. The purpose of performance
Near Westside Neighborhood and University Avenue Corridor Transportation Study Public Workshop #2 September 12 and 23, 2013 Presentation Outline: Brief Review of Study Scope, Background, and Current Conditions
APPENDIX E TASK 5 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING PROCESS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to describe the methodologies and assumptions used in estimating travel
Bus Rapid Transit For New York City Prepared for Transportation Alternatives NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign June 2002 Schaller Consulting 94 Windsor Place, Brooklyn, NY (718) 768-3487 email@example.com
4770 White Plains Road Bronx, New York For Sale - $11,000,000 - Negotiable Excellent User Opportunity - Jerry Houlihan GHP Office Realty One West Red Oak Lane White Plains, New York 10604 Phone: 914.642.9300
Executive Summary The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has prepared a Truck Route System Plan for Miami-Dade County. The MPO and its consultants have worked closely with the MPO
Long Range Transportation Plan Technical Report : Congestion Management Process Final Plan for Adoption October East Robinson Street, Suite, Orlando, FL -- www.metroplanorlando.com MetroPlan Orlando @metroplan_orl
Alternative Evaluation Results Presentation to Community Task Force July 9, 2007 Outline of Presentation Overview of alternative evaluation Alternative evaluation methodology Process and assumptions General
REVISED DRAFT TERMINAL 9 TRAFFIC MONITORING STUDY Prepared for: Port of Seattle Prepared by: 6544 NE 6st Street, Seattle, WA 985 ph: (26) 523-3939 fx: (26) 523-4949 NOVEMBER 22, 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION...
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION Automated Vehicle Location for School Buses Can the Benefits Influence Choice of Mode for School Trips? TORI D. RHOULAC The author is Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Integrated Public Transport Service Planning Guidelines Sydney Metropolitan Area December 2013 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Purpose 3 1.2 Background 3 1.3 Travel in Sydney Metropolitan Area 5 1.4 Objectives
San Francisco Transportation Initiatives and Workforce Support Tilly Chang, SFCTA September 16, 2015 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Presentation Agenda I. SFCTA Overview II. Planning Studies
WHAT TO DO AFTER A BIKE SHARE CRASH By Daniel Flanzig, Esq. and James B. Reed, Esq. On Memorial Day New York City launched it s long awaited Bike Share Program. With an initial start of 6000 bikes, the
Walkable Communities Florida Department of Transportation State Safety Office Pedestrian and Bicycle Program April 1995 www.dot.state.fl.us/safety Twelve Steps for an Effective Program Page 1 Twelve Steps
Commuter Choice Certificate Program Current course offerings (subject to change) Core 1 Commuter Choice Toolbox Required Courses Rideshare Options Audience: This 2 credit required course is targeted to
1 Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility 2 1 UrbanizationUrbanization Rapid pace, largely uncontrolled growth, taking place mainly in developing countries 3 Global Urbanization Trends World
7.0 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT The Kansas City region has invested considerable effort and resources in the design and implementation of its regional multimodal transportation system. As a result of this
Transportation Districts Policies Policy 6.35 North Transportation District Reinforce neighborhood livability and commercial activity by planning and investing in a multimodal transportation network, relieving
Back to School Car Safety Direct Buy Warranty Staff September 19, 2014 It s back to school season, and that means kids are picking out new clothes, putting on their backpacks, and hitting the road to get
Harlem River Bridges Access Plan Workshop Round 2 September 10, 2015 Harlem River Bridges Access Plan: Overview Agenda Presentation: Background + overview of concepts for review (15 20 min) Participation:
The Dynamic Population of Manhattan Mitchell L. Moss and Carson Qing Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management Wagner School of Public Service New York University March, 2012 Introduction We
Transportation Breakout Session Curvie Hawkins Mark Rauscher Mike Sims Paul Moore Curvie Hawkins Director of Planning Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fort Worth Transportation Authority The T Presented
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR MOBILITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Jon E. Burkhardt and Joohee Yum December 30, 2010 In order to be able to assess progress in the implementation of mobility management programs, a system
SUBWAY-SIDEWALK INTERFACE PROJECT. LEFFERTS BOULEVARD STATION. LOCATION The Lefferts Boulevard station is the terminus of the Fulton Street Line of the A train in Queens. Located along Liberty Avenue with
Moving Together Corporate Plan 2010-2014 CONTENTS Vision 4 Our values 5 Ministers message 6 Director General s message 7 Transport NSW at a glance 8 Delivering our transport vision 11 Organisational structure
7 Transportation Criteria 7.1 Introduction A goal of this project is to improve mobility in the corridor. To that end, all the major Project alternatives identified at this point in the study include significant
Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and Automatic Vehicle Tracking System (AVTS) For Calgary Transit Buses (Project #2001-06) Calgary Transit Transit Planning 2004 July Introduction The purpose of this report
Mayors Welcome Strong Surrey Votes Yes Coalition Support Yes Vote Would Vastly Improve Transit and Transportation in Fast Growing City February 11, 2015 Vancouver, BC The Mayors Council on Regional Transportation
City of Calgary THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE GROWTH PATTERNS ON INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS REPORT APRIL 2, 2009 IBI GROUP REPORT City of Calgary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of Report Calgary has seen record
4. Presentation and Discussion: Phoenix Light Rail Implementation Wulf Grote Planning and Development Director, Phoenix Valley Metro Light Rail Transit in Phoenix Broadway Citizen s Task Force February
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DATA INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS PURPOSE A local government which has all or part of its jurisdiction included within the urban area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) pursuant
May 13, 2015 Secretary Anthony Foxx U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Foxx: On behalf of organizations representing millions of Americans,
Citizen Advisory Group Meeting #1 December 8, 2011 6:00 p.m. Meeting Agenda 1. Background Information 2. Policy Framework 3. Plan Development Process 4. Public Input Results 5. Vision Statement 6. Group
Why are transit improvements needed? Questions and Answers about the Orange Bus/Rail Investment Plan The Triangle Region is now home to 1.5 million people. The U.S. Census and the 2035 Joint Long Range