Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

53C H A P T E R 7 Community FactorsBackground Literature Transportation improvements can enhance quality of life in a variety of ways, but only if planned, designed, constructed, and maintained with appropriate sensitivity to existing com- munities and the environment (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002c). Several interrelated concepts highlight methods and practices that transportation practitioners can use to achieve positive results for both the transportation systems and com- munities they serve. These concepts include context sensitive solutions (CSS) (also referred to as context sensitive design), environmental justice, and the transportation and land use relationship. CSS is an approach to increasing safety and mobility of transportation facilities while preserving scenic, aesthetic, his- toric, environmental, and community values. A 1998 national conference titled “Thinking Beyond the Pavement” brought together transportation practitioners of all specialties and pri- vate sector and citizen stakeholders to discuss how to: • Integrate highway development with communities and the environment while maintaining safety and performance; • Encourage continuous improvement; and • Achieve flexible, context sensitive design in all projects. Several key reports review the history and legislative backing for CSS, terminology, recent CSS activities, and general frame- works for implementation (Neumann et al., 2002; Flexibility in Highway Design, 1997; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002c). While CSS focuses on harmonizing transportation projects with communities and the environment, environmental jus- tice considers the distribution of benefits and burdens across space, social groups, and time. Environmental justice perfor- mance measures are often the same as performance measures in other categories (e.g., mobility, accessibility, safety, impacts on human health, and the environment) but are distinguished for different population groups. Environmental justice consid- erations are required as part of the NEPA process during theproject development stage but also are found earlier in the state and regional transportation plans. The literature con- cerning environmental justice covers legislative and regulatory requirements, types of considerations, methods, and processes to determine outcome equity, and evaluation techniques (Forkenbrock and Sheeley, 2004; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002a; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002b). Just as CSS and environmental justice require nontradi- tional partnerships with resource agencies and community stakeholders, capitalizing on relationships between trans- portation and land use requires collaboration between trans- portation agencies and municipalities. Decisions concerning transportation and land use have historically been made in a related, but nonintegrated, fashion. The NEPA process requires a review of land use impacts in the environmental impact statement (EIS), and beginning with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equality Act (ISTEA), federal legisla- tion requires consideration of land use impacts. Interest in integrated planning efforts, including access management, mixed-use development, transit-oriented development, and smart growth has subsequently grown throughout the trans- portation industry over the last decade (Cervero et al., 2004; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2004; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1998; Rose, 2005). Several efforts have attempted to provide guidance for quan- titatively measuring community impacts of transportation projects and their distribution among segments of the popu- lation (TransTech Management, Inc., 2004; Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002a; The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002; Ward, 2005; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2004; Edwards, 2004). Quantitative models (requiring the use of input measures) are used to predict transportation and land use interactions (ICF Consulting, 2005). Several common measures of community impacts are: • Number of residents exposed to noise in excess of estab- lished thresholds;

54• Number of opportunities within a specific distance on a specific mode; and • Results of visual preference surveys. Measures also may focus on the process used to arrive at context sensitive solutions and distribute them about the community. Examples are: • Use of multidisciplinary teams; • Measures of public engagement; and • Definition and adherence to vision, goals, and objectives (TransTech Management, Inc., 2004). Key Findings Although measures are defined in the literature, several chal- lenges to measurement of impacts and distribution of impacts within communities remain. These issues are summarized in the remainder of this section. Comprehensive assessments of community effects of pro- posed transportation projects are inherently complex. It is difficult to balance benefits to users and effects on other community residents, and even among community residents numerous competing effects must be traded off. Various seg- ments of the community may be affected quite differently, and people vary in their preferences and opinions, so outcomes desirable to some may be unacceptable to others. Effects such as visual quality or community cohesion are difficult to mea- sure objectively. Methods such as stated-preference surveys, artist sketches, and GIS-based approaches, however, may be used by practitioners to incorporate qualitative factors into the transportation planning process (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001; Forkenbrock and Sheeley, 2004; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002a). Participation by a wide range of stakeholders is vital for defensible, responsible, equitable, and successful outcomes of the transportation planning process. What may not appear critical to a transportation analyst may be crucial to a neigh- borhood or population subgroup. Some agencies have noted that increased public outreach efforts have identified issues not previously identified as concerns to local communities. Simi- larly, inclusiveness in land use and transportation planning, design, and implementation is essential to successful projects. Outreach diminishes the likelihood of a NIMBY backlash and gives residents of an affected area a vested stake in ensuring that what is built is consistent with neighborhood goals (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001; Forkenbrock and Sheeley, 2004; Cervero et al., 2004; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2002a). Flexible design, public participation, and high-quality implementation help achieve goals of individual communi- ties. Communities have individual requirements for trans- portation infrastructure design, but designers have historicallyrelied on a one-size-fits-all approach (propagated by conser- vative use of industry-wide manuals such as AASHTO’s Green Book and related state highway design standards). Recognizing this, in 1997, the FHWA published its Flexibility in Highway Design manual to encourage designers to consider community values and more liberal consideration of the manuals in their designs. In 2004, AASHTO followed suit by releasing A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design. Both guides empha- size community input into the design process (Flexibility in Highway Design, 1997; A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, 2004). Institutional impediments to performance measurement may be overcome. Complexities accompany coordination of activities among multiple actors and stakeholder groups with divergent interests. One potential solution is to create a cham- pion to guide development, implementation, and reporting of measures. The champion should be someone familiar with the principles of social impacts, distribution of impacts, or rela- tionships between transportation and land use (TransTech, 2004; Cervero et al., 2004). Another solution is to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among collaborat- ing agencies and organizations, modeled after the MOU signed by 23 state agencies in support of the Efficient Transportation Decision-Making system (Edwards et al., 2005). Community Performance Factors and Objectives Highway capacity projects can have both positive and nega- tive impacts on the physical and social characteristics of a local community. Because the valued characteristics of a commu- nity are often subjective, the impacts (both positive and neg- ative) must be evaluated collaboratively, with input provided from residents, local business owners, and other interested stakeholders. The measurement of community impacts should be grounded in local and regional land use and transporta- tion plans that establish a clear vision for a community. Although there are several potential ways to classify commu- nity impacts, the following four categories are used to differ- entiate among the key concepts in this part of the framework: • Land Use; • Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources; • Social; and • Environmental Justice. Land Use Land use impacts include changes in land cover and vegeta- tion, changes in the use of land from natural to human uses, and changes in the type of use (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural). The change in land use can be reflected

55in the environmental quality of the land, the type of human use, and the intensity of use. Highway capacity projects can impact land use through direct physical impacts on the land, or indirect impacts resulting from new levels of mobility and accessibility. Two broad objectives in the land use factor area are supported by the five framework measures in Table 7.1: • Land preservation; and • Integration of land use and transportation planning efforts. The case study highlight illustrates how the Puget Sound Regional Council measures the consistency of induced landconsumption with the relevant land use plans in their Vision 2040 plan. Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources Communities often have an interest in preserving their past to maintain a sense of history, offer educational opportunities, and support research. Highway capacity projects can threaten preservation efforts directly, by impacting historic, cultural, and archeological sites, or indirectly, by changing the usageSHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Table 7.1. Community Measures – Land Use Factor Transportation Land Consumption – Amount of land converted to transportation uses. Induced Development Land Consumption – Amount of land developed for nontransportation uses as a result of the project. Consistency of Induced Land Consumption with Land Use Plan – Extent to which anticipated induced growth impacts are consistent with local and regional plans for growth. Support of Project for Growth Centers – Project serves designated growth centers or growth policy areas. Local-Regional Plan Consistency – Consistency of local land use policies with regional transportation- land use vision. • Land needed for new facility and right-of-way by type (e.g., agricultural, forest, wetland, urbanized land); • Acres of farmland directly impacted; • Encroachment on developed lands – number of residential, commercial, public, and mixed use property impacts; and • Acres of right-of-way acquisitions. • Amount of land projected to be consumed due to economic growth related to project (based on model). • Projected growth (based on models) due to project are in line with local and regional vision and plans; • Development guidelines and requirements (zoning codes, development incen- tives, etc.) are consistent with local and regional plans; • Miles of residential streets with significant ‘traffic conflicts’ (frequent access points, etc.) measured using a level of service scale (A to F); and • Miles of arterial streets with significant ‘land use conflicts’ (frequent driveway spacing, etc.) measured using a level of service scale (A to F). • Project is located within the boundaries of a designated growth center; • Project directly serves a designated growth center; and • Local jurisdictions are permitting housing units in a manner consistent with the regional growth strategy – distribution of issued housing permits, by regional geography, by county. • Project is consistent with local and regional land use policies; and • Land use – transportation compatibility index: defined as daily traffic divided by average residential or commercial driveway spacing. Case Study Highlight: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2040 Description: PSRC’s long-range transportation plan, Destination 2030, and regional transportation/land use plan, Vision 2040, were developed using an extensive array of performance measures addressing mobility, safety, land use, the environment, and other issues. The agency has implemented performance monitoring systems to continue to track transportation and land use trends in the region. Projects included in the region’s TIP must be included in, or consistent with, Destination 2030. Sample Measure: • Outcome – Local jurisdictions are permitting housing units in a manner consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy; • Measure – Distribution of issued housing permits by regional geography and by county, in order to assess jobs-housing balance and other issues; and • Data Source – PSRC Housing Permit Database.

56around these sites to impact the access and experience of a visit to the site. The efforts to incorporate these considera- tions fall broadly under two objectives: 1. Preserve sites of archeological or historical significance; and 2. Preserve research opportunities. Table 7.2 displays the two framework measures, supported by specific example measures. The case study highlight illus- trates how Florida DOT uses their Environmental Screening Tool to measure site location. Social Impacts on the social aspect of communities range from aes- thetics and noise to displacement and fragmentation. High- way capacity projects can impact these factors through the built form of the infrastructure or the effects of construction or operation of the facility. Two objectives generally link the measures with a community’s social issues and concerns: • Preserve and promote safe and vital communities; and • Promote projects that are supported by the community. The social factors are supported through five framework measures, as listed in Table 7.3. The case study highlight demonstrates how Florida’s Sociocultural Effect Evaluation is used to measure community cohesion.Environmental Justice In addition to evaluating overall transportation, economic, environmental, and community impacts, transportation agen- cies must consider the differential impacts of the various factors considered in this framework on traditionally dis- advantaged groups, defined by race, ethnicity, income, or mobility impairment. Therefore, these measures tend to be similar to those found in other factor areas, but are analyzed specifically with respect to these disadvantaged groups to ensure they are not carrying a disproportionate load of the neg- ative impacts of capacity projects. A single objective describes the goal of this factor: fair and equitable distribution of trans- portation benefits and costs. Table 7.4 presents the framework measures. The example measures provide a good overview, but most measures found throughout this framework could be considered from the environmental justice perspective. The case study highlight illustrates how Columbus Ohio’s Regional Transportation Plan measures environmental justice. Community Data Gaps and Opportunities Land Use This factor covers assessment of consistency with existing land use plans and policies, as well as assessment of land con- sumed by projects or programs of projects – both directly dueSHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Table 7.2. Community Measures – Archeological and Historic Resources Factor Site Location – Net loss of sites with archeological or historical significance. Artifact Location – Project impact on the location of historic artifacts providing research opportunities. • Acres of land with archeological or historical significance consumed by project; • Impact of project on public access to sites with archeological or historical significance; • Number of archeological and historic sites that are not satisfactorily addressed in project development before construction begins; and • Number of historic resources avoided or protected as compared to those mitigated. • Acres of land containing historic artifacts required by project; and • Impact of project on access to sites with historic artifacts providing research opportunities. Case Study Highlight: Florida’s Environmental Screening Tool Description: Florida DOT (FDOT) is in the process of screening all proposed highway capacity needs projects using the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. The ETDM process aims to improve and streamline the environmental review and permitting process. As part of the ETDM, FDOT implemented an internet-accessible interactive database tool called the Environmental Screening Tool (EST). EST performs standardized environmental impact analyses and reports comments about potential project effects. The EST is a semi-automated, GIS-enabled application that analyzes any proposed corridor and adjacent areas in any part of Florida for major environmental flaws and other impacts. FDOT has developed a performance measurement process to monitor the effectiveness of the program. Sample Measure: • Activity – Protection of Cultural Resources; • Measure – Total number of other findings of “effect” on which opinions are provided need State Historic Preservation Office input; and • Targets – Baseline to be established.

57SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Table 7.3. Community Measures – Social Factor Community Cohesion – Change in physical neighborhood-level connections that unite residents and businesses. Noise – Change in noise level in vicinity of project during and after construction. Visual Quality – Change in visual characteristics that define community identity. Emergency Response Time – Change in time required by fire, police, and medical responders to reach a community. Citizen’s Concerns – Transportation-related issues of greatest concerns to citizens. • Number of homes and businesses to be relocated due to project; • Forecasted change in walking trips; • Change in travel times to neighborhood points of congregation; • Key pedestrian routes severed as a result of project; and • Key pedestrian routes reconnected as a result of project. • Increase in noise levels on schools, churches and public gathering places; • Number of noise receptor sites above threshold; • Number of residences exposed to noise in excess of established thresholds; • Percent of population exposed to highway noise above 60 decibels; • Noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during specified hours, measured in “A-weighted” decibels (dBA). This measure also can be spatially oriented (e.g., number of homes where L10 is greater than 50 dBA) and/or expressed as a change (e.g., L10 increases by greater than 10 dBA); and • Constant equivalent noise level (when levels actually vary), measured in “A-weighted” decibels (dBA). This measure also can be spatially oriented (e.g., number of homes where the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) is greater than 50 dBA) and/or expressed as a change (e.g., Leq increases by greater than 10 dBA). • Number of homes or other buildings from which project will be visible. • “Major landmarks” blocked from view by project from a significant vantage point. • Color Rating Matrix. Measure of both color and reflectivity, with scores assigned from a matrix. Scores are based on compatibility with the natural landscape, with compatible colors and low reflectivity receiving the highest score. (Tahoe RPA scenic shoreline assessment). • Texture Rating Matrix. Measure of both the texture of individual surfaces, as well as the total number of separate planes (surfaces) on a structure, with scores assigned from a matrix. Heavier texture and greater number of planes receive the highest scores. • Perimeter Screening. Percentage of perimeter (rooflines, retaining walls, bridges, patios, etc.) screened by natural vegetation or similar native object, as viewed from 300 feet offshore. • Current emergency response time versus predicted (modeled) emergency response time after completion of project; and • Percent of population which perceives that response time by police, fire, rescue or emergency services has become better or worse and whether that is due to transportation factors. • Project addresses issues of greatest concern to citizens demonstrated through public outreach and market research; and • Percent of population that perceives that its environment has become more ‘livable’ over the past year with regard to ability to access desired activities. Case Study Highlight: Florida’s Sociocultural Effect Evaluation (SCE) Description: Florida DOT’s SCE evaluation process seeks to analyze any effects that a potential transportation investment would have on the quality of life in the communities surrounding that project. The process integrates qualitative and quantitative analysis through the use of surveys, public meetings, windshield surveys, and GIS analysis of local amenities and characteristics. The analysis is custom tailored to each proposed project, selecting relevant issues from six broad categories: Social, Economic, Land Use, Mobility, Aesthetics, and Relocation. Sample Measures: • Would the project result in any barriers dividing an established neighborhood or would it increase neighborhood interaction? • Would the project result in any loss, reduction, or enhancement of connectivity to a community or neighborhood activity center(s)?

58SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Table 7.4. Community Measures – Environmental Justice Factor Environmental Justice – Relative distribution of project benefits and costs across affected population. • Change in access to jobs and markets for disadvantaged populations compared to entire population; • Change in person-hours of delay for disadvantaged populations compared to entire population; • Change in noise levels for disadvantaged populations compared to entire population; • Change in air quality for disadvantaged populations compared to entire population; • Change in sidewalk connectivity for disadvantaged populations compared to entire population; • Percent of region’s unemployed or poor who cite transportation access as a principal barrier to seeking employment; and • Environmental justice cases that remain unresolved over one year. Case Study Highlight: Columbus, Ohio Regional Transportation Plan – EJ Analysis Description: The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) has conducted environmental justice (EJ) analysis of recent long-range transportation plans with a strong reliance on accessibility measures. MORPC has three key objectives for their EJ analysis: ensure adequate public involvement of low-income and minority populations, assess adverse impacts on low income and minority populations, and assure that low-income and minority populations receive a proportionate share of benefits. Measures were developed from MORPC’s travel demand forecasting model. Sample Measures (based on analysis of locations of EJ populations, and in comparison to non-EJ populations): • Average number of accessible job opportunities; • Percent of population close to a college; • Average travel time for work trips; and • Displacement from highway projects.to the project footprint(s) and indirectly related to impacts of induced development. Direct impacts of projects on land use can be evaluated based on land cover data and orthophotog- raphy (which combines the image characteristics of an aerial photograph with the geometric qualities of a map) available from federal, state, and local sources. Land use forecasting models can be used to assess impacts for future scenarios. Data gaps for this factor include: • Inconsistency in the format of land use data across multi- ple jurisdictions, which can preclude aggregation across sources for efficient analysis; • Availability of development tracking systems to keep land use data current and to evaluate actual growth patterns in a timely fashion; and • Accuracy of methods and models for forecasting future land use and induced development from transportation improvements. Data improvements for the land use area include: • Use of remote sensing to develop or fill gaps in land use data;• Use of satellite imagery for routine verification of land use changes; • Development and agreement on data standards for land use classifications; • Regional land use data integration efforts with updating mechanisms; and • Development of model agreements to provide the neces- sary value proposition and disclosure protections to enable public use of privately maintained land use data. Archeological and Historical Sites DOTs must evaluate potential impacts of highway projects on historic and cultural resources, and on Native American trust resources or sacred sites – as required by NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Infor- mation on these sites can be obtained from the National Reg- ister Information System, State Historic Preservation Offices, and some Department of Defense agencies that manage his- toric properties under Section 110 of NHPA. In addition, some DOTs have developed cultural resources databases. Information on archeological sites is both less frequently available and also more difficult to obtain in advance of

59project construction. There has been some success with region- specific models that predict locations of sites based on topog- raphy, vegetation, climate, and known characteristics of ancient populations. Because discovery of impacts to significant sites follow- ing project programming can result in delays, added costs, and negative stakeholder relations, tools that bring available information together in a comprehensive fashion for use at the long-range planning and preprogram stages would be of great value. Integration of cultural resource, environmental, land use and transportation data would provide a single plat- form for advance planning and screening analysis. Though many states have the capability to overlay multiple GIS layers, few have integrated this information within an analysis con- text. Florida’s Environmental Screening Tool (EST) provides a model for how this might be done. Social This factor includes a widely varied mix of measures, includ- ing consideration of capacity project impacts on community cohesion, noise, visual quality, emergency response time, and citizen concerns. With the exception of noise impacts (which are a required consideration under the NEPA process), these impacts are not typically captured or reported in a system- atic way. Community cohesion impacts have been addressed through description of neighborhood boundaries and pedes- trian routes, quantification of homes relocated or changes in pedestrian travel times, and use of market research techniques to assign scores to project alternatives based on stated prefer- ences. This analysis utilizes available data on population, hous- ing, and business location from the census or local source, land use and tax assessment data sets, neighborhood association meeting records. Walking trip data and model results also may be used. Noise impacts are analyzed using information on current traffic characteristics, population and housing, pavement data, sound barrier data, and field surveys of current noise levels. FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model is used for forecasting. Emergency response time impacts can be assessed using existing data on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) dis- tricts and emergency vehicle dispatch locations, current EMS response times, and travel demand models or GIS-based toolsto assess impacts of changes in the transportation network on travel times. Methods for measurement of visual quality impacts are not well developed, though approaches may include identifica- tion of current visual characteristics of note (e.g., ground cover, land contours, locations of major landmarks) or scoring of existing or proposed structures based on adherence to accepted visual standards. Identification of the extent to which a project addresses citizen concerns and priorities may be accomplished via sur- veys or community outreach efforts, or market research tech- niques used to derive priority scores for alternatives. This factor requires extensive project-level data gathering. Specific data gaps include availability of current and forecasted pedestrian movements, information on business locations and neighborhood boundaries, and current EMS response times. Potential investments include development of complete and up-to-date land use data sets (utilizing assessors’ records or zoning maps in urbanized areas and remote sensing in sparsely populated areas), and coordination with local EMS agencies as part of project stakeholder outreach activities to obtain current information. Environmental Justice Environmental justice (EJ) is not a stand-alone performance measure, but rather a means to assess the differential impacts (across multiple measures) of capacity projects on various pop- ulation groups. EJ assessments depend on use of GIS analysis tools to relate impact measures (e.g., noise levels, delay access to jobs) to demographic information. Use of “select link” analysis within network models also is an important method for under- standing how project benefits and costs impact different trav- eler groups based on origins and destinations. Data sources needed to support EJ analysis include state and MPO socio- economic data sets, supplemented with census data. Travel demand models derived from recent household survey data also can provide valuable information on traveler origins and desti- nations, allowing for linkage with socioeconomic information. Though EJ analysis is typically straightforward, one opportunity to improve the efficiency and coverage of analysis would be to make data on race, ethnicity, and mobility-impaired groups available for traffic analysis zones.